I'm a working mom again.....
In August, I was walking across the street to the grocery store, contemplating our tight finances when I just prayed that God would provide. Right at that very moment, a field manager from the university that I have worked for doing field interviewing for social science studies left a message on an answering machine to offer me a position on one of the studies that was coming up. After she told me about it, I quickly said yes. It is interesting and it is incredibly flexible so those two traits make it a good position to have when you share a car with a pastor and homeschool as well.
Anyway, I spent the last week in a conference hotel for training. The training was about as interesting as trainings go, but it was a week in a hotel room all to myself, where I didn't have to cook for anyone, do dishes for anyone, do laundry for anyone but me, and the bed was comfy and the food was beyond words -- and all of it was free. In fact, I was getting paid to be there.
The only arduous side, I didn't have any contact with the outside world, and by that I mean the Internet. So I didn't get to see what my husband was spending, I didn't get to talk to friends, check my email, or BLOG!! (gasp). On the other hand -- I was amazed at how simple life could be. :)
(and I got to see my friend Cheryl!!!)
So here I am, starting to get appointments to conduct interviews, canning apples with my kids (the Saturday before I left, we were invited to a parishoner's house who has an apple orchard and came away with a few bushels....apple butter and apple sauce are slowly but surely accruing in my pantry), and trying to figure out how I find time to do the stuff I love to do on the computer (like blogging), when I am already working from a computer half the time.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Back to Blogging....
Sorry, I've been away at a work training with NO access to a computer that wasn't restricted from the internet.....but, its back to the real world now...
I saw this on Barb the Evil Genius's Blog.....How could I resist????
Woo-hoo!!! There is nothin' better!!!
I saw this on Barb the Evil Genius's Blog.....How could I resist????
Woo-hoo!!! There is nothin' better!!!
Friday, September 28, 2007
Goodbye Dear Friend
Today was spent (well, it seems like all day) taking my 12 year old cat Alyosha to the vet. He hadn't been eating. Now he hadn't even been drinking. My cat...the one who came running to the sound of running water. The one around whom no water glass was safe. Alyosha stayed behind. He was dealing with liver failure. He was in a lot of pain. He was vomiting and severely dehydrated. It was time.Twelve years is a long time. He probably was nearly exactly the same age as my dog Sophie, who was put to sleep last February. Honestly, I don't think Alyosha has been the same since Sophie has been gone. They were good buddies. The first year we had Alyosha (named thus because I was reading Brothers Karamazov at the time. Poor cat) he was an ornery little thing. He would attack us in the middle of the night, tearing into achilles tendons in the dark. He would get mad and hold grudges. But most of the time he was also affectionate. We got him when we were on vicarage, and I would come home from the church office to check on him, and I would sit in a chair and he would jump up on my chest, purring like a maniac. We got him in Yuma, and I was determined that I wanted a female calico (as if there is any other kind of calico. But he was in the cage with the rest of his littermates, and he climbed up the grating, meowing louder than anyone else. He was only about the length that his paw would eventually be, and he had the bluest eyes....eventually they went green, but they were still beautiful).
For many years he had no use for my husband. He was the one who took him to the vet to have him declawed, and the one to have him neutered. I was the "rescuer" both times. I brought him home.
But when we brought Sophie home, the cat ran around the corner to greet us and stopped in his tracks. Shock and then sheer hate were on his face. From then on, all that anger and aggression was focused on Sophie...yet Sophie had so much fur, she never felt a thing. Sometimes the vicious beast would try to attack her belly, and Sophie would happily just lay down upon the poor cat...as pictured above. If Sophie was ever aware that the cat had any ill will toward her, she never showed it. Eventually, they became friends and as cat mellowed, they became close friends.
He wasn't a wuss. He didn't hide from strangers. He didn't really bother them either. He didn't hide under the bed (honestly, when he started doing that yesterday, I knew things were serious). You also couldn't ask for a better cat for my children. He was always gentle with them, slow to pick a fight. If he bit them, it was generally evident that they truly deserved it, and he was gentle, even then, giving them plenty of warning. He was huge. When we took him in for a checkup last February, he was 18 pounds, and he wasn't overweight. He was very big for a cat. He showed many "Maine Coon" characteristics. He'd lost so much weight in the last month, but his fluff hid a lot of it. I couldn't have asked for a more perfect cat.
