Happy St. What’s His Name Day!

My family emigrated from Scotland to Northern Ireland in Restoration times. It was a sort of homecoming. Many centuries ago, my ancestors, the Scots (or Scoti, as the Romans called them) moved from Ireland across the North Channel to southwestern Scotland, forming the ancient kingdom of Dalriada, essentially consisting of northeastern Ulster and Argyll. Eventually, Dalriada lost the Irish part of its territory and joined the Picts to form the nation of Alba, the cornerstone of the modern country of Scotland. So even if my grandmother had not been born in Downpatrick ( “Dun Padraig.” or “Patrick’s Fort” in Gaelic), where the saint is buried, I would have plenty of reason to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day.

St. Patrick (Padraig, auf Gaelic, meaning “noble”) was allegedly born Maewyn Succat (Maewyn meaning “warlike”). This, however, is disputed. There is no direct evidence of his ever having been known as anything but Patricius, or of his having called himself anything else. He was the son of a couple named Calphurnius and Conchessa and was born in Dunbarton, Scotland, in the year 387. His father, Calphurnius, seems to have been a priest or deacon. His grandfather was also a Christian clergyman, but like many “P.K.s,” Patrick was not particularly religious at first. But since he was a Romanized Briton whose father and grandfather had Latinized names, and whose mother was a relative of St. Martin of Tours, it would be hard to explain why Patrick would have been given a Gaelic one like “Maewyn Succat.” But the legend persists. His faith was apparently kindled into a flame when, at the age of sixteen, he was kidnapped by Irish pirates and sold into slavery in what is today County Antrim, in Ulster, the ancestral home of the Waters family.

His captivity seems to have been a relatively mild one. His duties consisted mainly of tending sheep- an occupation that left him plenty of time for contemplation, meditation, and prayer. Not surprisingly, Patrick turned into something of a schwaermer by the long, solitary days and nights tending his master’s flocks; nevertheless, this time of spiritual reflection stood him in good stead in the years to come.

So did the external circumstances of his captivity. Patrick quickly became fluent in Celtic. And as it happened, his master, Milchu,  was a Druid high priest. A better background in the pagan religion it would be his life’s work to combat would have been hard to obtain.

Six years into his captivity, Patrick had a mystical experience- described variously as a dream and as an actual visit from an angel- in which he was commanded (contra the general advice of St. Paul to those in his condition) to run away from his master and return to Britain. That he did, and from there he went to France, where he was ordained to the priesthood by St. Germain. When Germain was sent by Pope Celestine on a mission back to Britain to combat Pelagianism there, he took Patrick as one of his companions.

It was there that Patrick once again had one of his visions: this time a group of Irish children, exhorting him, “O holy youth, come back to Erin, and walk once more among us.” Entrusted by Pope Celestine with that very task, Patrick was consecrated a bishop by St. Maximus of Padua, and returned to the land of his former captivity to begin a missionary career that would, in the space of 33 years, convert that nation from a stronghold of Druidical darkness into “the island of saints and poets.”

His first act upon arriving back on Irish soil was to return to his former master and buy his own freedom. Sadly, as Patrick’s fame spread and more and more Irishmen were won from his former master’s Druid religion to Christianity, Milchu was said to be humiliated, and- to Patrick’s horror- burned himself to death, along with his fort and all his possessions, his pride unable to bear “the thought of being vanquished by his former slave.”

No, Patrick did not drive the snakes out of Ireland; there were never any snakes there, to begin with. It’s commonly believed that the snakes in the legend were, in fact, paganism and pagan values and attitudes. And the incident probably most associated with him- and which gave birth to this day’s most familiar symbol- may also never have happened. Nevertheless, it’s worth recounting. Interestingly, though everybody wears green today, the color historically associated with Patrick is blue.

Anyway. the story is that Patrick was confronted by a sword-wielding Druid chieftain named Dichu-  whom, unarmed except by his faith, Patrick simply faced down. Awed by his courage, Dichu asked for instruction and was baptized. Dichu told Patrick of a feast being given for all the Irish chieftains by the Ard Righ (“High King”), Laoghaire, at Tara, the traditional seat of the High Kings (Ireland in ancient days was divided into five kingdoms- Ulster, Connacht, Leinster, Meath, and Munster; each had its own king, who effectively ruled his own realm while owing titular fealty to the High King at Tara). Patrick crashed the party, which supposedly began- auspiciously- on Easter Sunday, 433. The fun began, however, the night before- symbolically interesting because that year it was not only the Vigil of Easter but also the Feast of the Annunciation.

