The Necessary, The Luxurious, & The Mystical

Reflections from A Thanksgiving Past:

Each year our church holds a service on Thanksgiving morning, which includes hymn-singing, the offering of public thanks and a brief sermon. The sermon from two years ago has stuck with me and has given me occasion for much meditation over the past 24 months. I'll try to pass on the main ideas in hopes that it will be helpful for you as well. Pastor Meyers encouraged us and instructed us to give thanks, by tying our thanksgiving to the Lord's Supper - also called "The Eucharist" - from the Greek word, eucharistos, which means "gratitude" or "thanksgiving". In the Lord's Supper, we give thanks for the bread, the wine and the body & blood of Christ. In these three we see reflections of the KINDS of things for which we should give thanks.

Bread is ordinary...common...necessary. It provides sustenance for our bodies and represents our daily needs - those things for which we often forget to ask or to return thanks...those provisions which we so easily take for granted in everyday life. Yet our Lord taught us to pray for "our daily bread," and the Eucharist teaches us to give thanks for the provision of our daily bread. What is meant by daily bread? Food, drink, clothing, shoes, house, transportation, work, money, along with every necessity for sustaining life. We must remember to give thanks for these ordinary gifts of God which come to us so often by way of others' hands.

Wine is a luxury. It requires wisdom to make...the study and practice of years...the long-term cultivation of vines...diligence, vigilance and the labor of skilled men are all essential for producing good wine. Wine isn't a necessity which provides bodily sustenance, but a luxury which provides gladness of heart and rest. It represents all the abundance that is beyond our daily needs and for our enjoyment. We should remember too that this means for lightening our spirits didn't have to be created in a form that was pleasing to the eye, nose and palate...it could have been inhaled, injected or come through tasteless mush. Instead, God designed the means itself bring us pleasure! In giving thanks for the wine, we should recognize all the luxurious provisions by which He blesses us: easy access to The Word of God, freedom to pray and worship publicly, wise and faithful pastors and elders, medical advancements, technology, music, art, literature, architecture, kind neighbors, just laws, righteous judges, etc. We must remember to give thanks for the abundance of gifts which God bestows on us for our pleasure, enjoyment and peaceful existence.

The body and blood of Christ are mystical. Do not panic! By that, I am not positing some bizarre religous or philosophical idea. The breaking of Christ's body and the pouring out of His blood, that is to say, His suffering and death, in some mysterious way are FOR US. His suffering and death redeem us, bring us back to God, transform us. This is indeed a great mystery! In a similar way, which also remains mysterious, our suffering and dying are also for the world. God uses our suffering and death to transform others. You've heard the saying, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church"? It's true. When the people of God give themselves up to be broken and poured out, it brings life and redemption and healing. Remember too that Paul says in Colossians 1, "I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of His body, that is, the church." Because Paul knew his suffering was for the sake of others, he gave thanks for and rejoiced in it. We should do so as well!

Disclaimer: These words are not, by any means, intended as a comprehensive theology of The Eucharist!! They only represent one of many ways that weekly participation in The Supper can transform our way of thinking about life...one simple application among many!

Luther on The Estate of Marriage

Now observe that when that clever harlot, our natural reason, takes a look at married life, she turns up her nose and says, “Alas, must I rock the baby, wash its diapers, make its bed, smell its stench, stay up nights with it, take care of it when it cries, heal its rashes and sores, and on top of that care for my wife, provide for her, labour at my trade, take care of this and take care of that, do this and do that, endure this and endure that, and whatever else of bitterness and drudgery married life involves? What, should I make such a prisoner of myself? 0 you poor, wretched fellow, have you taken a wife? Fie, fie upon such wretchedness and bitterness! It is better to remain free and lead a peaceful, carefree life; I will become a priest or a nun and compel my children to do likewise.”

What then does Christian faith say to this? It opens its eyes, looks upon all these insignificant, distasteful, and despised duties in the Spirit, and is aware that they are all adorned with divine approval as with the costliest gold and jewels. It says, “0 God, because I am certain that thou hast created me as a man and hast from my body begotten this child, I also know for a certainty that it meets with thy perfect pleasure. I confess to thee that I am not worthy to rock the little babe or wash its diapers. Or to be entrusted with the care of the child and its mother. How is it that I, without any merit, have come to this distinction of being certain that I am serving thy creature and thy most precious will? 0 how gladly will I do so, though the duties should be even more insignificant and despised. Neither frost nor heat, neither drudgery nor labour, will distress or dissuade me, for I am certain that it is thus pleasing in thy sight.”