So since I was the one who brought him home, I was the one who watched him leave this world, petting him and crying all the while. It also occurs to me that with his passing and Sophie's passing, an era of our lives is gone. Our dog Scully, our rabbits, and whatever cat we get next in a few months will be for the kids. They will be the ones swearing to take care of it, excited about getting it. Sophie and Alyosha were for my husband and me. They were there before the kids were even a thought.
Despite what you may think about cats in general, he was my friend.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Sanctification
One of the hot issues on the Lutheran blogosphere is good works. There tend to be two positions in Lutheranism right now on this topic.
Now first, let me define the term Law, since some of the people who come here aren't Lutheran. Lutheran's divide the Bible into two parts...the Law and the Gospel. The Law is not simply the Torah, the Gospel is not simply Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Law is ANYTHING in the Bible which tells us what WE should do. The Gospel is ANYTHING in the Bible which tells us what Christ did FOR us.
Two very important things, because ONLY the Gospel saves us, and in regards to our salvation, there is NOTHING that we do to help save ourselves.
Now another key point to Lutheran theology is that we are only saved through the Holy Spirit. Through the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments (Holy Baptism and Holy Communion), He brings us to faith (we don't choose Christ) and sustains us in that faith. We are a new creation, and throughout the rest of our lives in dealing with the devil, the world, and our own sinful flesh, the Holy Spirit is continually strengthening us and leading us through the Word and the Sacraments.
Now one of the basic Lutheran teachings about the Law is that it has three uses. We often will categorize them according to First Use, Second Use, and Third Use.
The first use of the law is this: That it restrains sin -- and applies to unbelievers as well as believers. By teaching that there is right and wrong and penalty for right and wrong, evil is somewhat contained. This is clearly shown in the society that the Jews set up where anyone in their midst was punished for breaking God's law, sinners were looked down upon rather than glorified, etc. This law, we have written on our hearts. Deep down, we all know right from wrong but choose whether to ignore it or not.
The second use of the law is more important: It shows us our sin. When we really look at the law, we see we can in no way live up to God's standards of keeping it. This is the most important use of the Law because it leads a person to repentance and to a desire for the Gospel. If the Gospel does not follow when a person is truly contrite, then they can become despairing. This also plays a strong roll once we come to faith. When we look at the law, we know we fall short, so we are constantly returning to the forgiveness that was won on the cross.
The third use, as I was taught in confirmation, is that now that we are believers, the law tells us how we are to live. We are still going to sin and fall short. We are never going to do it perfectly, but we return to Christ for forgiveness. The Holy Spirit himself has the role of sanctifying us (teaching us) and guiding us in how God wants us to live. He also gives us the strength to do so through the Word and Sacraments.
The debate, as I see it, is this. There is one group that maintains that the only use of the law is to show us what Christ did for us. These verses are not there as examples to show us how we are supposed to try to live. The Holy Spirit living inside us and teaches us that and works through us to accomplish His will.
(If I am wrong in how I portray this position, please correct me).
The other position, which I believe is held by most Lutherans, is that when we are washed in the waters of Holy Baptism and we have faith, we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. As long as we have our sinful flesh, that regeneration will never be perfect, but that WE begin to want the things that God wants. We want to do what He wants us to do. So when we see the things in the Bible where it tells us to love our neighbor or refrain from immoral practices, or to strive after things, WE are actually striving and struggling to do this. The Holy Spirit is guiding us through the Word, even these words of Law, and making us want to do them. But that we are indeed part of that, because through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, we are constantly being brought closer into we should've been before the Fall, but that it is a long process that will not reach its culmination until we are in Heaven with God.
The reason why I struggle with the first position is that there are some statements of Law which clearly apply to us and not to Christ, because they are telling us to follow Him, be like Him (Be imitators of me just as I also am of Christ - I Corinthians 11:1 comes to mind as one of many). The Bible also tells us clearly to "do this" or "don't do this" and holds us accountable for that.
