The old lady blogger

My New Year's resolutions are usually for one month--then I'm on to something else--perhaps it will be poetry? I may try to do Fly Lady for a month. I have a lot of things to throw out, and that's a good method.

In March 2007 I wrote this, "The Lady Blogger's Comforts" being lifted from Robert Southey's "The Old Man's Comforts." If you've read Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll does a parody of this, "Father William."

My version, The Lady Blogger's Comforts

You are old, Lady Blogger, the young man cried,
The brown locks which are left should be grey;
You are hale, Lady Blogger, a hearty old gal,
Now tell me the reason, I pray.

In my twenties thirties, Lady Blogger replied,
I remember'd that youth would fly fast,
And abused not my health and my vigour at first,
That I never might need them at last.

You are old, Lady Blogger, the young twit cried,
And pleasures with youth pass away;
And yet you lament not the days that are gone,
Now tell me the reason, I pray.

In my forties fifties, Lady Blogger replied,
I remember'd those days could not last;
I thought of the future, whatever I did,
That I never might grieve for the past.

You are old, Lady Blogger, the rude kid cried,
And life must be hastening away;
You are cheerful, and love to write about it all,
Now tell me the reason, I pray.

I am cheerful, young man, Lady Blogger replied,
Let the cause your attention engage;
In the days of my youth I remember'd my God
And he has not forgotten my age.

The notes say that Southey wrote "Old Man's Comfort" in 1799 at the age of 24. He died when he was 70.

A hand written copy of Southey's poem is in the Morgan Library and Museum, https://www.themorgan.org/exhibitions/online/alice/12 and our book club in January will be reading "The Personal Librarian," about a black woman passing for white who helped build that library, Belle da Costa Greene.

Faith, hope and love

 

Kathie Lee on Frank

“The light of faith” by Pope Francis

I was sent Pope Francis' "The light of faith" (Lumen Fidei) Ignatius Press, 2013, this summer to review. I pick it up occasionally and think, I really need to get into this. But I've found it not terribly readable--but then it's the first encyclical I've ever read. Beginning Oct. 2012, it was the year of faith for Roman Catholics. Pope Benedict had already written on charity and hope (Deus Caritas Est (2005) and Spe Salvi (2007) , and this was outlined as part of that trilogy, when he resigned in February. Francis calls it a work of 4 hands, and that it is, with Benedict's scholarly references to giants of the past, and Francis' sweetness in reaching out to the ordinary person in faith. I'll continue to dip in--and it's a small book about 5 x 7 with 110 pages. It still feels a little like an outline, but both of these great men know far more on the subject than I do, so it won't be wasted effort. I’ll keep working at it.

Pope Benedict “had almost completed a first draft of an encyclical on faith” before his retirement in February 2013, Pope Francis writes, adding that “I have taken up his fine work and added a few contributions of my own.”

Commentators are likely to differ in attributing specific passages, but the document clearly recalls the writings of Benedict XVI in its extensive treatment of the dialogue between faith and reason and its many citations of St Augustine, not to mention references to Friedrich Nietzsche and Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

On other hand, warnings of the dangers of idolatry, Gnosticism and Pharisaism, a closing prayer to Mary as the “perfect icon of faith”, and an entire section on the relevance of faith to earthly justice and peace echo themes that Pope Francis has already made signatures of his young pontificate.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/07/05/lumen-fidei-an-overview-of-pope-franciss-first-encyclical/

Lewison family faith

Listening to the local Catholic radio I hear many things that are unfamiliar, or I think were settled in the 16th century reformation--at least for those who began following the teachings of Luther and Calvin. Purgatory; Worship of Mary and the saints (and please don't tell me it's not "worship" because they are praying to them--I hear them); Obligations; Miracles at shrines; Indulgences. And so forth.

That said, it would seem that proper theology doesn't mean much. I heard this morning an amazing story of faith on Women of Grace hosted by Johnnette Benkovic, and whether it is Jesus, Mary, the saints or all combined, it is undergirding this family.