The Vigil of Easter is one of the oldest and most beautiful and significant Christian liturgies. We celebrate it in abbreviated form in my congregation. In ancient times it was that the catechumens were baptized, spending the night in prayer, chant, and meditation.

The liturgy traditionally begins around the Paschal fire, usually kindled outside a church. In Patrick’s case, of course, the vigil was held out in the open, on the hill of Slane, on the opposite side of the valley from Tara. When Patrick kindled the Paschal fire, it was in direct violation of a royal edict, that no fires were to be lit until the High King’s own signal fire was kindled at Tara.

Patrick’s reputation for miracles and for gaining converts had proceeded him. Laoghaire’s Druid advisors told him, insightfully, “O King, live forever; this fire, which has been lighted in defiance of the royal edict, will blaze forever in this land unless it is this very night extinguished.”

So they tried to put it out. They couldn’t. Nothing they could do would extinguish the flame. Neither- despite their best efforts- could they harm Patrick or his companions!

One thing about St. Patrick: he had style. The next morning- Easter Day- he traveled the length of the valley in full liturgical procession, wearing a miter, bearing a crozier, fully vested as a bishop, and proceeded by an acolyte bearing a copy of the Gospels aloft. Arriving at Tara, he soon found himself in full confrontation with the Druids. The story is that by their incantations they cast a deep cloud over Tara, enveloping the entire hill in darkness. Patrick defied them to remove the cloud. They tried and failed. Thereupon Patrick uttered a simple prayer. The cloud instantly vanished, and the hill was bathed in sunshine.

The Arch-Druid Lochru tried to impress everybody by flying. Patrick simply knelt and prayed that God would vindicate His truth- and Lochru fell to his death.

That pretty much settled matters. Though forbidden by the High King to show Patrick or any of his company the slightest sign of respect, the whole assembly rose to pay homage to Patrick and his God.

It was then that the incident supposedly occurred which gave this day- and the entire island- its most familiar symbol. Someone supposedly asked how it could be that the Christian God would be Three but at the same time only One. Patrick replied by leaning over and plucking from the grass at his feet a simple clover of a variety which -contrary to legend- grows not only in Ireland but in almost every country and halfway temperate climate on Earth. Holding the shamrock aloft, he asked, “Is this one leaf, or three?”

They couldn’t answer. “If human wisdom cannot comprehend the mystery of a piece of clover,” Patrick is said to have responded, “how can it hope to understand the mystery of God’s very nature?”

I never cease to be amazed at the number of “shamrocks” one sees at this time of year which are, in fact, four-leaf clovers- which, of course, completely destroys the entire symbolism of the shamrock!

Patrick is said to have spent the balance of Easter week catechizing and baptizing the High King and his entire court. At its end, he was given the High King’s own official patronage for the missionary endeavor which was to occupy the remainder of his life. He is also well known for his beautiful prayer known as Saint Patrick’s Breastplate. It is sung as a hymn in many churches.

Patrick died on March 17, 493 (some sources say 460, or 461) at Saul in what is now Downpatrick, County Down, where he is buried. Downpatrick, by the way, is the birthplace and childhood home of Grandmother Waters, and the burial place not only of Patrick but also of Sts. Columba- interestingly, the native-born Irishman who brought the Gospel to Britain, and in particular to Scotland and the Picts!- and Brigid, who is often commemorated by a representation of the hand-woven cross, made from the reeds along the banks of the River Shannon, she once fashioned for a dying pagan to hold while she told him the story of Christ.


On any account, Patrick was one of the greatest missionaries the Christian Faith has ever produced- and the honor he is due is too great to be confined to any single people (even the Irish!). All the faithful have cause to wear green this day in his honor, without fear of being accused of being full of blarney regardless of their ethnic origin.


HT: The Catholic Encyclopedia, The Catholic Community Forum

The good guys are winning for a change

Donald Trump is backtracking from his assertion that Vladimir Putin is a “genius” for invading Ukraine. Tucker Carlson actually admits that he was wrong about Ukraine- although it’s Joe Biden’s fault that he’ was wrong.

America and the world have united behind a brave people determined to remain free and their heroic citizen-president. Russia thought overrunning Ukraine and putting a puppet in President Zelenskyy’s place would be easy. It’s turning out not to be.

Putin has been fighting with one hand behind his back. He’s been trying for propaganda reasons to at least appear to be exercising restraint. The more frustrated he becomes, the more likely that he takes the gloves off and fights dirty like he did in Chechnya. He will be even more discredited in the eyes of the world, but it won’t be pretty to watch much less experience. Not that it’s actually pretty now.

