Catechism Highlights, Pt 2

I almost forgot to do this! There are a lot of questions to cover, so I may miss some that caught my eye.

105. What is the Christian's proper response to theories of evolution regarding the beginning of the world?

The catechism's way of addressing the issue of evolution is pretty fideistic. It essentially says "The Bible speaks of a young Earth, so that must be true!" It also calls evolutionary theories "scientifically unverifiable."

This implies the LCMS holds to a Young Earth Creationism (YEC) understanding of the world - a literal seven days of creation, with the universe being around 6,000 years old. Although I once held to YEC I now consider myself an Old Earth Creationist (OEC). I accept scientific aging of the universe at about 13.7 billion years old, as well as a very old Earth and evolution. This is due to me mostly being an evidentialist - I go where the evidence takes me. Up until now I haven't seen very much evidence pointing to the viability of a young Earth. I see YEC/OEC as a doctrine of secondary importance, so I don't mention it often nor do I try to persuade others' stance on it.

107. Do people still have the image of God?

According to the catechism, we don't bear the image of God anymore because of sin. We are not the image-bearers that many people like to tell us. By accepting Jesus the image is rebuilt in us but won't be fully completed until after the end of this age.

108. How does the universe still depend on God? and 110. What does God do to take care of me?

One of the questions I've been wondering is, how active is God in my daily life? Or in general, just how much involvement does he have? Does he oversee and care for every single detail, or does he let us decide how the paths of our lives will go? The answers to 108 and 110 suggest that God sustains the physical world (by digging a bit into the grammar of the Greek it seems to be a passive thing) and he provides for and defends his followers. In his foreknowledge, God established the universe in a way that, through natural occurrences and human action, that his will would be done.

140. Has Christ redeemed only you?

A shock to my system: Christ has redeemed everyone, not just believers. This notion, called universal atonement, is a bit foreign to me. I suppose while everyone is redeemed, not everyone is saved because they lack faith.

213. For what do we pray in the Second Petition?

The Second Petition is the line "Your kingdom come" in the Lord's Prayer. I have long thought this was a petition for God to bring the end time sooner. Under Lutheran teaching, God's kingdom is already present. So in saying this we ask that the already present kingdom may be further edified.

215. What is the good and gracious will of God?

Christians today seem to obsess over knowing what God's will for their lives is. Who do they marry? What country should they be a missionary in? What should be their major in college? There are books and sermons on discerning God's will, even though he has shown himself generally tight-lipped in talking about it until we need to know.

The answer to this question is nicely summed in three phrases: obedience, evangelism, and proper instruction. How the specifics are worked out are left to God and man's free will.

218. How is God's will done in our lives?

Answer: when God defeats plans which oppose his, keeps us following godly behaviors, and supports us throughout our lives.

226. What does God want us to do for those who sin against us?

The answer to this is a real challenge for me to carry out. We are to forgive them and do good to them.

249. If Christ has already won forgiveness and salvation for us and gives us all this by grace alone, why do we still need baptism?

Apparently I'm not the first one who thought saying Jesus alone saves, but then adding baptism, seemed wonky. This is the closest the catechism came to answering the objection I had to Lutheran doctrine. Jesus alone saves, but it's distributed in baptism. I am not entirely sure this satisfies my objection.

269. What special authority has Christ given to His church on Earth?

This introduces a doctrine called the Office of the Keys. Honestly it's something I could devote an entire blog post to. In short, ministers can withhold divine forgiveness from unrepentant people, and it will be as effective as if God himself were denying them forgiveness. It is a bit weird but also understandable. Pastors work in the place of Christ and act on his authority.

292. Do all communicants receive the body and blood in the Sacrament, whether or not they believe?

I wonder how this applies not toward unbelievers, but those churches that don't believe the wine (or grape juice) and bread really are the body and blood of Jesus. It would appear that they still really are taking Jesus's body and blood, even though their official doctrine says it's just symbolic.

