No one knows who exactly said it first.  But it has been uttered by many people including President Eisenhower.  "There are no atheists in foxholes."  It is an idiom which seeks to suggest that in life threatening situations such as war everyone hope or cries out to some higher power, even if they do not in normal life situations.  Maybe in 1942 in America that was true or at at least true enough to not be questioned.  But in what was no doubt a bit of an embarrassing moment for Wolf Blitzer from CNN, he found out that there in fact atheists in foxholes, even in Midwestern foxholes.

No doubt Wolf thought that right in the heart of the country right after a life threatening situation he would find at least some hint of faith in God.  It would have been more than a same assumption in 1942.  But in 2013 America, out of that foxhole came a atheist mother cradling a young child. 

This video to me is very revelatory and not just about how to ask a question as a journalist but where we are in American culture.  Even in the places where you are mostly likely to find faith in God or a biblical worldview, assumptions can no long be made.   You might just find an atheist popping out of a foxhole.

Right now there is lots of rejoicing about the fact that Dr. Kermit Gosnell has been found guilty on three counts of first degree murder.  And I understand the joy in one sense.  For those hoping to one day see the government act to protect life in the womb, this feels like some vindication.

But recognize this:  this coverage of this trial was not about babies killed inside the womb.  The talk has all been about the infants who were killed outside the womb.¹ That is why he will go to jail for the rest of his life or to death row.  That being true, the effect of this case on those children inside the womb is very minimal.  If Gosnell had the means to snip the spinal cords much earlier while the babies were still in the womb, he would never have been charged with anything.

Pro-choice agencies are even rejoicing at this verdict.  They are already putting out statements that suggest that such a case means that more dollars should be devoted to making sure abortion is a safe and effective procedure.  They understand that standing against Gosnell does not hurt their case precisely because these murders occurred outside the womb.  They understand that while this case involved an abortion doctor, it did not really address abortion at all.

Some pro-life agencies are rejoicing and saying that what happened in Gosnell agency is what is happening in abortion agencies all over.  I understand that there is some evidence that children born alive in botched abortions are killed sometimes in other clinics.  But most people will see a discernable difference between Gosnell’s clinic and the local suburban Planned Parenthood.  Gosnell’s clinic was from any perspective exceptionally bad.

Perhaps these pro-life agencies just mean that murder occurs in all clinics simply because abortions are done there.  With that I would agree.  However, it can easily sound like they are simply trying to move the emotions of people and suggest to them that they should be against abortions just because sometimes those involved get out of control and do things even most pro-choice advocates would admit were awful.  We cannot argue from the exception, which Gosnell was in so many ways.

We must remain firm and speak precisely while the media is talking abortion.  Our issue is not that occasionally abortions go wrong and that children are then brutally murdered outside the womb.  Our issue is that regularly abortions go right and children are brutally murdered inside the womb. 

I am glad a murderer was found guilty.  But many murderers practice their sterile craft every day.  Even on this day.  My joy is far from complete.

1. He also was found guilty of performing 21 abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy at his clinic, which served mostly low-income women in a largely black community. It is legal in Pennsylvania to abort a fetus only up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. [↩]

An image like the one at the left usually causes in most Lutherans a rather guttural reaction.  Lutherans tend to either love crucifixes or hate them.   One side says, “Jesus is no longer on the cross and so my crosses are always empty.”  The other side says, “We preach Christ crucified.”  Therefore, their mantra is “On every cross a corpus.”

So which side do I fall on?  Well, I do love crucifixes.  I gave crucifixes to my confirmands this year.  And yet I am not willing to chant the mantra.  I tend to think that a variety of faithful images related to our Lord’s life is helpful to the church.

The truth is, the cross was once the place where the body of Jesus hung to work reconciliation between God and man.  And so this image should be dear to any Christian.  And yet, the cross was then found empty as Jesus’ body was placed in the tomb for three days before being raised up.  The empty cross can serve as a powerful reminder of the resurrection.

To the “Jesus is no longer on the cross” crowd I say the following. You are right.  He is not any longer dead but alive.  But you should thank God every day that he was on the cross.  You should remember that the cross is a powerful symbol of the faith only because the Lord’s body hung on it.  If the image of Christ on the cross offends you, you need to ponder what that reveals. 