Putin has stepped in it. This invasion may be his undoing. But the odds are still overwhelming that Ukraine will be overrun. I don’t think President Zelenskyy will leave, and I’m very much afraid that Putin will have him killed. May God protect him.

But the salient reality is that Ukraine is going to be impossible for Russia to hold. The people of Ukraine won’t accept Russian occupation. A continuing insurgency will make Ukraine a hell for Russia. It will only be a matter of time before Ukraine recovers its independence.

Even Switzerland is joining in the sanctions. Germany has overcome its traditional reluctance to be actively hostile to Russia. Finland and Sweden are considering joining NATO. And barring a return of the Cheeto Benito to the Oval Office, NATO will not only survive but will be stronger and more united than ever.

Brave people are dying and will continue to die. The valiant people of Ukraine are suffering terribly and will probably continue to suffer for a long time. But what looked a couple of weeks ago like it was going to be another bleak triumph for authoritarianism and the bullies of the world seems to have turned completely around and rallied the world to the cause of humanity and democratic values.

However much suffering they inflict, it seems clear that at the moment the bullies are on the run. The forces of illiberalism and reaction are reeling. Right now, the good guys appear, at least in the long term, to be winning. It’s been a long time since that was the case, and it feels good.

Slava Ukraini!

Liberty and anarchy are two very different things

During the Carter administration, a peace demonstrator at the White House carried a sign which read, “Nothing Is Worth Dying For.”

Unlike most signs carried at protests and demonstrations, that one drew a great deal of attention. Someone pointed out that if nothing is worth dying for, then neither is anything worth living for. I would guess that the young man who carried that sign hadn’t thought his slogan through that far. People who are caught up in movements often don’t.

Being a history buff, I’ve long been aware of the White Rose, a group of idealistic German students who opposed the Nazi regime. Hans and Sophie Scholl are the best-known of the many members of the group who paid for their courage with their lives. The Scholl siblings were guillotined for passing out anti-Hitler leaflets at the Ludwig Maximillian University in Munich.

The leaflets were slapdash, typewritten, and mimeographed affairs, and it’s easy to see them as naive and futile gestures. It’s hard to see what practical effect they could possibly have had. But practicality was beside the point. They said things that needed to be said:

Isn’t it true that every honest German is ashamed of his government these days? Who among us has any conception of the dimensions of shame that will befall us and our children when one day the veil has fallen from our eyes and the most horrible of crimes—crimes that infinitely outdistance every human measure—reach the light of day?

and

Since the conquest of Poland, 300,000 Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way … The German people slumber on in dull, stupid sleep and encourage the fascist criminals. Each wants to be exonerated of guilt, each one continues on his way with the most placid, calm conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty!

The White Rose bore witness. Like the “Tank Man” of Tiananmen Square, its members stood in the way of totalitarian terror and shouted, “Stop!” Many of its members paid with their lives. They considered what they had to say worth dying for. And bearing witness against the Nazi nightmare gave their lives meaning, as well as their deaths. Few of us will lead lives as worth the living as Hans and Sophie Scholl.

Just today, I became aware of another youthful resistance group in Nazi Germany with a floral name. It was far more practically oriented and far larger. Many of its members, too, paid for their defiance of the regime with their lives. Its members, too, said “no!” to coercion and terror. But without denigrating the individual sacrifices of the Edelweißpiraten (“Edelweiss Pirates”), their agenda wasn’t quite as lofty.

The Edelweißpiraten weren’t protesting the Holocaust or the other crimes of the German government. They simply were opposed to compulsion in principle. They didn’t like being told what to do. Again, without diminishing the courage of its individual members, some of whom were just as nobly motivated as the members of the White Rose, the program of the Edelweiss Pirates as a group boiled down to words which needn’t be chiseled into granite on any monument: “You can’t make me!” Some had no particular political or moral agenda at all. They simply didn’t want to be told what to do.

Sometimes a thin line can separate principle and childishness. None of us likes to be told what to do. But the grownups among us not only are willing to be told what to do in certain areas but insist on it. Any thoughtful adult realizes that rules are necessary for any group to function in a peaceful and constructive way and that without laws that restrict individual liberty, civilization itself would be impossible.

