Sanctification...it's NOT a Bad Word!

Sanctification. It is a word that often scares Lutherans, yet many Lutherans don't even know what it means! Sanctification is an event, not a process. We spent a few minutes discussing this as an aside during my theology class today. Usually, we look at sanctification as the process of becoming holy or righteous. In reality, the earliest church fathers and even Martin Luther understood the sanctification of Christians as ocurring in Holy Baptism.

To be sanctified is to be cleaned. In the Old Testament, Israel couldn't keep the spoils of a war victory until they were cleaned. Items would be run through fire to sanctify them. If they couldn't be put through fire (i.e., clothing), they would be run through water. Sound familiar?

When we're Baptized, we're sanctified and the new reality that Jesus ushered in is a reality in which we then participate. This new reality is one of blessing all people in the name of Jesus Christ and to live a life of forgiveness. Failure to forgive and to live in this new reality (sin) means that we are denying the power of God; that is, we essentially say that the sin of the other against us is more powerful than God's ability to forgive. If we don't forgive, we make the claim that God cannot forgive. Logically we know this to be untrue. Thus, to be baptized and to live a life wherein we do not forgive and live in the new reality, we are living in unrationality.

We're already sanctified and therefore free to live in that new reality. Or not. So, what are the consequences of deciding to not live in that new reality? Something to ponder...

Heresy, Hysteria & Hyper-apocalypticism

It's been awhile, but I'm back now. Many things have been going on in my life the last several weeks. My last grandparent, my paternal grandmother, died the 3rd of this month and we were fortunate enough to be near her when that happened. But that's not the focus of this post.

There's a guy who has been coming to our men's weekly Bible study of late. Nice enough fellow, but he kind of gets under my skin. We're doing a study on Isaiah, so obviously there are many potential pitfalls. He seems to be an apocalypticist of sorts; that is, he views Isaiah through the lens of it is referring to events happening today or about to happen and which, when coupled with Revelation, point to the end of the world and the second coming of Christ. Along with this, he seems to be a Zionist of some sort - very big on modern Israel and how we need to watch our backs and ally ourselves (the United States) with them because if we don't, we're going down with all their other enemies. Wow.

I, being in a pastoral role of sorts as an intern, have remained pretty quiet about it, as I don't want to be confrontational. But I'm wondering if I need to be somewhat confrontational. If we get into discussions on missions and ministry, his take is one of looking out specifically for the Israelis first and others second, if at all. Is this type of teaching harmful for individuals and for the church? Or, is it just good enough that he's involved in a Bible study and who knows what will happen?

Technically, I can't dispute a couple of things he says. Chiefly, that we are, in fact, in the end times...insofar as Jesus birth 2,000 years ago marked the beginning of the end times (the breaking in of the kingdom of God); see Hebrews 1:1-2. Also, it is important to remember our Jewish roots and to recognize that we do have a sort of kinship with Jews. But if there's a line that is being crossed, where exactly is it? Why does this fellow bother me so? Ideas?

Is Acceptance Antinomianism?

Antinomianism: big word, short meaning. It means simply anti-law. It's a heretical Christian movement that has popped up many times in 2,000 years in various forms. It basically holds that there is no effect of sin because Jesus died for me; the logical result being something like 'thus, I can do whatever because my sins are already forgiven.' In short, it's a cheap-grace movement. The reason I'm bringing this up is because of a series of conversations I've been having at Bible studies and with my internship supervisor about seemingly different topics, but which are converging within the expanse that is my mind.

First, my supervisor and I have had conversations about the difference between acceptance theology and redemption theology. There is a concern among some pastors in the ELCA and other denominations that blind acceptance of everyone without being critical or at least remindful of their sins negates the answer to the question 'why did Jesus have to die?' (The answer, of course, is because of the state of sin in which we live and our own individual sins). If we don't do a decent job of acknowledging sins when welcoming people, the argument goes, than we're rendering Jesus' death meaningless. In other words, if our sins aren't something to be fully aware of and reminded of daily with an urge toward repentance, than there's no reason for Jesus to have been alive, let alone crucified.

Second, I was reading through the Epistle of Jude with a Bible study group last night and we learned that much of it was written in response to early Christian leaders teaching antinomianism. These leaders would openly swap wives, participate in orgies, get drunk on a regular basis and engage in other forms of "licentiousness" as Jude describes it in sum.

So, I got to thinking about it and began to wonder if blind acceptance of everyone without being critical of their sins is akin to antinomianism or cheap grace. I tend to think that it is, but what do you think?

Another Stewardship Sermon?!

This probably isn't a huge revelation for most of us, but I felt compelled to share anyway. We in the church talk alot about stewardship and money. Often, we hear that money (or the love of it) is the root of all evil. We try to focus our listeners on trying to make sure we give to the church and people in need. But we rarely talk about it as a matter of doing that first. That is, we don't encourage people to make their stewardship contribution the first check that they write each month or payday. Rather, I think we ourselves often get caught up in some notion of using "leftovers" for the church. Even if we acknowledge that people ought to contribute as the first thing they do with newly acquired money, we tend to be OK with just settling for what the church can get. Stewardship, I believe, is counter-cultural. We spend our entire lives in this country being taught to look out for ourselves first: buy lots of stuff now to "compete" with the Joneses and try to save for retirement. That's all fine and good, but along with that is tied a notion that giving to the church or a charity is to be secondary, tertiary or worse. It seems to me that all too often, we simply stand back and allow people to just give using what's left: "take care of yourself and your family first, then come to the church." We do this instead of pointing out that we are obligated to give back to God first, and that we can trust God will provide what we need out of what is left. I don't know if it's fear, a defense mechanism or simple idolatry, but whatever we call it, it's not putting our full trust in God. In short, it's sin because we are denying God to take care of us and telling him to "shove off because I can take care of myself; then I will give you some later to take care of others."

In contrast to what we learn in this culture, we see in the Bible many stories of putting others first by giving to them. In the story of the rich young man (Matt 19:16-22; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 18:18-23), Jesus tells the man to sell his possessions and give to poor - even before the man is to follow Jesus! Again, in the story of the widow's mite (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4), Jesus praises the widow who gave the only 2 coins she had, compared with the other people who gave out of their abundance.

I know that in many respects this blog post is much the same thing we preach about and hear in sermons on Sunday; but I do think that too often we lose sight of the 'stewardship first' idea and we tend to settle for whatever the church can get because "at least they're giving something." Where's the redemption in that?