1 Corinthians 1:22-24  For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Only those who do not believe should be offended by the cross filled with the body of our Lord Jesus. 

And if you truly wish to maintain that we can only have images that relate to the current reality of Jesus’ existence, only a picture of him seated at the right hand of the Father will do.  Good luck getting that right.  And don’t forget to burn up you’re your nativity scene since he is no longer in the manger either.  Use that print of him at the Lord’s Supper as your kindling since he is no longer at that table either.  

And if your problem is that you view the crucifix as too Roman Catholic, you need to ask yourself, how can Jesus hanging on the cross be described as anything other than universally Christian?  What image better testifies to the heart of our faith, that Jesus died for our sins?

To the “a corpus on every cross” crowd I say the following.  We have to keep this in perspective.  A crucifix itself has no sacramental value.  Our confessions rail against those who give the impression that such things have any value beyond a pedagogical value.  A crucifix has great teaching value.  It reminds us of the heart of our confession. But unless your people insist that Jesus on the cross is not the heart of our confession, then it would be dangerous, even idolatrous, to insist that every cross have a corpus.  The church throughout time has certainly embraced the idea that a multitude of symbols and imagery is best for teaching, especially to the young and simple. Use what you have to teach and seek to explain about how a crucifix would provide another great way to teach the faith just like nativities, pictures of biblical events, and yes even empty crosses can.

Crucifixes are a wonderful thing.  They gives our eyes a place to focus the confession of our hearts and lips.  But they are not the only thing.  Even an empty cross still confesses Christ.

Before anyone has a coronary issue requiring emergency services, this post is not about about trying to take voting rights away from women who have them in their congregations.  But it is about explaining how those congregations who do not allow women to vote are not just full of misogynistic neanderthals like many assume.  The symbol to the left would not at all be a good way to illustrate the point of the practice.   The practice is not  based on an idea that women are not smart enough to have an opinion worth hearing.

Of course, there may be those within a congregation who sinfully hold such ideas and therefore speak against allowing women to vote. But the practice itself is not about demeaning women.  It is about two things.

First, it is about valuing family units over individuals.  Essentially the practice is meant to end up giving each family unit one vote.   This is why men have to be of a certain age to vote as well.  The assumption is by the age of 18 or 25, they will have their own family unit to represent is the assembly.  This practice actually helps ensure that no one family ends up with undue influence.  It also is meant to encourage unity within the family.  The idea is that the family upon coming into the public gathering will speak with one voice.  In the home, the discussion involves husband and wife, and perhaps even older children.  But the decision is made in the home and then brought to the meeting.  Husbands and wives should not stand in opposition to one another but speak as one since they are one flesh.

Secondly, it is about respecting the order God gives to marriage.  Since only vote is intended per household, the  vote is given to the husband.  In this way, the wife submits to her husband in love.  She does not shame him by taking a role which diminishes her husband.  The husband carries out his role of loving his wife by making sure that her concerns are addressed in the assembly.  He cares for her by taking the things communicated in the home to the meeting.

Sadly in the modern world, we always place individual rights first even when that means fostering division in the home.  And we rebel against God’s order because it imposes a specific shape to the love we are to have between spouses.

I was not old enough to care when these battles raged in our church body.  But I bet the discussion mostly was just about valuing women by letting them vote.  But here is the truth, women not voting was never meant to be devalue women.  It still is not, or at least should not be, in the congregations it survives in.  It is about valuing family and the order God gives to it.

I write this because explaining the practice briefly is always a losing endeavor. It always ends up looking like we just don’t want to give women a voice.  I hope this post will better explains the good things this practice was and is intended to protect and promote.

Romans 13:1-2  Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Yes, this is most certainly true.  And yet.

Acts 5:27-29 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them,  saying, "We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us."  But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.”

In the last week many Christians have been trying to figure out what exactly the truth is regarding the reports that the military has received  council about using various forms of punishment against Christians who proselytize others while serving.  Molle Hemmingway, an LCMS member, and others have tried to sort out the facts and make sure that truth and not speculation reigns in this discussion. 

But here is my question.  When it comes to speaking the truth of Jesus to others, we are going to do it regardless of what the government says, right?  This is the very moment that faith requires disobedience, isn’t it?  We will submit yes, but only until they tell us to shut up about Jesus.