A woman, Mary Lewison, called the show I was listening to earlier in the year--February possibly--to discuss the death of her 18 year old son who was killed when his truck was hit by a train. The moderater had also lost a son, so the two had had a long talk on the air. This week the woman sent the moderator an article about the family to catch up, which Johnnette then read on the show this morning.

After the death of her 18 year old, 4 of the 5 surviving children in the family were in two different automobile accidents, 2 serious enough to be hospitalized. Then the woman's husband had a heart attack when he was in a different state, and got to the ER within minutes of death--the doctor called it a "widow-maker," and she became his care-giver; when she thought nothing else could happen to her family, the woman was fired from her job for missing so much work during her husband's 4 month recovery!

She has not lost her faith in Jesus. Broadcast is here for December 21, 2011.

Just which religion does Obama profess?

Why do the MSM persist in blaming the right for suspicion about Obama’s religion? He reported his Muslim background in his books (father, step-father, extended family, siblings), he‘s the one who is soft on Islamic terrorism and praises Muslims' intentions. The MSM reporters and talking heads (like Carville) are the ones bringing it up--"it continues to haunt the President" says this morning's ABC story. Like this NYT op-ed by Edward N. Luttwak in May 2008. I've always thought he was in far more danger from Muslim fanatics for his conversion to Christianity than he was from any "persistent rumors" from the right. Muslims in modern times have a long history of killing aspostates and infidels.

"As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant.

Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.

His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).

With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings. (Some may point to cases in which lesser punishments were ordered — as with some Egyptian intellectuals who have been punished for writings that were construed as apostasy — but those were really instances of supposed heresy, not explicitly declared apostasy as in Senator Obama’s case.)"

I’ve read Obama’s Christian testimony, published when he was running for Senate. In his conversion story he has praised at various times two very anti-American, anti-mainstream Christian pastors, one Catholic and one UCC, as his spiritual mentors and close friends. No one should be surprised that with his own words and behaviors and close associates, many Americans now believe he is if not a closet Muslim, at least not a Christian that most would recognize.


President Apostate? - New York Times

Obama and Faith based organizations

For once I agree with the ACLU, although for different reasons. Christians should not be fooled. This is a deal of Faustian proportions. And we were losing at this one under the Bushes and Clinton. What's different now is Obama has promised to restrict our religious freedoms, and I believe it’s a campaign promise he will keep--most likely through a faith czar so he won’t have to take the heat. Don't let the prayer breakfast fool you.

“President Barack Obama's willingness to keep Bush-era policies on government-backed religious charities opposed by many liberals is helping to woo traditionally Republican evangelical leaders who can influence key blocs of voters.

The approach, according to conservative leaders and liberal critics alike, is part of a broader strategy by Mr. Obama and fellow Democrats to regain credibility with centrist and conservative voters who tend to be more religious and have supported the GOP in recent polls and elections.” WSJ story

After churches have been weakened by accepting government money for everything from summer lunch programs for children to housing renovations in declining neighborhoods to work release programs for prisoners, they are at risk of having their "missions" dictated or coming to a screeching halt at the whim of a government bureaucrat.

We do not worship good works. Even successful ones. Leave that one for the people who have a heart for social programming and no faith in Jesus. We worship Jesus. Not an idea. Not an -ism. Not a government program. When the government can tell you where and whom and how you can evangelize, it's time to stop the grant writing, send the volunteers home and to get back in the business of telling the good news. Jesus never took tax money to feed the poor or to provide a job. Churches shouldn't either. He never robbed Peter to pay Paul. If he had, Peter probably would have gone to his grave denying him instead of founding the church.