The other issue is when I read Luther. Let's take the Ten Commandments. Every single explanation to every commandment (from the 2nd on) starts out with "We are to fear and love God SO THAT WE do not.........but (and then tells us what we are supposed to do)."
Now I agree that the 2nd use always applies here. When I look at the Ten Commandments, I am convicted of my sin. I know I have broken the commandment, and I surely haven't gone beyond and shown love to my God or my neighbor. But then there is this.
Luther and Melancthon (in the Augsburg Confession and its Apology) clearly point out that we cannot fear and love God unless we have faith. If we do not have faith, we respond with either despair or anger toward God. When we have faith, we do fear his judgement and what can happen if we give ourselves over to sins and let them rule over us, but we also love Him as our dear father, and this mirrors the relationship we have with our parents. We fear getting in trouble - and sometimes that is motivation enough to do well, but we also love them and don't want to hurt them, and so we try to please them as well. Not because they will withdraw their love from us, but because that relationship is based on love. Generally more mature love from the parent, and growing love from the child.
Is our obedience perfect? Nope. Not at all. And often as parents, we see efforts at obedience from our kids and overlook the faults in execution. God does this as well. I can't keep His law perfectly. I am going to have bad or selfish thoughts in the process, or I am not going to do exactly what I want, and at times I rebel. But when we are saved in Christ, the imperfect obedience is reckoned as perfect obedience. IN NO WAY does this contribute to our salvation. But even though they aren't perfect, God is still pleased from the good works that come from faith. He is pleased with us, and He forgives whatever part falls short.
Now that is my understanding of how good works work. And not being able to grasp the position that we have no part in our sanctification, I do have a question that has been the key point of my struggle with these two perspectives....
If the only purpose of the law is to show us what Christ has done, then by what means does the Holy Spirit use to sanctify us?
Because I see the Law being a part of that. Being saved, I want to please God, but I have to know HOW to do His will and what I am supposed to do. The Holy Spirit works through God's Word and through the Sacraments to strengthen my faith and forgive my sins and to constantly sanctify me....but isn't one of the ways He does it through the Word is when I read something like " and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks" (Ephesians 5:4). One time, it can convict me, because I might have been silly or coarse at one time or another. The next time, when I am in a situation where I might be tempted to do so, maybe that time the Holy Spirit reminds me of this verse that I have read, and I refrain from doing so. I see that as the Holy Spirit sanctifying me through the third use of the law regarding this particular verse.
The problem that I see is that if the Holy Spirit is not using God's Word to lead us to a life of sanctification, then how do we distinguish between what is the Holy Spirit and what is our own whim or will? I see a risk of if the indwelling of the Spirit is guiding us completely outside the Law in what we should be doing as far as good works, then we might simply be in the exact same place as the very people we criticize who claim that God told them what to do and what to say regardless of what Scripture says.
These are just some thoughts that have been going on in my head for some time. I am not fixated on the Christian living section at the local bookstore, but I have read Luther, Walther, Chemnitz, and the Book of Concord, and the idea that we are to pay attention to what we do and strive to do good and avoid evil is something that comes up a myriad of traditional Lutheran writings. The fear is always that focus on works will take our eyes off of Christ's saving grace. But our good works are supposed to flow from that, not distract us from it. Without faith, these works amount to nothing, but that doesn't mean that we don't need to be taught what is good and what is bad, and I believe that God uses the Law to guide us to that. When I do something because I want to do love God and my neighbor, that might be law-based, but it is done out of faith.
I am not always perfect with theological terms. I am not always perfect in expressing myself, and I admit, I am not where I should be in understanding. I am writing this because I would like to understand more where the differences are in these to perspectives, and learn to understand both more clearly. So I would love discussion here, but polite discussion.
Thanks...God bless.
Now first, let me define the term Law, since some of the people who come here aren't Lutheran. Lutheran's divide the Bible into two parts...the Law and the Gospel. The Law is not simply the Torah, the Gospel is not simply Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Law is ANYTHING in the Bible which tells us what WE should do. The Gospel is ANYTHING in the Bible which tells us what Christ did FOR us.