The church especially in the last half century really seems to have bought into the idea that we must fall in line in a way that offends no one, especially not the government.  This despite the fact that the Lord made clear his message is inherently offensive to those who do not believe. 

We see people trying to avoid offense in congregations where all sorts of sin goes unchecked in the hopes that not speaking the truth in one moment will lead to an opportunity to speak it in another.  We don’t want to ruffle feathers.  We see it is the mission fields where we almost always simply follow the laws of the countries we work in even when that means being silent about Jesus as we do mercy work.  We see it is many other ways as well.

Part of the discussion this week has further given the sad impression that we will yield to the authorities when it comes to speaking of Jesus.  Some posts seem to basically ask the government to just tell us what is allowed.  Even Molle in her otherwise excellent piece asks, “What guarantees are in place for people not wanting to be court-martialed?”    It suggests that if the line is clear, we will not cross it.

Rather we must simply do what the Jesus have given us to do and take what comes.  In this way we remind the authorities that their authority is not limitless.  All kings and rulers still answer to the King.  So do we.

Giving the impression that we will follow their every command will only hasten the pace at which they criminalize certain parts of our confession.  Oh yes, we will submit to anything until they require us to be silent about Jesus.  Then we will speak and take what comes.

I don’t want to end up in jail for preaching Jesus.  I rather like my freedom.  But if it comes down to it, I am prepared to go to jail rather than be silent about Him.

John 16:33  “In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world."

I could write today about the absolute sadness I feel at the FDA’s decision to sell a pill intended to end the life of children in the womb over the counter as if it is just as inconsequential as a baby aspirin or allergy medicine. But I trust many others will expound on this calamity.  I may well add my thoughts about this later.

But today I want to write about a different aspect of this story.  With this decision 15 year olds (and no doubt this restriction will soon be be eased) can walk into the local Walgreens or CVS and make the decision to end a life dwelling in their womb without ever consulting their parents.   The drug store worker steps in and parents the child through the process. 

This is part of a much larger problem.  Increasingly, parents are being removing from the parenting process.  And it is such an easy move for those who are pushing it.  The main stories of parenting we hear about and experience are so atrocious that making the case that society or government must step in is so easy. 

Think about how much of our children’s lives we outsource to someone else.  How often are children even in the presence of their parents?

But here is the truth from Scripture and nature: Children belong to parents.  Some may not like the word belong since it’s connotation is often that of ownership.  Americans understandably recoil at the thought of one human being owned by another due to our history with slavery.   But children belong to parents meaning first and foremost that their wellbeing is the responsibility of the parents.

And this means that we must be intentionally hands off with other people’s children.  This is an easy thing to do when we think about it as people keeping their hands of our children.  But it also means keeping our hands of other people’s children even when we do not agree with how they raise their children.  And I should be clear, this is not to say that all parenting is equal or that some parenting is quite sinful.  But it is to say that we need to resist the urge to save children from their own parent’s ways even when we do not agree with them.   We can exhort, rebuke, and help other parents with this responsibility.  We may at times (abuse) have to criminally punish parents.  But we must resist the urge to remove the responsibility of raising children from parents.

Sometimes we wonder why parents are so bad in our day at raising children.  Part of the problem is that they so rarely have to truly do it.  Others have taken over so much of the responsibility of parenting.  We must stop this trend.

We need to stop doing parenting over the counter.  We must go back to Plan A when it comes to children.

In reading an article today, I came across the following quote which prompted me to write about something  which has often crossed my mind.

“In classical Christian teaching, the divinely sanctioned union of male and female is an icon of the relationship of Christ to His church and ultimately of God to His creation. This is why gay marriage negates Christian cosmology, from which we derive our modern concept of human rights and other fundamental goods of modernity. Whether we can keep them in the post-Christian epoch remains to be seen.”

While this author is writing to speculate how the loss of Christian morality might effect sexuality and human rights in culture, I seek instead to remind us of how God intentions for marriage should convict us to not thwart those intentions in order to satisfy our own carnal desires.