One to Another

Tomorrow I will most likely be finishing my reading of the Small Catechism. Eventually I will try to get a post up with the thoughts I had on the remaining questions I read in the explanation of the catechism.

I have already picked what I want to read up on next. Coming from an Assemblies of God church, I have been taught a more literal, millenialist teaching of Revelation with a focus on a pre-tribulation Rapture. Lutherans don't hold to a literal reading of Revelation. The book was mentioned in discussion the other day and it made me curious. I looked up a study on Revelation and found this one. I'll go through it over the course of a couple weeks or so, just depending on how I pace myself. It will be really neat to get an understand of Revelation that pre-dates what I was taught originally.

Catechism Highlights, Pt. 1

Here are a few things I've read in the explanation to the Small Catechism that I've found interesting.

4. What is the key to the correct understanding of the Bible?

The answer indicates that the core to meaning the Bible is Jesus. In other words, whatever is read must be understood in light of the death and resurrection of Jesus. In some things this may be hard to notice. Parts of the Old Testament gain new meaning when you factor Jesus into the equation. Often I am inclined to read the books of the Bible as separate works with different genres. But they are unified through the message of Jesus.

5. How is human reason to be used in understanding Holy Scriptures?

The thing that interests me is how the answer indicates that it's OK to use reason when trying to understand the Bible (including philosophy), but it has to be subject to the Holy Spirit. This is another strike against the claim of fideism I've put on Lutheranism in general.

36. Does God require us to observe the Sabbath and other holy days of the Old Testament?

This is one of the more radical things I've read thus far. Radical in the sense that the answer indicates we as Christians are not required to pick a day to observe as a Sabbath. Rather, Jesus Christ is our Sabbath, our rest (Matt. 11:28, Matt 12:8, Col. 2:16-17, Heb. 4:9-10). Through Jesus Christ we have a perpetual, constant Sabbath rest even if we're not physically relaxing.

37. Does God require the church to worship together on any specific days?

The answer here is that while God does command us to worship together, there is no day we're required to meet up on. Most Christians have church on Sundays. Seventh Day Adventists prefer Saturdays. There is no set date for it. Indeed I have seen instances of churches holding services on Sunday, but also Wednesdays and Saturdays. Sunday is the normal day of worship mainly because that's the day Jesus was resurrected on.

53. Does anyone have authority to take another person's life?

I was surprised at this answer. The catechism says "yes" - lawful governments are authorized to execute criminals and fight just wars, which include taking lives.

56. What does God forbid in the Sixth Commandment?

Divorce is unacceptable except in cases of marital unfaithfulness. This includes adultery, but also desertion. From the Bible verse used to support the desertion parts it seems to imply the deserting member is an unbeliever. Maybe it's also expanded to believers as well. I'm a little surprised abuse is never considered a reason for divorce. I personally would not bat an eye over that being a reason people get divorced, because it strikes me as completely out of God's will for someone to remain with an abusive partner.

71. What does God mean when He threatens to punish the children for the sin of the father to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Him?

It seems Martin Luther didn't realize that the above statement wasn't meant to literally mean punishment for sin would extend to one's children. He cites Ezekiel 18:20 saying that sons will not be punished for their fathers' sins. The statement the question addresses, if I recall correctly, is a reference to how the gods of the neighboring nations actually would place a generational punishment like this. By mentioning it, God speaks of how powerful he is. It is a sort of metaphor which speaks of God's sovereignty.

80.  How many kinds of sin are there?

The catechism mentions two types of sin: original sin and actual sin. Actual sin is the stuff we do, and nobody seems to deny it's there. Original sin states we are wholly corrupted due to the first sin ever committed by Adam and Eve. I know this is something not everyone agrees with, although I haven't really focused much on it.

Reading Through the Small Catechism

As I mentioned a couple months ago, I went through the membership class for the LCMS and received a copy of the Small Catechism. It came in a small book with a blue cover. At least, I think it's blue - I'm colorblind so I might be wrong. After the Small Catechism, the book goes through the various parts of the catechism and addresses some 300 questions about the various parts of it.