“You can’t make me!” might almost be America’s national slogan. ” Liberty!” was the battle-cry of the American Revolution, and when Baron von Steuben came here from Prussia to train George Washington’s army, he nearly despaired. How can an effective army ever be built, he wondered, when the soldiers who comprised it refused to follow an order unless the reason for it was explained first, and they agreed with it?

But follow orders they did- and disobedience was duly punished. Although the first Continental soldier to be condemned for cowardice and desertion, Ebeneezer Leffingwell, received an eleventh-hour pardon from Washington because of his “previous good character,” the general warned that those who emulated Leffingwell in the future would be shot. And they were.

Washington did not hesitate to order the compulsory vaccination of his soldiers against smallpox, a precedent that seems to be lost on a great many contemporary Americans, including certain Republican governors. And the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that compulsory lockdowns and quarantines as public health measures lie well within the constitutional authority of states under the Tenth Amendment. In fact, the principle is so well established in American law- and has been, since the earliest days of the Republic- that it’s difficult to take the odd claim that quarantines and lockdowns and vaccine mandates violate individual rights seriously. Such objections are really more on the order of a childish, petulant “You can’t make me!”

The idea that there is somehow a constitutional right to endanger the health of others- and thus their rights- by refusing both vaccination and reasonable restrictions on their movements and activities if they decline to be vaccinated would be a hard one to defend from the writings of the Founders or the history of American constitutional law. Far from being somehow a violation of the principles of liberty, “vaccine passports” are not only reasonable, at least in principle, but well established in legal precedent as constitutionally legitimate tools in times of pandemic. In fact, in 1824, John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the United States, made the parenthetical observation in Gibbons vs. Ogden, a case involving maritime rights, that quarantine laws “form a portion of that immense mass of legislation which embraces everything within the territory of a state not surrendered to the general government.” If, for religious or other reasons, an individual declines vaccination, fine. But in such a case it falls well within the authority of the state to quarantine that person for the sake of the public good, a point which the Supreme Court has acknowledged ever since the days of John Marshall!

Why are we even debating this?

Are mandates and lockdowns and quarantines necessary? Are they prudent? Nobody argues that unnecessary restrictions on the bodily autonomy or movements of American citizens are legitimate or desirable. But whether they are necessary or prudent in any specific case is a medical question rather than a legal one, to be answered by epidemiologists rather than by lawyers, judges, and politicians. And despite the ongoing attempt by COVID-minimizers to exaggerate the very small number of medical professionals who dissent from it, and often their credentials, the consensus of the medical experts is firmly on the side of their use, at least in general principle, and has been ever since the pandemic began.

Granted, it’s inevitable that a society that places as much emphasis on individual liberty as ours, there should be a perennial debate about its limits. Tom Paine railed against taxation, for example. Even Chief Justice Marshall wrote that “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” But the courts have consistently upheld the power of taxation, despite the healthy suspicion of its use by conservatives ever since the foundation of the Republic. The reason is obvious. George Washington put it well: “It is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant.” James Madison, the author of the Constitution, wrote, “The power of taxing people and their property is essential to the very existence of government.”

But perhaps the most relevant quotation of all comes from Benjamin Franklin: “Friends and neighbors complain that taxes are indeed very heavy, and if those laid on by the government were the only ones we had to pay, we might the more easily discharge them; but we have many others, and much more grievous to some of us.  We are taxed twice as much by our idleness, three times as much by our pride, and four times as much by our folly.”

One of the “taxes” we have paid in this pandemic has been laid upon us by folly, levied through our slowness to embrace and implement sensible and reasonable public health measures in the face of what is now the deadliest pandemic in the nation’s history. We have paid it in the lives of friends, neighbors, and relatives, at the present moment about 837,000 of them. The number of deaths we suffered in the Civil War is not precisely documented, but it seems to have been somewhere around 750,000. During this pandemic, America has matched and exceeded the butcher’s bill for the deadliest war we’ve ever fought, and in half the time. Yet amazingly, there are those who continue to minimize the pandemic and resist common-sense measures whose constitutionality is established beyond any reasonable doubt on the ground that they violate “individual liberty!”

There is a difference between a prudent suspicion of heavy-handed government (and there can be no doubt that in some cases the government has been heavy-handed in its handling of this pandemic) and what the British call “bloody-mindedness.” There is a difference between a proper concern for the preservation of our legitimate rights and the selfish, unreasonable assertion of the “right” to compromise the rights of others.