Ultimately for Christians marriage is about Christ and the Church.   The entire reason why marriage is ordered the way it is is to give a accurate picture of the reality of the relationship between Christ and his people, the Church.  Just as human fathers should ideally give to us a picture of the care of our Heavenly Father, the relationship between husband and wife should give us a picture of the relationship between Christ and his Church.  The implications are manifold. Many of the specifics of the order of marriage are not based on the nature of the people involved but rather on the nature of Christ and his Church.   For instance, the wife is to submit to the husband not because of some inherent weakness in her, but because the Church necessarily does submit to the Lord Jesus.

The understanding  that marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church is very important also as Christians engage the question of homosexual marriage being discussed in our culture.

The relationship between Christ and the Church is hetero.  Hetero linguistically speaks of difference.  Put simply the relationship between Christ and the Church is a relationship between those who are fundamentally different from one another by nature.   Ultimately, Christ is God and his Church is comprised of people that are not God. 

Therefore, marriage is also hetero.  It is comprised of two people who are fundamentally different, in this case by their gender.  Why?  Not because two people of the same sex could not have feelings towards one another but because if marriage is not hetero, it distorts the picture God intends to give of Christ and the Church.  If marriage becomes homosexual, between people of the same gender, we give the impression that Christ and the Church are homoousios, of the same substance or being.   And they clearly are not.  We would be distorting the very picture God gave to help us understand the relationship between Christ and Church.

God has made marriage hetero because Christ and the Church are hetero.  I suppose if God has intended marriage to be a picture of the Trinity, he would have ordered it to contain three people of the same gender, but marriage is not a picture of the Trinity but instead a picture of Christ and the Church.  This the scripture reveals to us.

Ephesians 5:31-32  "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."  This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

There are so many reasons why we should contend for the traditional order of marriage, but here is another and perhaps here is the first.  God is rather obsessed with the composition and order of marriage not to restrain humanity but rather to ensure that he gives humanity a beautiful picture of the length and breadth and depth of the love of Christ for his Church.   May we all rejoice in this gift he has given to us.

Go to any conference focused on missions an they will tell you that one of the keys to being missional is to stop being inward focused.  The claim is always that taking care of the people already in the Church thwarts the mission of Christ of reaching those outside of it.  But then there is Jesus saying,

“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.  By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

He says that people will see Christ’s love as we take care of one another. Surprisingly, throughout the scriptures, the talk of caring for needs almost always focuses on those already inside the Church.  And I will admit that that seems counterintuitive.  It seems that if you want to draw people into the church, you should focus on meeting their needs.  But that is not the message of Scripture generally.  It says to focus on meeting the needs of those inside the Church. 

Why?  I think I have come to understand it.  You see when we help those outside of the Church, it is very easy for people to remain outside the Church and just receive help from the Church.  In this way, they receive only a taste of the kingdom rather than the fullness of it.

When we focus on meeting needs inside the Church, people see the love of Christ operating within the kingdom.  And therefore, they are drawn to be part of the Church rather than just receiving help from it.

The real trouble is not being inwardly focused.  The real trouble is being selfish within the Church, not truly loving on another.  How many times do we have one members of the Church struggling with bills and another flush with money?  How many times do we see someone with a tangible need like a car and yet have other in the congregation with so many cars they could never drive?  How many times do we see a member in need of true community and yet find people in the church unwilling to welcome them into the community that gives them support be it a group of family or friends?  Too often.

Too often when people look inside the Church they see a group of individuals not loving one another in real and tangible ways.  And when you add to that the fact that they can often receive the help they need better by remaining outside the Church rather than being inside of it, why would they ever want to become part of it at all?

If an inward looking church is also an inward loving church, it is not an impediment to mission but an asset to it.  People are drawn to life inside the Church instead of seeking help outside of it.

For most laypeople, sermons are a bit like sausage.  If it ends up good, they don’t care how it was made.  I totally understand if some aren’t particularly wowed by this post or its title.  But yet, I think it is important to talk about preaching funerals sermons.  For if there is a place when even a generally faithful preacher can end up doing something really awful, it is in a funeral sermon. 

So how do I write a funeral sermon?  Well in a funeral sermon, I tell the story of every man and woman redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.   What do I mean?  Well, I always speak of these things:

1.  The person being brought out of darkness into light through the hearing of the Word and Holy Baptism.

2.  The person being kept in the faith by the Spirit through Word and Sacrament in the Church. Their constant need of forgiveness for their sins is here mentioned.  Here Jesus crucified for sins is the core message.