I have this thing where I get a little bothered by people not knowing what they believe or why. So imagine the plank in my eye when I realized that even though I called myself a member of the LCMS church, I really did not have an expansive understanding of what it teaches! So recently I have committed myself to reading 5-10 of the questions in the explanation of the Small Catechism on a daily basis. Overall it should take me a month or two to finish.

While there is a lot of information that I'm processing, and much of it stuff I already figured out, every now and then I'm running across something that stands out as a "Hmm, that's kind of cool" thing. I may end up writing a post about these as I find them.

More about Music

It's been a couple months since I last mentioned music on here, but in the time my opinion hasn't really changed. I've noticed traditional Lutheran worship to be very, very musical. It's not just the hymns. It's also the traditional songs with fancy Latin names which are tripping me up.

Something I have come to realize is that I will probably never really enjoy a traditional service. The first time I participated in one, it was a very cool experience. I felt like I had been teleported back into the Middle Ages, hearing the organ being used to indicate to the congregation where to start and stop a song, move to the next segment of the service, and so on. But having spent the past summer in that kind of service I can honestly say... it's really not the thing for me.

Liturgical music like the Gloria In Excelsis, Kyrie, or Sanctus have proven very hard for me to learn. That's because they were each written at least a thousand years ago. Gloria In Excelsis dates to the AD 300s. The age doesn't bother me as much as the extreme lack of rhythm. I'm no musical expert, but these songs were clearly written in a different setting than a modern Western society. Evidently what passed as good musical composition was unlike the tastes of today. I've tried listening to a couple in their original Latin texts, and even then I was underwhelmed.

Hymns are a bit more tolerable because at least they have a more consistent flow. But I guess you could say they lack energy behind them. By and large the songs sound flat to me. A couple of them throw in catchy inflections of the tone but the rest are rather... bland.

Honestly, sometimes I have to remind myself that God accepts any style of singing intended to worship him. Because I wouldn't be terribly impressed if I were in his place. It also surprises the heck out of me that I've come across people in my age range who actually prefer this style of service.

Don't mistake this as me judging the traditional type of service, or those who enjoy it. To each his or her own. But I guess that after being fed a steady diet of rock and pop, hymns on an organ really don't stir me. I find these kinds of things too hard to learn. I don't mind singing in church (you can thank my four years in the Assemblies of God for that!) but most tunes are really hard for me to catch on to.

I strongly prefer a contemporary style of service. Mainly because we're not spending ten minutes singing the same ancient songs that we've going over hundreds of times. Also because there are - gasp - guitars used! That said, I don't have a problem with traditional liturgical songs popping in to the contemporary service every now and then. I guess I just object to the idea that every other part of a service needs to be sung with an organ.

Confirmation.rar

A couple months ago, the pastor of my home church offered to teach me the basics of the Lutheran doctrine needed to be considered worthy of taking Communion. I kind of let the offer slide because it would be one-on-one and I find such situations quite awkward. But one thing led to another and we ended up arranging a set of three meetings, where he would teach me the proper material.

Perhaps because he saw that I already knew a lot of the stuff, he ended up going over the stuff more quickly than he would with a Confirmation class. The whole thing took about four hours over the course of three meetings. At the last meeting he gave me a small book containing the Small Catechism and expansive explanations of the various parts.

It impressed me just how much the Lutheran church wants you to know before you can take Communion. For a denomination that comes off as fideistic to me, they sure expect you to know quite a bit! When I wanted to get membership in the Assemblies of God I was simply given a small paperback book explaining their main doctrinal points. But to get into the Lutheran church you need to know the Ten Commandments, the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, as well as understanding of baptism, Communion, and confession. That's pretty intense, and I daresay thoroughly Biblical. In a couple weeks I will be making an affirmation of faith, but even before then I think I'm now "qualified" to take part in Communion in the LCMS.

Impressed

The LCMS has impressed me recently, in two ways.