Two very important things, because ONLY the Gospel saves us, and in regards to our salvation, there is NOTHING that we do to help save ourselves.
Now another key point to Lutheran theology is that we are only saved through the Holy Spirit. Through the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments (Holy Baptism and Holy Communion), He brings us to faith (we don't choose Christ) and sustains us in that faith. We are a new creation, and throughout the rest of our lives in dealing with the devil, the world, and our own sinful flesh, the Holy Spirit is continually strengthening us and leading us through the Word and the Sacraments.
Now one of the basic Lutheran teachings about the Law is that it has three uses. We often will categorize them according to First Use, Second Use, and Third Use.
The first use of the law is this: That it restrains sin -- and applies to unbelievers as well as believers. By teaching that there is right and wrong and penalty for right and wrong, evil is somewhat contained. This is clearly shown in the society that the Jews set up where anyone in their midst was punished for breaking God's law, sinners were looked down upon rather than glorified, etc. This law, we have written on our hearts. Deep down, we all know right from wrong but choose whether to ignore it or not.
The second use of the law is more important: It shows us our sin. When we really look at the law, we see we can in no way live up to God's standards of keeping it. This is the most important use of the Law because it leads a person to repentance and to a desire for the Gospel. If the Gospel does not follow when a person is truly contrite, then they can become despairing. This also plays a strong roll once we come to faith. When we look at the law, we know we fall short, so we are constantly returning to the forgiveness that was won on the cross.
The third use, as I was taught in confirmation, is that now that we are believers, the law tells us how we are to live. We are still going to sin and fall short. We are never going to do it perfectly, but we return to Christ for forgiveness. The Holy Spirit himself has the role of sanctifying us (teaching us) and guiding us in how God wants us to live. He also gives us the strength to do so through the Word and Sacraments.
The debate, as I see it, is this. There is one group that maintains that the only use of the law is to show us what Christ did for us. These verses are not there as examples to show us how we are supposed to try to live. The Holy Spirit living inside us and teaches us that and works through us to accomplish His will.
(If I am wrong in how I portray this position, please correct me).
The other position, which I believe is held by most Lutherans, is that when we are washed in the waters of Holy Baptism and we have faith, we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. As long as we have our sinful flesh, that regeneration will never be perfect, but that WE begin to want the things that God wants. We want to do what He wants us to do. So when we see the things in the Bible where it tells us to love our neighbor or refrain from immoral practices, or to strive after things, WE are actually striving and struggling to do this. The Holy Spirit is guiding us through the Word, even these words of Law, and making us want to do them. But that we are indeed part of that, because through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, we are constantly being brought closer into we should've been before the Fall, but that it is a long process that will not reach its culmination until we are in Heaven with God.
The reason why I struggle with the first position is that there are some statements of Law which clearly apply to us and not to Christ, because they are telling us to follow Him, be like Him (Be imitators of me just as I also am of Christ - I Corinthians 11:1 comes to mind as one of many). The Bible also tells us clearly to "do this" or "don't do this" and holds us accountable for that.
The other issue is when I read Luther. Let's take the Ten Commandments. Every single explanation to every commandment (from the 2nd on) starts out with "We are to fear and love God SO THAT WE do not.........but (and then tells us what we are supposed to do)."
Now I agree that the 2nd use always applies here. When I look at the Ten Commandments, I am convicted of my sin. I know I have broken the commandment, and I surely haven't gone beyond and shown love to my God or my neighbor. But then there is this.
Luther and Melancthon (in the Augsburg Confession and its Apology) clearly point out that we cannot fear and love God unless we have faith. If we do not have faith, we respond with either despair or anger toward God. When we have faith, we do fear his judgement and what can happen if we give ourselves over to sins and let them rule over us, but we also love Him as our dear father, and this mirrors the relationship we have with our parents. We fear getting in trouble - and sometimes that is motivation enough to do well, but we also love them and don't want to hurt them, and so we try to please them as well. Not because they will withdraw their love from us, but because that relationship is based on love. Generally more mature love from the parent, and growing love from the child.