Now you tell me, when a father goes ahead and washes diapers or performs some other mean task for his child, and someone ridicules him as an effeminate fool, though that father is acting in the spirit just described and in Christian faith, my dear fellow you tell me, which of the two is most keenly ridiculing the other? God, with all his angels and creatures, is smiling, not because that father is washing diapers, but because he is doing so in Christian faith. Those who sneer at him and see only the task but not the faith are ridiculing God with all his creatures, as the biggest fool on earth. Indeed, they are only ridiculing themselves; with all their cleverness they are nothing but devil’s fools.

FINALLY!

I have finally finished Bondage of the Will! I have not allowed myself to start reading anything else before finishing the final page. At times, only my pride kept me going...I wanted to add this to my list of accomplishments (what kind of person considers reading a whole book an accomplishment? That would be ME...pitiful, I know!)

I had to slug through the middle where I felt like Luther was exceedingly redundant with his arguments. I almost put the book aside 'cause I kept thinking "O-K, got that...can we move on now?" In the end, I was glad I had kept going.

Luther's primary criticism of Erasmus (and thus the harsh tone) is that he "wrests and parries" the Word of God from its intended meaning and context, being concerned solely with literary figures, logical subtleties and rhetorical arguments. Luther believes Erasmus is more intent on winning the argument than he is on building up the people of God in truth...he is seeking the favor of intellectuals rather than God's favor.

"But our friend, the Diatribe, grows more stupid still...once more it would teach us, by its novel grammar, that owing and having, command and performance, requirement and rendering, are identical."

"Did not the Holy Ghost know a little rhetoric, there would be some risk that He would break down before such a skillfully acted display of contempt and despair of His cause, and yield the palm to 'free-will' before the battle begins!"

"So when Moses' words, 'I will harden the heart of Pharoah', are interpreted [by the Diatribe] as meaning: 'My longsuffering, by which I bear with the sinner, and which leads others to repentance, shall make Pharoah more obstinate in wickedness' - it is prettily said, but there is no proof that it is right. And I am not content with a mere statement; I want proof."

"It [the Diatribe] thinks we are as thickheaded and dimwitted, or as little interested in this subject, as it is itself! As little children in fear, or at play cover their eyes with their hands and think that because they see nobody, nobody sees them, so the Diatribe, which cannot bear the bright beams, nay, the lightning-flashes, of the clearest words, uses every means to pretend that it does not see what the facts are, in the hope of persuading us that our eyes are covered also and that we cannot see them either. All these manoeveres, however, are signs of a mind under conviction, recklessly resisting invincible truth."

"But he [Erasmus] avails himself of a rhetorical device for changing the subject, and tries to drag with him us, who know nothing of rhetoric - as though we were here dealing with something of no significance, and it was all a matter of mere logical subtleties! - and thus he races strongly away from the battlefield, wearing the crowns of warrior and bard together!"

"It is hard at this point to acquit you of deceit and double-dealing. One who handles the Scriptures with such hypocritical artfulness as you do, may safely say of himself that he is not yet instructed in the Scriptures, and wants to be instructed, when in fact he wants nothing less, and is merely rattling on like this in order to cast a slur on the clear light that there is in the Scriptures, and to whitewash his own stubbornness!"

In his closing remarks, Luther "apologizes" for the tone of his essay this way:

"As to my having argued somewhat vigorously, I acknowledge my fault, if it is a fault - but no; I have wondrous joy that this witness is borne in the world of my conduct in the cause of God. Who would be happier than Luther - commended by the testimony of all his age as having maintained the cause of truth, not lazily, or deceitfully, but with vigour enough and to spare!

....If I seem too bitter against your Diatribe, you must pardon me. I do not act so out of ill-will; but I was concerned that by the weight of your name you were greatly jeopardising the cause of Christ (though you can really effect nothing against it by your learning). And who can always so govern his pen....? Even you...not infrequently hurl fiery, gall-dipped darts against me, so that were your reader not very fair-minded and sympathetic, he would think you venomous. But these things have no bearing on our debate, and we must freely pardon each other in them; for we are but men, and there is nothing in us that is not characteristic of mankind."

Luther concludes with some kind remarks, praising Erasmus' gifts of wit, learning and unsurpassed eloquence, but urging him to confine the use of his gifts to languages and literature!

"May the Lord, whose cause this is, enlighten you and make you a vessel to honour and glory. Amen."

Though Bondage of the Will was definitely a worthy read, I am happy to be moving on now.

Next on the docket - We Were One: The Battle for Fallujah.