First: last Sunday was the first Sunday after Independence Day (4th of July). As expected, there was some mention of America and the freedom we have therein. But our pastor started off with some pretty clear-cut words. His words were essentially, "We are blessed to be in America, although the nation has declined morally and deviated from the Constitution."

Wow. That's bold to say in this day and age. I agree on both accounts, of course, but a pastor saying that requires some real gall. It's all too easy to lose congregants for speaking truth. I value and admire any pastor who would be willing to speak an inconvenient truth such as that.

Second: I am pleased as to how thoroughly scriptural Lutheran theology is. I've seen how other denominations have needed to input their own understandings or interpretations to get their particular beliefs. Then I read instructional material given by a Lutheran church and, my goodness, the stuff is referenced and cross-referenced every which way. They also have the backing of history, a second way of validating their beliefs. All told, I can feel confident that what I'm being taught is indeed sound doctrine.

Personal Relationship? Yes and No.

About a month ago I posted on the LCMS's Facebook page asking what the synod believed about a couple popular concepts in Christianity today were. One of the things I asked about was whether or not the notion of a "personal relationship with God" was Biblical. In the past I thought it was, but when I started questioning it, the evidence seemed to lean the other way.

I was surprised to receive my answer from the LCMS's Director of Worship, Rev. Will Weedon. I guess my questions were deep enough that they wanted someone high up in the administrative hierarchy to address it. His answer was a "Yes and no" sort of response. He was clear that we do have a personal relationship, but perhaps not in the sense that people like to think of it as.

The way I understand it, when there is talk of a personal relationship with God, it's sort of an informal friendship kind of thing. Phrases like "Jesus is my homeboy" or, as 13 year old girls struggling with being alone say, "Jesus is my boyfriend." This kind of mentality makes Jesus Christ the kind of person you'd go to the bar and have a beer with. A sort of buddy-buddy with God kind of thing. Then there is the notion that if you're sufficiently on fire for God, that he will routinely speak to you.

As Rev. Weedon explained, the kind of relationship we have with God isn't a buddy-buddy kind, but rather a Father-child one. We are entitled to come boldly before God and ask for what we need, and confide our troubles in him. We are also called to be obedient to God, and can trust that he will be faithful and trustworthy to us. Does this entail that God will give us divine revelations every other day? Probably not. Indeed we may not "hear" from God very often. But that is alright - we have all we need to hear from God in the Bible. The truth that may be tough for some to read seems to be that God is not our buddy but he is our Abba Father. Let's not trivialize it by making him our drinking buddy.

Lectionary & The Holy Spirit

It seems that most denominations use lectionaries in there services. A lectionary is a sort of schedule of verses to be used on a given Sunday. The churches I attend seem to use three-year lectionaries. I don't think that the lectionary ends up quoting every piece of the Bible, but instead covers the main points.

To the best of my knowledge, neither of the AG churches I attended had any sort of lectionaries for there Bible readings. Certainly we were encouraged to use reading plans - lectionaries in and of themselves - for our personal devotional time, but typically the chosen reading for the worship service wasn't as planned out. I went to two AG churches. The first one's pastor was more methodical, choosing a book and going through it in a structured fashion. The second one's pastor went with what he felt the Holy Spirit leading him to, meaning we might go anywhere in the Bible.

The LCMS uses the Revised Common Lectionary, which was produced in the early 90s. I haven't been involved with Lutheranism long enough to really have a "feel" for it or anything.

There is something inside me that questions the use of a lectionary. Remember, these things pre-plan the Bible verses used for sermons, and may very well be used for decades or centuries, without variation. Does this stop the Holy Spirit from working as he would like? Is it possible that God may intend for a pastor to speak to his congregation about one topic, but because that's not what the lectionary calls for, it doesn't happen? Or is it the case that, in his omniscience and omnipotence, God is able to use the lectionary and get his point across to the believers just by using this structured system? Does God want a lectionary to be used?