Is our obedience perfect? Nope. Not at all. And often as parents, we see efforts at obedience from our kids and overlook the faults in execution. God does this as well. I can't keep His law perfectly. I am going to have bad or selfish thoughts in the process, or I am not going to do exactly what I want, and at times I rebel. But when we are saved in Christ, the imperfect obedience is reckoned as perfect obedience. IN NO WAY does this contribute to our salvation. But even though they aren't perfect, God is still pleased from the good works that come from faith. He is pleased with us, and He forgives whatever part falls short.
Now that is my understanding of how good works work. And not being able to grasp the position that we have no part in our sanctification, I do have a question that has been the key point of my struggle with these two perspectives....
If the only purpose of the law is to show us what Christ has done, then by what means does the Holy Spirit use to sanctify us?
Because I see the Law being a part of that. Being saved, I want to please God, but I have to know HOW to do His will and what I am supposed to do. The Holy Spirit works through God's Word and through the Sacraments to strengthen my faith and forgive my sins and to constantly sanctify me....but isn't one of the ways He does it through the Word is when I read something like " and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks" (Ephesians 5:4). One time, it can convict me, because I might have been silly or coarse at one time or another. The next time, when I am in a situation where I might be tempted to do so, maybe that time the Holy Spirit reminds me of this verse that I have read, and I refrain from doing so. I see that as the Holy Spirit sanctifying me through the third use of the law regarding this particular verse.
The problem that I see is that if the Holy Spirit is not using God's Word to lead us to a life of sanctification, then how do we distinguish between what is the Holy Spirit and what is our own whim or will? I see a risk of if the indwelling of the Spirit is guiding us completely outside the Law in what we should be doing as far as good works, then we might simply be in the exact same place as the very people we criticize who claim that God told them what to do and what to say regardless of what Scripture says.
These are just some thoughts that have been going on in my head for some time. I am not fixated on the Christian living section at the local bookstore, but I have read Luther, Walther, Chemnitz, and the Book of Concord, and the idea that we are to pay attention to what we do and strive to do good and avoid evil is something that comes up a myriad of traditional Lutheran writings. The fear is always that focus on works will take our eyes off of Christ's saving grace. But our good works are supposed to flow from that, not distract us from it. Without faith, these works amount to nothing, but that doesn't mean that we don't need to be taught what is good and what is bad, and I believe that God uses the Law to guide us to that. When I do something because I want to do love God and my neighbor, that might be law-based, but it is done out of faith.
I am not always perfect with theological terms. I am not always perfect in expressing myself, and I admit, I am not where I should be in understanding. I am writing this because I would like to understand more where the differences are in these to perspectives, and learn to understand both more clearly. So I would love discussion here, but polite discussion.
Thanks...God bless.
Monday, September 24, 2007
A Carnival, A Carnival!!!
Lutheran Carnival LIX (59) is up at Full Throttle and an Empty Gas Tank!! Many thanks to Disgruntled World Citizen for hosting, and for the wonderful profile on John Behnken, a former president of the LCMS.
I wonder if Luther was wearing a pumpkin on his head when he nailed the 95 theses to the door? It was Halloween, after all (and Nevada Admissions Day -- three great holidays all wrapped up in one).
I wonder if Luther was wearing a pumpkin on his head when he nailed the 95 theses to the door? It was Halloween, after all (and Nevada Admissions Day -- three great holidays all wrapped up in one).
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Just Do What You're Told....
Okay, a couple of months ago, I said that I was going to start reading Chemnitz's The Lord's Supper. I did...but then I stopped. I got stumped around chapter 4 for a while until I actually had time to sit down and think it through, and that time didn't come until yesterday in the bathtub. (I always think better in the bathtub.)
I'm not going to get into chapter 4 just yet, even though I found it completely fascinating. Chapter 2 was really great, too...and I haven't written about that yet. I've only written about how in Chapter 1, Chemnitz asserts that the Words of Institution were left to us by Christ as His last will and testament, and in any situation, it would be completely unethical and dishonorable to try to look at a person's last will and testament and try to make it say anything other than what it really says.