The Bondage of the Will

Here's a fun little section where Luther continues to deride Erasmus' view on free will:

"You make the power of 'free-will' to be equal in both directions: by its own power, without grace, it can (you tell us) both apply itself to good and turn itself from evil. You do not realise what a mighty power you are ascribing to it by the pronoun 'itself,'...; for you completely exclude the Holy Spirit and all His power as if superfluous and unnecessary. Your definition, therefore, ought to be condemned even by the Sophists; were they not in the blindness of their hatred so mad against me, they would fume rather against your book. But now, because you are attacking Luther, all that you say is holy and catholic...so great is the patience of holy men!

"Not that I say this because I approve of the Sophists' view of 'free-will', but because I think it more tolerable than that of Erasmus; for they approach nearer to the truth than he...since they say that it can do nothing of itself without grace, they are at odds with Erasmus; indeed, they seem to be at odds with themselves, caught in the toils of a merely verbal debate, and more desirous of argument than truth - just as Sophists should be! Suppose a Sophist of the best type were given me, with whom I could talk these things over in private discussion, I should ask for his candid opinion like this: 'If anyone should tell you that a thing was free, which of its own power could only go one way, that is, the bad way - it could indeed go the other way, that is, the good way, but not by its own power, only with the help of another - could you refrain from laughing, my friend?' For on these grounds I shall easily establish that a stone or a log has 'free-will' because it can go up and down; though by its own power, it can only go down, and can only go up with the help of another! ...In this way, the Sophists make 'free-will' free by accident. And, as I said above, we shall end by overturning all usage of words and language...."

How can you not love this guy?! :-)

The Bondage of the Will I

I've known for at least a decade that this is a "must-read" but have put it off, because of a mistaken notion. I assumed, having never read Luther's own writings before, that this would be a dry theological treatise on free-will, which I would have to slug through simply because I should.

Boy was I wrong! This is a tailor-made Invective...a veritable handbook!...an extended "howler," if ever there was one! This response makes the current discourse about "Federal Vision" seem tame and practically impotent! (One significant difference, of course, being that Luther actually read the works of the man he was publicly refuting, and engaged the man himself in direct dialogue, rather than simply reading about his teachings while pontificating to others based on hearsay...)

Those who know me, are likely not surprised that I would enjoy this sort of animated verbal sparring! I must admit, however, that at times, I have been a bit astonished at and even uncomfortable with Luther's tone...or at least if I imagine this dialogue occurring today, it seems quite harsh. I don't know enough about the extent of his relationship with Erasmus - did they know each other only through these debates, or did they have a personal relationship? Nor have I read Erasmus' "Diatribe," so I am only learning what he actually said in bits and pieces as Luther quotes him. Maybe the sum of Erasmus' content deserved nothing less - just yesterday, I encountered some of his more absurd assertions (Erasmus').

I have only finished 2 of the 8 "chapters" to date. Here are some of Luther's most inciteful phrases:

"...your book struck me as so worthless and poor that my heart went out to you for having defiled your lovely, brilliant flow of language with such vile stuff. I thought it outrageous to convey material of so low a quality in the trappings of such rare eloquence; it is like using gold or silver dishes to carry garden rubbish or dung." (p63)

"...what kept me from rushing in with an answer to you was...simply disgust, disinclination and distaste - which, if I may say so, express my judgment on your Diatribe. ...you have taken vast pains throughout to be slippery and evasive...you would have nothing actually asserted, while yet you would seem to assert something!" (p64)

"In a word, what you say comes to this: that you do not think it matters a scrap what anyone believes anywhere, so long as the world is at peace...'If they affirm, I affirm; if they deny, so do I.'" (p69)

"So here again, in your desire to discourage us from anything rash, you allow yourself to be carried to the contrary extreme (as fools do) and teach the very quintessence of godless, suicidal folly. Do you see, now, that at this point your book is so godless, blasphemous and sacrilegious, that its like cannot be found anywhere?" (p85)

"You are venting your spleen on us, as usual, in order to prejudice and discredit our cause, because you see that you cannot conquer or overthrow it." (p88)

"What a fulsome speaker you are! - but utterly ignorant of what you are talking about. ...if you do not grasp that, if it leaves you unmoved, then mind your own business, and leave those to grasp it and be moved by it to whom it is given of God!" (p90)

"...your next bit of advice, 'wrong decisions made in councils should not be publicly acknowledged, lest grounds for denying the authority of the fathers should thereby be given.' This, of course, is just what the Pope wanted you to say! He finds it sweeter hearing than the Gospel itself; he will be most ungrateful if he does not honour you in return with a cardinal's hat, plus all the attendant revenues!" (p96)

"So, your Creator must learn from YOU, His creature, what may be usefully preached and what not? God was so stupid and thoughtless, was He, that He did not know what should be taught till you came along to tell Him how to be wise? - as if without your pointing it out He would not have realized that this paradox involves the consequence you draw? " (p98)

Wow! Even Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter seem tame by comparison!