Those who strive to preserve individual freedom against arbitrary and unnecessary government restrictions are worthy of praise. But it seems to me that modern libertarianism- and conservatism generally- more and more frequently mistake principled resistance to tyranny with a petulant, childish whine of “You can’t make me!.” Sometimes, as was the case with the White Rose and the Edelweiss Pirates, people and movements find themselves fighting the good fight side by side. But that doesn’t mean that their motivations are identical, equally thoughtful, or equally valid. To be an extremist and a selfish jerk is not the same thing as being a freedom fighter!

A liberal society (in the broad, Enlightenment sense of the term “liberal”) seeks to strike the optimum balance between protecting individual rights from being violated by an overbearing government, and from being violated by other individuals. Achieving that balance requires a clear understanding that, as someone once said, “You have every right in the world to swing your fist- but only until it comes into contact with my nose.”

And to refuse to be vaccinated without taking measures to avoid exposing others to a virus one may be carrying without even knowing it is to make firm contact with the nose of others. Not only is it to risk being a personal vector of infection, but it also means keeping us further from reaching herd immunity and giving the virus further opportunity to spread and evolve. True, the Omicron variant seems to be less deadly than previous iterations of the virus, but it’s also far more contagious and seems to have made some progress toward making our vaccines less effective.

Contrary to what many of us seem to think, “I don’t wanna, and you can’t make me” isn’t really the same thing as “Give me liberty or give me death!” License and liberty are entirely different animals. Speaking theologically, human government is fallen, potentially dangerous, and worthy of suspicion not because it’s government, but because it’s human.

But individuals are also potentially dangerous, and also worthy of suspicion because they, too, are human, and therefore fallen. My political faith tells me that the Constitution has invested in the individual the authority to serve as a check on the fallen, human government. But my religious faith, on the basis of Romans 13, tells me that in His wisdom God has instituted the government as a check on the fallen, human, individual.

To lose the proper balance between the two is to risk either tyranny on one hand, or anarchy on the other. And human rights evaporate just as quickly under the one as under the other.

ADDENDUM: The Supreme Court has struck down President Biden’s requirement that employees of large businesses either be vaccinated or undergo weekly testing by a vote of 6-3. It did uphold the mandate for healthcare workers by a worrisome margin of only 5-4.

Given the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court, I’m not surprised. But I guess it just goes to show that conservative justices are just as liable as liberal ones to allow controversial political debates to cloud their reading of the Constitution.

ADDENDUM II: Or not. The Court did uphold the mandate for healthcare workers, and the Tenth Amendment argument is predicated on the authority to quarantine and to utilize other restrictive measures in times of pandemic being vested in the states and not in the Federal government.

A very strong case can be made that the United States led the world in COVID deaths during too long a period (a nation with four percent of the world’s population- the most scientifically advanced nation in the world- for quite a while had 20% of the world’s COVID deaths) because while every other industrialized democracy on Earth was undertaking a coordinated nationwide effort to control the pandemic, we had a president who claimed that the virus was no worse than the flu, would mysteriously vanish overnight, and to the extent that it was worth addressing at all was an issue for the states alone. In the process, Mr. Trump ignored the obvious Federal role in coordinating the efforts of the individual states, even to the point of mismanaging the allocation of equipment and supplies under Federal control, arguing that it wasn’t the Federal government’s problem. The degree to which a worldwide (and therefore nationwide) pandemic demands a greater role for the Federal government is a matter worth debating, even to the point of asking whether the Federal government’s mandate in the Preamble to the Constitution to “promote the general welfare” might not in extraordinary circumstances modify the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of such powers to the states. But thinking the matter through, I have to admit that the Court’s ruling in the matter of the Biden mandate for the employees of large companies is in accord with precedent after all.

I would argue that the mandate itself was a matter of common sense. But a strong case can be made that under the Tenth Amendment, it’s something the states rather than the Federal government should address.

Again, we face the troublesome difficulty presented by our living in a smaller world in the Twenty-First Century than the one in which the Constitution was written, in which commerce is global and the automobile and the jet plane have replaced the horse and carriage and the wind-powered ship. Worldwide pandemics weren’t the threat in 1789 that they are today; even viruses had a harder time traveling back then. What once were national problems are now global ones, and what were once local and state problems now have national and even worldwide implications. As an adherent of Antonin Scalia’s “dead Constitution” philosophy, which sees the Court’s role as interpreting the words of the Constitution as written rather than adapting them to a changing world, I actually have a certain amount of theoretical sympathy for what apparently was the Court’s reasoning.