"You should grasp Christ, his words, works and sufferings in a twofold manner. First as an example that is presented to you which you should follow and imitate. . . However this is the smallest part of the gospel, on the basis of which it cannot yet even be called gospel. For on this level Christ is of no more help to you than some other saint. . . before you take Christ as an example, you accept and recognize him as a gift, as a present that God has given you and that is your own. . . .when you have Christ as the foundation and chief blessing of your salvation, then the other part follows: that you take him as your example, giving yourself in service to your neighbor just as you see that Christ has given himself for you." Martin Luther

Churches provide millions of unpaid laborers in the form of "volunteers" to run these government programs. This is not the Gospel of Christ. This is not the harvest. By accepting grants from USDA, Dept of Labor, HHS, Dept of Ed. etc., the real figure for federal and state workers is kept artificially low. It is just government "out sourcing." It's time for churches to reread Matthew 25 and then rewrite their mission to the poor, sick, widowed and imprisoned.

Friday Family Photo and Memory

If you have old technology stashed away, it's a worry to preserve them if they contain irreplaceable information. Such is an audio cassette of a talk my mother gave on August 25 of either 1995 or 1996--both dates are hand written on the tape. I have contacted Advent Media to see if several items along with photographs and music could be transferred to a CD--but we know too that eventually it will become unusable. There's nothing like print on paper (or ink on scrolls) and black and white photos. Here's the story and the story it holds.

My mother and two other lay members of the Mt. Morris Church of the Brethren were asked to give a brief meditation--the sermon (as I wrote that I realized I could check Google on the date--yes, it was Aug. 25, 1996, my parents' 62nd wedding anniversary). Mother died in 2000, so it has been a long time since I heard her voice. This audio is amazingly accurate--it reproduces her voice exactly as it was in her 80s--it's just not the voice I like to recall. The theme they were to address was something about God in their lives, or God becoming real. I've forgotten exactly.

So, picture this tiny, white haired woman, known by all in the congregation and much respected for her good works and loving attitude, in an aqua blue or purple dress with heels walking to the podium. She announces first that she has no notes and has never told this story before (I had never heard it either). Then she takes the audience back to her childhood when her family was deeply immersed in their church (Franklin Grove Church of the Brethren) and attended twice on Sunday. She says she never doubted God's love, but they just weren't that close. He was off somewhere busy looking after people who didn't have her nice, secure, regulated life. Then she moves ahead 25 years to WWII when she was a very busy young mother of four very busy youngsters living on Hitt Street in Mt. Morris. Again, she reports our family had a comfortable life, and that the war was far away, hadn't really come to Mt. Morris despite the fact that almost all the men had gone to war (see War Record of Mt. Morris, Kable Bros., 1947--virtually every man under 40 was gone and even some WWI veterans had reenlisted). I don't think she noted that her husband, brother, four brothers-in-law plus numerous cousins of my father had enlisted.

Then she carefully described the drive-way our house shared with the Crowells, the garage and the house. Wooden boards provided an approach to the garage from the gravel drive-way that got muddy and slippery in the rain. She didn't describe the car, but I remember it--a 1939, 4 dr, blue Ford sedan--stick shift, of course (photo here). Since most of the congregation was 50 or over, she probably figured she didn't need to describe a clutch and gear shift.

She needed something at the store--she doesn't say what, but it must have been critical, because she left and came back quickly (very small town) leaving the children with the eldest in charge. As she approached the garage, she eased it carefully so as not to nick the siding on the house, and the car stalled on the slippery board ramp. She put it into reverse to back up and try again. The car wouldn't move. She tried again, and again, giving it a bit more gas, the rear wheels spinning. Finally, she got out to investigate and she found my little brother pushing with all his 3 year old strength, saying, "I'll help you Mommy!" She scooped him up in her arms, splattered head to toe with mud from the spinning tires, and placed him in the front seat, and put the car effortlessly in reverse, and drove up the slippery ramp. She says she was flooded with such a sense of joy and peace she never again doubted that God was close and watching. The incident also set aside her sense of absolute self-sufficiency and pride in being able to take care of anything.

She told the congregation she never shared the story because she knew others might doubt it or give a logical reason the reverse gear had failed and saved my brother's life, or even feel badly they hadn't had such an incident of protection when it was needed. So I suppose that's why she waited and treasured it privately, bringing it out like a precious jewel during difficult times when she wanted to know she and her family were secure in God's arms.