3.  The person bearing fruit by the power of the Holy Spirit. Here is where memories of vocations well-lived fit in the sermon.  These are told directing the glory back to God.  Also sometimes the fruit mentioned is worthy of imitation by those in attendance, especially being gathered regularly to Jesus and his gifts.

4.  The person being dead.  We must deal with this reality.  Here is where I address mourning and the mortality of humanity.  Here we recognize sin and death’s connection.  We also here mention briefly the blessed nature of the rest of the dead in Christ.

5.  The person bring raised up on the last day.  This alone is our hope in the face of death.  Here Jesus risen from the dead is the core message.

I think skipping any of these points does not accurately describe the life of one redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. And when we do not characterize the Christian life well at a funeral, people end up with all sorts of ideas about life and death.

I doubt anyone listening to one of my funeral sermons would say, “Hey that is the same sermon you preached for my uncle last year.”  I use the words of the text to craft each sermon with different images and emphasizes.  And sometimes, there is something from the memories shared that can also be use as a metaphor for the Christian life.  When that exists, I use it to wrap the Law and Gospel up in a package familiar to the hearers.   But essentially every funeral sermon ends up with those five points.  This is how I write a funeral sermon.

Last Friday was “Boy’s Day Off.”  For those not familiar with that term (meaning those not living my house) “Boy’s Day Off” is when my day off becomes a day of bonding with my boys, Gideon and Josiah.  Typically that means going to our nearest town of size, Salina.  And sometimes it means doing something special like seeing a movie.  Last Friday was one of those days.  So what would we see?  Well, of course the latest animation flick called “The Croods.”

I sort of figured they would be all sorts of “millions of years ago” talk and other evolutionary nods in a movie about “cavemen.”  And we were treated to some of that, including a grandma with a evolutionary leftover, a tail.  But truthfully, it was not these details that bothered me.

What bothered me was the clear message of the movie itself.  You see the main characters in the film, the cavemen, are called the Croods.  We find out they live in a cave most of the time for safety.  Then we are introduced to the neanderthal  father Grug who loves rules, tells stories about how curiosity over new ideas leads to death, and speaks of fear as the key to survival.

The rest of the movie shows us the error of his ways as the hero “Guy” explains to the family that only new ideas can make them survive and encourages them to ride the sun to tomorrow.  (The sun worship in the movie is quite creepy, but that is for another post I likely will never write.)

So let me decode the movie for you.  The Croods are certainly meant to caricature people like myself who find safety in a cave (Church), follow rules and rituals (things like the Ten Commandments and the liturgy), and fear everything (things like homosexuality).  Supposedly our motto is “Never not be afraid! Fear keeps us alive!” 

Guy is meant to be the antithesis of all of that.  He is the model progressive modern man with new ideas that will set people free from the bonds of traditional thoughts and rules.

So what is the point of this movie?  Ultimately that children must leave behind the rules of their oppressive knuckle-dragging parents and find those who will introduce them to new ideas that will lead them to the happy forever of tomorrow.  The way of life shown to them by their parents is after all not really living but is dying.  Therefore, they are to never be afraid of any new idea.

My kids would not have been able to tell you that this was the main point of the movie walking out of the theatre.  Judging from other reviews made by Christian people on the internet, most adults didn’t discern this point either.  But I have seem this theme told in kids movies over and over again lately.  The filmmakers are shaping our children’s worldview one movie at a time.  And they are doing so intentionally.  Whether kids or parents discern it, it is happening.

It is to the point where I just don’t think I am going to be taking my kids to any more movies without seeing them first.  I don’t need this junk in their head.  I do not need my children being taught by these fools.

I suppose the screenwriter of the movie reading that last line might just say, “See there it is.  Never not be afraid.  Fear even kids’ movies.  He is a Crood.”

Well yes, I guess I am.  But here is the truth.  The cave is not dark.  It is where true light dwells.  The rules do not take life away.  They lead us to the abundant life.  And as for fear, some fear is proper.  “Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to turn away from evil is understanding.”

I am a Crood.  Thanks be to God.  Amen.