Maybe amendment is the answer. Maybe the Federal government needs explicit constitutional authority to deal with matters which in the modern world are as national as they are local, if not more so. But I have to think that the extraordinary situation posed by COVID justifies the view that “promoting the general welfare” in a nationwide epidemiological crisis implies Federal authority under the Constitution to act even in a realm that historically has been seen as the purview of the states.

95 Theses for today

These appeared on Reformation Day several years ago; I don’t know who wrote them. But they’re still so timely and on-target with regard to the condition of contemporary Christianity that I thought I’d share them again. Here’s what Martin Luther might post on the door of the Castle Church (or Saddleback) today:

1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said “Repent,” He willed that the whole life of believers should be one of repentance.
2. To “repent” means to be contrite for one’s sins and to trust Jesus Christ and solely in His completed work for one’s forgiveness, life, and salvation.
3. Those who describe the Christian life as purpose-driven deny true repentance, confuse the Law and the Gospel, and obscure the merits of Christ.
4. Impious and wicked are the methods of those who substitute self-help and pop-psychology for the Gospel in the name of relevance.
5. This impious disregard for the Gospel wickedly transforms sacred Scripture into a guidebook for living, a pharisaic sourcebook of principles, and sows tares among the wheat.
6. Relevance, self-help and pop-psychology have no power to work true contrition over sins and faith in Jesus Christ.
7. Like clouds without rain, purpose-driven preachers withhold the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins won by Christ on the cross and enslave men’s consciences to the law which they cleverly disguise as so-called ‘Biblical Principles’.
8. By teaching tips for attaining perfect health, debt-free wealth, and better sex in marriage, the purveyors of relevance undermine true fear, love and trust in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
9. They are enemies of Christ, who distort the Word of God by tearing verses from their original context in order to use them as proof texts for their self-help, pop-psychology agendas.
10. Injury is done the Word of God when it is used as a source book for practical, relevant “life applications.”
11. In the name of relevance, our Lord Jesus Christ is reduced to a life-coach whose “gospel” assists and motivates people to achieve the objectives of their self-centered delusions of grandeur.
12. Apart from the Holy Spirit, the seeker cannot understand the things of God for these are “spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14).
13. The natural man does not naturally seek the Gospel. “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me” (Is. 65:1)
14. The true Seeker of men’s souls is our Lord Jesus Christ who came to seek and to save the lost by His death on the cross (Luke 19:10).
15. The truly “seeker-sensitive” church proclaims God’s wrath against our sin and His mercy for Jesus’ sake.
16. The preaching of Christ crucified is a stumbling block to purpose-driven pragmatists and foolishness to church growth consultants.
17. The true gold of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
18. But this treasure is a stench in the nostrils of fallen and sinful men because it exposes man’s complete lack of ability to save himself by his own religious efforts.
19. On the other hand, the fool’s gold of self-help is preferred by sinful men, for it creates the illusion of moral progress and a life that is pleasing to God apart from repentance.
20. The gold of the Gospel is the net by which Christ would make us fishers of men.
21. The fool’s gold of self-help is a snare by which purpose-driven purveyors of relevance attempt to capture the riches and approval of men.
22. The church is holy sheep who hear the voice of their Shepherd.
23. How can sheep hear the voice of their Shepherd when false shepherds preach self-help and pop-psychology?
24. Purveyors of purpose-driven relevance are not shepherds of men’s souls but wolves in sheep’s clothing.
25. Purveyors of relevance claim that self-help, life-applications and biblical principles are the means to reach the unchurched because they meet people’s felt needs.
26. Yet a person’s greatest need is one he does not by nature feel, namely the need for the righteousness that comes from God through faith in Jesus Christ.
27. The true means by which fallen sinners are reached is the preaching of Christ and His sacraments. (Romans 10:17)
28. The true need that mankind is seeking but does not know is justification by grace through faith for Christ’s sake.
29. Since justification is through faith and not through works, natural man neither seeks it nor desires it.
30. Therefore, the teaching of justification by grace through faith is neither seeker-sensitive nor relevant to a world that naturally seeks self-justification.
31. To be in the church is to be union with Christ through faith.
32. Regardless of the number of people in attendance, the church does not grow unless men are granted repentance and faith by God through the action of His Word.
33. Scripture clearly teaches that the means by which God grants faith are the hearing of the Word of Christ (the Gospel) and the water of Holy Baptism.
34. Therefore, even if a congregation, through their own marketing methods and business prowess were able to draw 100,000 people every Sunday, if the Gospel is not heard and the sacraments are not administered according to the Gospel there is no church and the true Church of Jesus Christ has not grown by a single soul.
35. If numerical growth is a measure of God’s approval, then we must conclude that God approves of Islam and the Mormons.
36. If financial success is a measure of God’s approval, then we must conclude that God approves of pornography and gambling.
37. Cancer and crabgrass both grow rapidly, as does the church that obscures the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
38. The purveying of purpose-driven relevance is the theology of glory; the preaching of Christ crucified for sinners is the theology of the cross.
39. The theologian of glory says that the kingdom of God is visible now in buildings, people, and dollars; the theologian of the cross says that the kingdom of God is an article of faith.
40. The theologian of glory asks “How much?” and “How many?”; the theologian of the cross preaches Christ regardless of how much or how many.