Somewhere in the talk she addressed her two great-granddaughters who know my brother as "Grandpa Rocky." So I don't know who else in the family was there that day--probably also my father and my niece, some of my aunts and uncles and my father's aunts and uncles--so this story is for all who weren't there. The photo is my brother, probably a year or two later, because he's wearing an outfit she made out of my father's WWII Marines camouflage issue.

Impatience with the messiah analogy

At first it was tongue in cheek--referring to Obama as "the messiah" during the campaign. After all, it was so far beyond the pale it made a point. And that ridiculous Soviet realism style art on the posters and buttons--glinting eye, jutting jaw. It all fit. A leftover from an era when God had been kicked out of the public square. But I'm tired of it. Yes. It disturbs me. I think he and his true-believer followers have internalized it at some very deep level of consciousness. We're not helping them clarify their thinking by repeating and cheapening the word messiah. So Christians particularly might just stop joking about it. 'Taint funny anymore, folks.

This morning I was reading a 100 year old sermon by G. Campbell Morgan on the resurrection with reference to Romans 1:4, the centerpiece of our faith, looking forward to the final resurrection of the saints. He says he dreams of unborn ages and new creations, and marvellous processions out of the being of God, through the risen Christ and the risen saints. Then he tells his congregation (in London) to go away rejoicing in the resurrection of Jesus because it is the message of a great confidence.

"He is King, Priest, Warrior, and Builder, and all the great relationships are linked to His resurrection because he demonstrated thereby as the Son of God.

His Kingship is an absolute monarchy. I have no anxiety about His reign. I believe in an absolute monarchy when we can find the right King. We have found Him.

As to His Prophetic mission, it is one of absolute authority. What He said is true. It cannot be gainsaid. All the words gathered from His tender lips, and printed here and preserved for us, are words which abide. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My word shall not pass away."

As to His Priesthood, the resurrection demonstrates its absolute sufficiency. Why do you grieve God by this perpetual grieving over sin, and the declaration that you cannot believe He can forgive you?

As to His triumph, He has broken in pieces the gates of brass. He has cut the bars of iron asunder. He has triumphed gloriously, and He will win His battle and build His city. Then so help me God, as He will permit me, I fain would share the travail that makes His Kingdom come, entering the fellowship of His sufferings, for all the while the light of His resurrection is upon the pathway, and I know that at the last, the things which He has made me suffer will be the things of the unending triumph."

That others have sneaked another name into those titles, responsibilities, and 3rd person pronouns is indeed a shame, but let's not encourage them.

Michael Crichton on religion

Remarks at the Commonwealth Club, September 15, 2003:

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
More here.

And that's why, he says, you can't talk anyone out of hard core environmentalism, of belief in global warming, because those are issues of faith. No one invested emotionally and financially in the faith wants the facts.

So I can tell you some facts. I know you haven't read any of what I am about to tell you in the newspaper, because newspapers literally don't report them.

I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn't give a damn.

I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%.

I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.

Obama and his bevy of tax evading advisors probably don't read Michael Crichton.

Reformation Sunday

We both forgot to wear red; looking around the 8:15 service I see many others did too. In the Cornerstone this week Pastor Eric Waters writes

"Because we were the first of the Protestant churches, many of our fellow Protestants look on us with suspicion as being "too Catholic." They point to our practice of infant baptism, belief that the bread and wine of Communion really is the Body and Blood of Jesus, and the recitation of the Creed as proof that we're still stuck in the superstition of the Middle Ages. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic church looks on our longer sermons, various liturgies, and disagreement with the Pope as proof that we went too far. In short, most of our fellow Christians look on us as neither fish nor fowl: too Catholic for some, too Protestant for others."