Honestly, I feel like God is able and willing to use lectionaries. Mainly because it's what's been done for thousands of years. Jews used lectionaries, as early as the time of Moses according to some. The Catholic church has used them for the entirety of its existence, and even Lutheran churches continue to use it. The way I see it, even if these don't give the Holy Spirit the kind of "free reign" seen in other types of churches, God can still work in peoples' lives through the passages prescribed for a given Sunday.

Preserving Truth

There are a couple things I've noticed about how services are carried out that kind of impress me.

First, it's how Christ-centric the service is. Jesus gets seriously emphasized in the structure of a typical Sunday service. It begins with confession and absolution, which reminds us of our sinful nature and how Jesus has won forgiveness for us. Instead of just one part of Scripture being read, as I have seen to happen in the Pentecostal and Baptist churches, there are three sections read including a part of a Gospel - ensuring that Jesus will somehow be mentioned. Sermons vary in content but invariably speak of Christ. The creeds, whatever may be spoken, talk of Jesus and his actions. Communion is seen as a time where the bread and wine take on the essence of Jesus's body and blood (that's another post in and of itself right there). And it goes on. If it were of any question at first of who the service was about, a person would see quickly it's about Jesus.

Second, it's how the order of actions in the service are designed to preserve truth. There is a lot more that goes on in a Lutheran service than in, say, Pentecostal or Baptist. For those kinds of churches it seems to generally be something like: opening hymn, prayer, greeting, worship, sermon, benediction, and closing hymn. The sermon tends to take up the largest chunk of time. In the Lutheran church there are many more things which don't change - confession, absolution, the creeds, the Lord's Prayer, Communion, and the standard songs if it's a traditional service. I think these unchanging parts are pretty important, because they prevent theology from being changed wrongly. The preacher might accidentally or intentionally try to include false teachings into their sermons but the stuff that's around in every service will make sure no major doctrine is distorted.

What Are The Lyrics, Again?

Martin Luther held music in high regard. He is quoted as saying that second to the Word of God, music is one of the best and most powerful things out there. In a traditional Lutheran service you are bound to find a lot of music being used.

Such is the nature of my home church. There is a whole lot of singing done in the service, be it hymns or things with strange Latin names - the Kyrie, Nunc dimittis, Sanctus, and so on. Even the word "Amen" is sung. Personally I don't mind this, since singing is strongly present throughout Christian history, and I would imagine there was plenty of it in ancient Judaism.

The hymnals contain something like 650 songs, and each week we seem to use different songs. Then there are the ones which are considered normal parts of the service. Trying to learn how to sing all these songs is quite the hassle. I know how many beats a half note or full note with the dot next to it lasts, but otherwise I never learned how to read music. I couldn't tell you what a C flat or a G sharp sounds like. I don't know what octave I sing in. I learn music by listening to it repeatedly and getting a feel for the tune and lyrics. The hymns are easier to learn since they at least have a repeating rhythm, even though they don't normally rhyme too well. It's the Kyrie or Sanctus that gets me - they have no obvious rhythm. Of course they were also made centuries ago, in a totally different culture where tastes in music were different.

Right now, I don't really chime in with the singing. Or if I do, it's really, really crappy singing because I barely understand the tune. And I've yet to hear the same hymn twice. Getting a feel for the musical aspect is something that I will need to get used to. I'll probably just take it one thing at a time, learning one then moving on to the other.

Closer to Truth

Ever since my crisis of faith in the latter half of 2011, where I bordered on agnosticism, I've had an incessant passion to find religious truth. I know that there is a God - personal experiences and reason make it clear to me. The God of the universe is the God of the Jews and Christians. But the specific manner of Christian practice is something I have been uncertain about for a long time.

This desire to find religious, doctrinal truth is part of what led me from the Pentecostal church to the Lutheran church. (Don't mistake such statements for hating against Pentecostals; they have just as much faith in God, perhaps more, as other types of Christians. But I don't think a lot of their doctrine is what was historically believed by the church.) Yet part of me feels... uncertain? Unconvinced?