41. The theologian of glory prepares people to receive health, wealth, and happiness; the theologian of the cross prepares people to suffer and die in faith.
42. The theologian of glory preaches that God wants to grant you favors; the theologian of the cross preaches the favor of God for the sake of Christ crucified.
43. The theologian of glory proclaims 40 days of purpose; the theologian of the cross preaches daily dying and rising in Jesus.
44. God established the Church to be a “mouth house” of forgiveness not a madhouse of activity.
45. Christ wills that His voice be heard in His Church and not the voice of man when He says, “He who hears you, hears me.” (Luke 10:16)
46. Purveyors of purpose-driven relevance obscure the voice of Christ and so draw the sheep away from the Good Shepherd.
47. Christ saves from sin and death not through the motivation of the sinner to do good, but through baptismal death and resurrection.
48. The mission of the church is not to transform the world but to disciple the nations by baptizing and teaching (Matt 28:19-20).
49. Anyone who preaches a vision and demands allegiance to it sets up a new papacy among the churches.
50. A synod or church body is a human institution that exists by the will and consent of its member congregations and pastors.
51. A synod or church body is not merely an affiliation of churches that agree on a common purpose.
52. A synod or church body is not the Church, properly speaking, but a fellowship of churches sharing a common confession of faith and practice.
53. Synods are not of the church’s essence (esse) but for her well being (bene esse).
54. Synodical leaders are not lords over the churches, but servants of the churches and stewards of their common possessions.
55. Synodical leaders are not called to promulgate visions but to execute the collective will of the synod’s churches.
56. The old papacy arrogated the Church’s treasury of merits; the new papacy arrogates the Church’s treasury.
57. The old papacy said, “As the coin in the coffer clings, so the soul from purgatory springs.”
58. The new papacy says, “As the coin in the church coffer clings, so another program out of debt springs.”
59. The old papacy counted plenary indulgences; the new papacy counts money and people.
60. The old papacy suppressed the Gospel through canon law; the new papacy suppresses the Gospel through constitutions and by-laws.
61. The old papacy was a friend of Caesar; the new papacy is a friend of Mammon.
62. The old papacy bound a man’s conscience for the sake his wallet; the new papacy binds a man’s wallet for the sake of his conscience.
63. The old papacy promulgated infallible dogma; the new papacy promulgates undebatable visions.
64. The old papacy claims to sit on the seat of Peter; the new papacy claims to sit on the mandate of the majority.
65. The old papacy reserved the right to judge doctrine and practice; the new papacy judges doctrine and practice by commissions and committees.
66. The old papacy issued “bulls;” the new papacy issues task force reports.
67. The old papacy had a college of cardinals; the new papacy has high-priced consultants.
68. Just as popes and councils have erred in the past, so synodical leaders and synodical conventions err in the present.
69. A synod that is concerned for the true unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace does not excuse unionism and syncretism.
70. Unity in doctrine and practice means discernible interchangeability in teaching, preaching, and practice.
71. Unity in doctrine and practice does not consist in signing confessional statements, but in word and deed.
72. Worship is doctrine put into practice.
73. As one worships, so one believes.
74. As one believes, so one worships.
75. Christian worship consists in God’s service to us through His giving and our receiving in faith the gifts of Christ’s Word, Body, and Blood, and our service to God by our prayer, praise, and thanksgiving.
76. Worship that is focused on principles for Christian living obscures the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His gifts and is detrimental to faith and salvation.
77. While Christian liberty allows that worship forms need not be altogether the same in every time and place, unity in faith and practice requires that worship forms must not be altogether different in every time and place.
78. Worship forms serve as identifying banners in the confessional field of battle.
79. Peculiar and novel worship forms obscure the unity of the churches and extol the creativity of the worship leaders.
80. In matters neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God (adiaphora), the churches of God are free to change ceremonies according to circumstances, as may be most beneficial and edifying to the churches of God. (Epitome, Art X.4)
81. Such changes must avoid all frivolity and offenses, particularly with regard to those who are weak in faith (Epitome, Art X.5).
82. Where the Gospel is at stake, concessions in ceremony must not be made so as to suggest unity with those who deny the Gospel (Epitome, Art X.6)
83. Therefore, it is contrary to the doctrine of adiaphora to hide the substance of Lutheran doctrine behind a non-Lutheran style of worship.
84. To create and sustain saving faith, God established the office of the holy ministry in the church to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments according to our Lord’s institution.
85. No one may publicly preach, teach, or administer the sacraments in the churches without his being called and ordained.
86. Those who introduce novelties into the church are the true agents of division
87. The ordination of women is a novelty that has caused great division in the church.
88. The introduction of worship forms not held in common by the churches is a cause of division and a stumbling block.
89. The church belongs to no man but to Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, and Lord of the church.
90. Woe to the false prophets who cry, “Unity, unity” when there is no unity.
91. Again, woe to those who say, “Peace, peace,” when there is no peace.
92. Again, woe to those who say, “Gospel, gospel,” when there is no Gospel.
93. Blessed are those who say, “Cross, cross,” when there is no cross.
94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through all suffering, death, and hell;
95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many trials and tribulations, rather than through the assurance of outward peace, unity, and happiness.