My husband was baptized as an infant (Presbyterian), and I was about 12 (Church of the Brethren). If you ever want to see a Lutheran pastor go pale in your adult confirmation/transfer class, just ask to be re baptized. On the other hand, there are Protestant churches that would want to do mine over, because they wouldn't trust the minister or denomination who presided at mine. Lutherans and Catholics see infant baptism as done by God, not by man, so Lutheran pastors don't do that. I think Luther himself gave a good explanation, because he really had more problems with the reformers (in my opinion) who came after him (he called them dolts and blockheads) than the Catholics and Humanists. To the argument that you don't remember your baptism, he replies

Were I to reject everything which I have not seen or heard, I would indeed not have much left, either of faith or love, either of spiritual or of temporal things

He asks the anabaptists. . . How do you know who your parents are. . .you don't remember your birth, so why should you honor your parents? Why should you obey the government if you haven't seen the leader. How do you know the apostles preached. If you can't believe anything you haven't seen, felt or experienced, says Luther, you're in the devil's pocket.

To the argument that you need to believe before baptism, Luther really works up steam

For if they follow this principle they cannot venture to baptize before they are certain that the one to be baptized believes. How and when can they ever know that for certain? Have they now become gods so that they can discern the hearts of men and know whether or not they believe? . . . You say that he confesses that he believes. Dear sir, confession is neither here nor there. The text does not say, "He who confesses," but "He who believes."

And how many times would you be rebaptized asks Luther. Each time you have a fresh sense of your faith, or after each doubt is put down.

So when next day the devil comes, his heart is filled with scruples and he says, Ah, now for the first time I feel I have the right faith, yesterday I don't think I truly believed. So I need to be baptized a third time, the second baptism not being of any avail. You think the devil can't do such things? You had better get to know him better. He can do worse than that, dear friend. He can go on and cast doubt on the third, and the fourth and so on incessantly. . . the end result? Baptizing without end. All this is nonsense. Neither the baptizer nor the baptized can base baptism on a certain faith. . .

Since our baptizing has been thus from the beginning of Christianity and the custom as been to baptize children, and since no one can prove with good reasons that they do not have faith, we should not make changes and build on such weak arguments. . .

When they say, "Children cannot believe," how can they be sure of that? Where is the Scripture by which they would prove it and on which would they build? They imagine this, I suppose, because children do not speak or have understanding. [goes on to tell the story of John and Jesus in their mothers wombs as an example that children can know and understand and believe]. . .What if all children in baptism not only were able to believe but believed as well as John in his mother's womb?

He gives another example from a betrothal and wedding where a girl marries reluctantly and without love then after 2 years, she loves her husband.

Would then a second engagement be required, a second wedding be celebrated as if she had not previously been a wife, so that the earlier betrothal and wedding were in vain?. . .

Rebaptism is relying on works, says Luther. God's Word is unchanging even if the person doing the baptism does not have faith.

The unchanging Word of God, once spoken in the first baptism, ever remains standing, so that afterwards they can come to faith in it, if they will, and the water with which they were baptized they can afterwards receive in faith, if they will. Even if they contradict the Word a hundred times, it still remains the Word spoken in the first baptism. Its power does not derive from the fact that it is repeated many times or is spoken anew, but from the fact that it was commanded once to be spoken.

You can read Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings ed. by Timothy Lull on-line.

Martin Luther's Definition of Faith

Luther was the most amazing writer. I wish I had a set of his works--as it is, I only have vols. 27 and 54, probably picked up at book sales, and his Small Catechism, plus a smattering of excerpts, like prayer books. Our church library set is now on the reference shelf; I used to be able to check out individual volumes, and of course, the local public library doesn't have them. Some of his works is available on-line, some in ascii and some in html (if you print for easier reading, the number of pages is about the same). However, if you want to understand modern western history, you really need to understand Luther.