Let's face it, Protestantism happened a long time after the age of the apostles. Two of the big names of the Protestant Reformation are Martin Luther and John Calvin. Both spoke of salvation by faith alone, but in different ways. How do I know Luther wasn't wrong? How do I know Calvin wasn't also wrong? What if sola fide is a man-made doctrine - one which excludes us from eternal salvation?

Eternal salvation is really all I care about. But Christians can't seem to agree who is saved. Many Protestants will say the Catholics aren't saved. Official Catholic doctrine seems to both say that Protestants are disconnected from Jesus thus unsaved, yet also says Protestants are able to be saved. Which side is right?

• Either the Catholics are right, and Protestants aren't saved.
• Either the Protestants are right, and the Catholics aren't saved.
• Either both are wrong, and both sides are saved.
• Either both are right, and non are saved.

My main concern, as a Protestant, is whether or not Protestants - despite our comparatively young theology - are saved. If I could be given an intellectual, theological confirmation that yes Protestants despite are varying theologies are saved, I would be satisfied. Right now I have not come across anything convincing, though.

Baptism, Communion & Forgiveness

My mind is perplexed again at the notion of the Sacraments and the fact they forgive sins. I wish to understand this, but right now I only have questions and speculation floating in my brain.

The understanding I have is that at baptism, our sins are forgiven. Whether or not that is called baptismal regeneration, I do not know. I would assume that baptism removes our sins past, present, and future. Yet Communion is also said to forgive our sins.

When I asked about this, I was told that even though our sins are forgiven at baptism, we still continue to sin - it's in our nature. Therefore we need to be continually forgiven of these additional sins we commit, and that's what Communion does.

I find that to be kind of redundant. So if before my baptism I committed a sin, then I got baptized, and I've had Communion 50 times, does that mean that sin has been forgiven 51 times? At first glance, that kind of doctrine seems like something Luther might have made in order to try and put some logic into the theology he was forming - remember, Luther was trying to implement sola fide. I wonder if this "re-forgiving" is also part of Catholic theology?

On the other hand, God is well known for doing stuff that doesn't make sense to us finite humans. And I suppose that if God wants to re-forgive a sin hundreds of times over the course of a lifetime, that is his prerogative. God can - and indeed will - do whatever he darn well pleases. Even if it strikes me as a bit... redundant.

Fideism

Fideism in Christianity is the belief that God cannot be found through reason. Faith and reason are somehow incompatible with each other. Evidence and logic are meaningless; you must simply accept God exists through faith. I think it's what might be called "blind faith."

I am not a fideist. Do I have faith God exists? Of course, otherwise I wouldn't bother with Christianity. But I don't think you cannot use reason as a way to find God. How you react - by putting your faith in him or rejecting him - is a matter of how you submit to the Holy Spirit. I think I'm what you'd call an evidentialist. I tend to only believe something if there's good reason (be it logic or evidence) behind it.

Martin Luther may or may not have been a fideist, but he sure did talk like one. The general thrust of his position seemed to be that because God is so incomprehensible to us humans, it is pointless to try to understand him through reason. He also said a couple other things that were outright anti-intellectual but I won't go into that.

Overall, it seems that fideism - this notion of "you can't use reason with God" - is part of Lutheran tradition. Interestingly enough, I also saw a lot of it in the Assemblies of God as its doctrines seems to focus on personal experiences and the power of the Holy Spirit. This to me sounds a lot like fideism. And in both types of churches, I appear to be the odd man out!

People say you can't prove God. To a degree that is correct, in the sense you can't prove God like a mathematical proof. Perhaps this is one reason for a fideistic belief. Nonetheless through philosophy and examining the evidence we have on hand, one can see many reasons to believe in God using our reason. From there we can put faith in God or reject him. I am a Christian but like the apostle Thomas I have a tendency to doubt things I find incredible. I have a skeptic's mind.

That said, sometimes I think perhaps a bit of fideism in my life might benefit me. I've heard it said that the Bible is simple enough an uneducated person could understand it but complex enough a person could spend his whole life studying it. I have a desire to learn and understand things. This isn't a bad thing but I wonder if it hasn't hindered my growth as a Christian. There are so many things believed in Christianity and I want to know which ones are actually right. It's partially this desire that led me to the Lutheran church in the first place. Something about believing false things is reprehensible to me.