A truly warped concept of “freedom-” and ethics

Leaving aside the fact that nowhere in the Constitution, in the history of classic American political theory, in the law, or in any respected ethical or theological tradition is there a right to infect others with a deadly virus as a matter of personal freedom, the time has come to stop coddling people who permit and even excuse things like this.

We need vaccine passports, especially in schools; mask mandates where necessary (certainly including schools in areas of high transmission, if the schools are open at all) and those who find these to be violations of their own sensibilities should be invited to join Tucker Carlson and emigrate to Hungary or other truly authoritarian states. This is what you can expect of the kind of people with enough chutzpah and little enough ability to reason from (a) to (b) that they can claim to simultaniously be disciples of Ayn Rand and of Jesus Christ. What in God’s name have we come to when we value illusory, sociopathic “freedom” to selfishly refuse to take simple, common sense public measures above he lives of human beings? And yes, children can indeed get COVID- and get very sick and even die from it. The Delta variant is just as contagious as chickenpox or Ebola. We were on the verge of eliminating COVID in the United States. And now we’re letting the chance slip between our fingers.

Trump’s ‘authenticity’ should repel Christians

Bob Vanderplaats, one of the most prominent leaders of Iowa’s “evangelical” community, says that if the Former Guy doesn’t run in 2024, his churchgoing supporters here will be looking for someone with his “authenticity,” but without his “demeanor.”

But how does one seperate the two? It’s a revealing- and disturbing- statement. A notoriously unethical businessman, a lifelong bully, a self-confessed serial molester of women who has been accused by one of them of having raped her as at a Jeffrey Epstein orgy when she was 13 (and has an eye-witness to the event), who is a serial adulterer, an apologist for racism and bigotry who continues to lie about having been cheated out of a second term, and above all the most prolific liar, slanderer, and libeler in the history of American politics is virtually the antithesis of the values of Jesus. Yet he claims to be a devout Christian. He is hardly a paragon of authenticity, and the fact that so many conservative Christians miss that point is, one might say, a scandal of biblical proportions.

What does it say to those outside the Church when those inside it praise the “authenticity” of such a man? To be blunt, the fact that they can both praise his “authenticity” and support him casts Jesus Christ and the Gospel in a bad light indeed. As a conservative Christian myself, I have to wonder how many souls will be lost because of “evangelical” support of Donald Trump. Beyond that, it suggests that a great many American Christians may be confusing a deal with the devil- a blind eye to evil in exchange for political power and support for a political agenda aimed at winning its victories by legal compulsion rather than the changing of hearts- with the advancement of the Kingdom of God.

Martin Luther, in commenting on the corruption of the medieval Church and its mistreatment of the Jews, wrote early in his career that if he were a Jew, he would rather be a pig than a Christian. It’s time contemporary American Christians began asking themselves what message they are sending the people whose primary mission is supposed to be the spreading of the Gospel when they can give the “authenticity” of such a man as their reason for supporting him.

Or are the negative things what Vanderplaats means by Trump’s “demeanor?” Strange term to use for established personality characteristics. And strange personality characteristics for a politician so strongly favored by “evangelical” Christians!