In 1520 among the hundreds of other things he published were 4 titles which laid out reform of the medieval church as he understood it. I've printed out for the coffee shop today, "Concerning Christian Liberty," a quote from which heads the blog today (Sept. 24), although maybe not the day after tomorrow, since I change that often. In that document Luther writes that Christian freedom is genuine discipleship as the faithful way of following Christ. Essentially, in those 4 titles he called for the common priesthood of all believers, the rejection of the sacramental system, and removing ethics from a meritorious obligation to free love of neighbor in need--all points of which were clearly stated in Scripture, which is why he promoted translation into the vernacular (German, in his case). Here's his definition of faith:

Martin Luther's Definition of Faith:
An excerpt from
"An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans,"
Luther's German Bible of 1522
by Martin Luther, 1483-1546
Translated by Rev. Robert E. Smith
from DR. MARTIN LUTHER'S VERMISCHTE DEUTSCHE SCHRIFTEN.
Johann K. Irmischer, ed. Vol. 63
(Erlangen: Heyder and Zimmer, 1854), pp.124-125. [EA 63:124-125]
August 1994
Faith is not what some people think it is. Their human dream is a delusion. Because they observe that faith is not followed by good works or a better life, they fall into error, even though they speak and hear much about faith. "Faith is not enough," they say, "You must do good works, you must be pious to be saved." They think that, when you hear the gospel, you start working, creating by your own strength a thankful heart which says, "I believe." That is what they think true faith is. But, because this is a human idea, a dream, the heart never learns anything from it, so it does nothing and reform doesn't come from this "faith," either.

Instead, faith is God's work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, his faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever. He stumbles around and looks for faith and good works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are. Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many words.

Faith is a living, bold trust in God's grace, so certain of God's favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God's grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace. Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! Therefore, watch out for your own false ideas and guard against good-for-nothing gossips, who think they're smart enough to define faith and works, but really are the greatest of fools. Ask God to work faith in you, or you will remain forever without faith, no matter what you wish, say or can do.

_________________________________________

This text was translated for Project Wittenberg by Rev. Robert E. Smith and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments or suggestions to:

Rev. Robert E. Smith
Walther Library
Concordia Theological Seminary
E-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu
Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA
Phone: (260) 481-2123 Fax: (260) 481-2126

--------------------------------------------------
Note: It's nice to see this modern English translation by Rev. Smith. Much of what Luther wrote was in Latin, then translated into German, then into 19th or early 20th century English, so it gets a bit tough to slug through all that. It makes me conscious of all the parenthetical phrases and unnecessary asides I use in my writing. Also, it makes me appreciate the beauty of having the Bible in modern English, or any vernacular. After all, there are over 10 million Lutherans in Africa (more than North America), and many Lutheran missionaries have worked for years to carry Luther's dream of Scripture in the mother language to spread the gospel to the common man.**

In case you want to hop in and criticize me for not acknowledging Luther's flaws (he had many), or other denominational missionaries translating (there are thousands), you are free to write your own blog or web page. I can't do all of it!

-------------
** “Since Luther was a prolific writer it came about that he began to standardize the rather loose orthography and syntax within his Mittel Hoch Deutsch expression. Second, that product was not addressed solely to the nobility nor to a cloistered religious readership, but purposefully and directly to the common people. Inasmuch as the capacity of the printing presses at that time reached a broad public, the effect of Luther's standardization led eventually to a changed form of the German language which has been termed "ein frühes hoch Deutsch." “
Martin Luther’s German Writings

Faith and the American Presidency

How much do you know (or can you guess) about the American Presidents and their faith? This is a multiple choice quiz which gives you a better score than fill in the blank, which I would have flunked. As it is, I got 15 out of 20 correct. That's not a terrific score for someone who enjoys reading biographies of presidents.

4259

Why I never voted for Ronald Reagan

I was a Democrat in the 80s and 90s. Simple as that. Even though I grew up a few miles from his childhood home, and my dad played college football against him, he was just another aging movie star to me. I didn't appreciate him until he was long out of office. Bill Clinton did that for me. Sigh. Today I came across this Elizabeth Dole item written at his death, and thought it was appropriate as we think about the qualities we want in the next President.

Ronald Reagan knew why he wanted to be President—he came to office with the clearest of vision, a passion for achieving his goals, and in conveying them, an eloquence almost unsurpassed. Ronald Reagan made us…all of us, the American people, believe in ourselves again.