This puts me in the unenviable position of never being quite sure. Not sure if this or that is true, and needing to investigate it further. What if I just said "You know what? X thing might be wrong but I don't know. I think I'll just go ahead and believe it until shown otherwise." What if I just accept what I hear without nitpicking at it? Honestly, I want to just believe Lutheran doctrine because they seem right. Maybe I would do well to just go ahead and accept the stuff. There are two reasons I think this. First, there is no way I will ever figure it all out. There are going to be errors in my beliefs no matter how much I study. It's part of being human and having a limited life span. Second, all that really matters is that I have faith in God. So what if I am wrong in some secondary issue? All God said we had to do to be saved was have faith in Jesus and be baptized. He posted no other requirements.

Tricky Lutheran Theology

Martin Luther really had his work cut out for him. He was trying to reform Catholic theology from a "faith plus works" belief to "faith alone" aka sola fide. Yet he also wanted to keep the power found in baptism, Communion, and other Sacraments. I imagine he also put himself in quite the pickle there!

The way Lutheran doctrine tries to balance all of these out was one of the main hindrances for me for becoming part of the Lutheran church. Lutherans say we are saved by faith alone. Yet baptism and Communion are considered acts that bring forgiveness of sin and grace. They even go so far as to say you aren't saved unless you're baptized! How does this not scream of faith plus works salvation?

I think Luther might have been the one who said it, but the reason it's not works-based is because in these things, the person receiving it isn't really doing anything. Granted the person is getting sprinkled with water (this form of baptism I do not think is the proper method) or is standing in line and eating the blood and wine, but the active agent is God.

The denomination does this strange thing where it turns Catholic doctrine on its head. In Christian lingo, a work is an act done to get salvation from God. We're the active agent in this. The reason things like baptism and Communion aren't works per Lutheran theology is because we aren't trying to get salvation by doing these things. Instead we are receiving grace and forgiveness. It's the opposite of a work. Luther didn't think we could do enough good works to merit our salvation, so a faith plus works-based salvation would mean nobody got to Heaven. This is of particular importance in baptism, where you aren't saved until you're baptized, during which you receive the Holy Spirit. You're not somehow taking salvation, but rather receiving it. (The exception is when you want to be baptized but die before you're able to. That's called baptism of desire and you'll still be accepted by God.) Also, the Sacraments have no effect if you don't have faith.

This, in my eyes, is very strange. Does it sound reasonable to me? Yes. But it's still kind of weird. Perhaps it's because it's an inversion of Catholic doctrine, which existed for over a thousand years beforehand. Or maybe it's more due to my past of attending churches that didn't think there was inherent power in baptism or Communion; they were just symbolic actions. For the most part, though, I do believe it. Although I still need to read up and study to figure out the details.

Feeling Close to God

It's hard for me to define what it means to feel close to God. Maybe it's a purely psychological thing. I guess when people say that they mean they're experiencing a feeling of God's attributes - his power, love, and so on. While I'm not normally one to act on feelings I have to admit, I feel closer to God in a Lutheran style service than any other I've been to.

During my stint in the Assemblies of God I heard and saw many things which could be considered supernatural: speaking in tongues, people falling slain in the Spirit, reports of miraculous healings, prophecies, exuberant worship and so on. You'd think I'd feel pretty darn close to God. But most of that stuff never actually happened to me, thus there wasn't much to go by.

But there's something about being in a Lutheran service that makes it feel like God is there. The architecture of the sanctuary with stained glasses and symbols all around. Pastors and others wearing special clothes which are themselves inundated with meaning. The format of the service which spans back into the ages with ancient creeds and customary prayers. Corporate confession to reminds us of the Law, and absolution to remind us of the grace we get through Jesus. It comes together to make for a more somber, reverent Sunday service.