Chapter 2 delves into how we form dogma. Many of the dogmas that we have in Christianity are written of many times in the Bible, and so if we are confused on them, we can go to other verses to become more clear. Almost always, that is a solid way of looking at Scripture, after all -- Scripture interprets Scripture is what we Lutherans always say....as long as we are using verses that pertain to the same issue.
But the fact of the matter is, the Lord's Supper did not exist before Jesus instituted it on Maundy Thursday. The only place we have to establish our doctrine is in those verses -- in Christ's own words on the subject. So when other denominations seek their theology on the matter from other verses in other parts of the Bible....they are bringing in something irrelevant really to back up their preconceived notions. Jesus told the disciples specifically what they needed to know about Holy Communion...that the bread IS His body and that the wine IS His blood, and that they are given to us to eat for the forgiveness of sins.
Jesus later repeated these words to Paul, and when Paul tries to resolve the arguments resolving Communion in the Corinthian church, he doesn't take his doctrine from elsewhere - not even from the Passover meal. He ONLY goes back to Jesus's words. (I Corinthians 11:23-34).
Chemnitz then quotes Theodore Beza, the reformer who succeeded Calvin argued along with Calvin that while they say that the body and blood are present, they are really only spiritually present because they are communicated through faith, because in reality, Christ is very far away. Beza even asserts that this presence and communication are "truer, more efficacious, and more significant than if the body and blood are received orally."
Chemnitz writes:
Amen.
I'm not going to get into chapter 4 just yet, even though I found it completely fascinating. Chapter 2 was really great, too...and I haven't written about that yet. I've only written about how in Chapter 1, Chemnitz asserts that the Words of Institution were left to us by Christ as His last will and testament, and in any situation, it would be completely unethical and dishonorable to try to look at a person's last will and testament and try to make it say anything other than what it really says.
Chapter 2 delves into how we form dogma. Many of the dogmas that we have in Christianity are written of many times in the Bible, and so if we are confused on them, we can go to other verses to become more clear. Almost always, that is a solid way of looking at Scripture, after all -- Scripture interprets Scripture is what we Lutherans always say....as long as we are using verses that pertain to the same issue.
But the fact of the matter is, the Lord's Supper did not exist before Jesus instituted it on Maundy Thursday. The only place we have to establish our doctrine is in those verses -- in Christ's own words on the subject. So when other denominations seek their theology on the matter from other verses in other parts of the Bible....they are bringing in something irrelevant really to back up their preconceived notions. Jesus told the disciples specifically what they needed to know about Holy Communion...that the bread IS His body and that the wine IS His blood, and that they are given to us to eat for the forgiveness of sins.
Jesus later repeated these words to Paul, and when Paul tries to resolve the arguments resolving Communion in the Corinthian church, he doesn't take his doctrine from elsewhere - not even from the Passover meal. He ONLY goes back to Jesus's words. (I Corinthians 11:23-34).
Chemnitz then quotes Theodore Beza, the reformer who succeeded Calvin argued along with Calvin that while they say that the body and blood are present, they are really only spiritually present because they are communicated through faith, because in reality, Christ is very far away. Beza even asserts that this presence and communication are "truer, more efficacious, and more significant than if the body and blood are received orally."
Chemnitz writes:
But Christ in the institution of His Supper does not teach the dogma of the presence and communication of His body and blood in such a way that he has permitted us to speculate or to draw our own definition from other Scripture passages and thus beleive or hold whatever kind of presence or communication in the Supper we wish. For He Himself defined it this way in the words of institution when He speaks of our oral reception of the Sacrament: "Take eat; this is My body." Thus we are not permitted to argue about which presence and communication are more significant and fitting, but that we reverently believe and hold that presence which the Son of God has given us in the words of His last will and testament, even though it may seem absurd to our human reason. For we must not take only certain points from the words of institution and then bring in from elsewhere the rest of the points as they seem good to us, but rather we must judge and teach the whole dogma of the Lord's Supper on the basis of the passage in which we find the true and proper setting of the doctrine.
Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)