From all that I get this impression of a God who is indeed Almighty, powerful, holy, righteous, and merciful. I am reminded of just how powerful and awe-inducing God is. Lutherans theology appears to say that during the service, Jesus is present among the people. While I don't necessarily feel like God is sitting next to me in the pews, I do leave the service with the impression of, "God was in that." Maybe that's part of what appeals to me.

Life Plans & Personal Relationships

Today was the Day of Pentecost, but instead of talking about the Holy Spirit or such things, our service was focused on something else. My home church has an elementary school and we celebrated the graduation of the eighth graders there. Instead of a sermon based off the readings for the day he spoke to them like the principle of a school would. I was fine with what most of what he said, although a couple things caught me off guard.

First he mentioned how "God has a plan for all of their lives." I hear this said a lot, but is it true? To an extent God has a general plan for everyone's life. His plan is for us to be obedient and faithful to him. But is there a specific plan laid out like a map before we are born? Now that I am not so sure of. The common Christian probably believes there's this detailed thing made for us that we need to try to find and follow. And maybe for key points in our lives, God wants us to do certain things. I've been called to ministry so I at least know a little bit of God's plan for me. But are there more specific things - like what college I should attend? Whether I'm meant to move to Washington state to work? If I should marry this woman or that woman or remain single? I'm in no position to say either way.

Second he talked about being "in relationship" with God. We need to be very careful with these words. A popular belief among Christians is that we have a relationship with God, not a religion. Formerly I believed this. But I've read things which would indicate it's a relatively new phenomena in Christianity, and perhaps not Biblical. (As you will quickly see, I am very skeptical when it comes to "new" stuff in Christianity. Why would God wait 2,000 years after the time of Jesus to add to our theology?) Sure God interacted directly with the prophets, apostles, and kings, but what about the common Christian? We have no reason to believe people had "personal relationships" with God unless I am missing something.

Introduction

I've thought about making a blog like this a few times now over the past couple of months, and I've decided to go for it. This is where I will talk about my questions and insights about Lutheranism. I don't expect it to be a very active blog but I do like having a medium to express what's on my mind.

I am a Christian. That is what I identify myself as primarily. Although my history as a Christian is short, it's rather flavorful. In December of 2007 I converted from atheism to Christianity. I wasn't a militant atheist - I respected what others believed and supported their right to do so. The reason for my atheism was that I had not been given any reason to believe otherwise. It was a documentary on the History Channel about the supposed 2012 apocalypse (I can't make this up!) that pushed me to faith.

From there I spent four years in the Assemblies of God. During the latter part of those years I made friends who were Southern Baptist and during the third and fourth year I would attend the Wednesday night youth group at their church on and off. I went to two AG churches. I was at the first one for one year and the other for three. I didn't feel comfortable with their style of worship, and I also started disagreeing with the doctrines. Thus I sought out to find a new type of church.

Before switching churches I had a deep crisis of faith where I teetered on agnosticism. When I was introduced to apologetics by a pastor, my faith was rebuilt. Apologetics also became a passion of mine which remains to today.

In my desire to find a new church I wanted a denomination that was older. The Assemblies of God are vibrant but also young - early 1900s. I felt that an older denomination would be more connected doctrinally with the early Christian church. Because I disagree with the Catholic "faith plus works" theology as well as non-essential practices like asking the deceased to intercede for us, veneration of Mary, and elevation of tradition with the Bible, I didn't want to go to that kind of church. The next oldest was Lutheranism.

During my studies of Lutheranism I found that the denomination as a whole is split into a great many branches called synods. They could be classified broadly as being confessional, moderate, and evangelical. Confessional Lutherans are theologically conservative, while evangelicals are more theologically liberal. Being a theologically conservative person, I wanted a church type that would fit me.

What I found was the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS). It's one of the biggest synods in America and is confessional in nature. Long story short, I've come to really enjoy it and I hope to stick around in it for life. I still don't understand a lot of their beliefs, nor do I agree with all of it. I call this site The Lutheran Noob because that's what I am when it comes to Lutheran doctrine and style - a noob. But I'm willing to learn.