He literally changed the world. Despite conventional wisdom, he determined that Communism had to be defeated, not tolerated. He rejected the Iron Curtain, he rejected the status quo, and his legacy to the world is freedom. His strength of character and bedrock belief in right and wrong ended the Cold War, and his leadership unshackled the yoke of tyranny for millions upon millions of people who had known only oppression. . .

And you know one of the things that will really be an inspiration to me the rest of my life is a conversation I had with the President when the two of us were alone. We were waiting in a holding room for him to give a speech. And you don’t often find yourself alone with the President of the United States, but on this particular day we were waiting for a speech and I said, “Mr. President, I just can’t resist – I had to ask you – how in the world when you have the weight of the world on your shoulders are you able to be so gracious, so thoughtful, so kind? I never see you flustered or frustrated…how do you do it with such weight on your shoulders?” And he kind of leaned back – and he loved to tell a story and to reminiscence and he said, “Well, Elizabeth, when I was Governor of California it seemed like every day yet another disaster would be placed on my desk, and I had an urge to hand it to someone behind me and help me.” He said, “One day I realized I was looking in the wrong direction. I looked up instead of back.” And he said, “I’m still looking up. And I couldn’t go one more day in this office if I didn’t know I could ask God’s help and it would be given.”

Speaking as a former Democrat, I think Al Gore is much more presidential, experienced, honest and grounded than Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards (even though I think he's wrong on humans being able to control climate), and I hope the Democrats wake up and choose him. Also, I hope Republicans select someone strong enough to beat him.

4009

Have your interests changed over the years?

It's interesting to look back and see how our interests change over the years. It's really a fluke that my husband was willing to go 3 days last week without my good cooking and company at the lake house just so he could sail! And with other old guys who have been sailing most of their adult lives, too! In the fall of 2004 I won sailing lessons by entering my sugar-free apple pie in a fall festival at Lakeside. I had no interest in getting wet, so my husband decided to use the $65 award for lessons in summer 2005. It turns out he loves sailing and is good at it, although he had never shown any interest before. In a few weeks he is going to take the advanced course (same instructor).


I'd never heard of blogging until the fall of 2003, and now I have eleven blogs, and am totally out of control. But that's not such a big stretch. I'd always written essays and long letters to my family and friends, and in the 90s began writing fiction and poetry. Research and publication were a requirement for my job at Ohio State University Libraries. So blogging is just a different way to publish and chat without the pressure of a deadline or peer review. However, blogging was a bit of a fluke also in that I started because I didn't like the harassment on the Usenet groups.

My husband had been an exercise instructor at the downtown YMCA for many years when he was a partner in Feinknopf, Macioce and Schappa. When he became a sole practitioner with a home office, he joined an aerobics class at UALC, our church--the only guy. The women were mostly young moms, and they invited him to become a Bible School teacher which he did. He taught VBS for 13 years and found out that he loved teaching children. And now he leads the women's aerobics class, too.

For about 20 years I was totally consumed with my children's lives--feeding, teaching, health, values, friends, schooling, teen angst, various crises, and finally the dreaded empty nest when I had to find another focus. Then from 1986 it was my reconnection with a career, promotion and tenure, conferences, organizations, publication, etc.


Thirty years ago I would have never dreamed that topics like retirement, 401-k plans, osteoporosis, nutrition or exercise could become so interesting. My reading tastes have changed completely--in fact, on Thursday I think I'll tell you 13 things about JAMA.

There were other life changes too--moving from being a humanist liberal/Democrat to a conservative Christian/Democrat to a Christian/conservative, for instance. Spiritual and social changes really rearrange your activities and friendships. Some things never changed--I never believed in evolution even though I was taught nothing else from first grade through graduate school and could fake it in science and biology classes, and I've never believed abortion was a just solution for either mother or child. Unlike many conservatives, I think the culture's gone too far to outlaw either one regardless of incredulity or cruelty to the unborn. Those two issues are very political, yet I've not swerved on them from liberal to conservative.

As a liberal I would work for social issues because I believed I could change other people's behavior and morals and make a better society. Liberals have an incredible smugness about their own power. (Living with teen-agers changed that closely held belief.) As a conservative, I no longer believe that, but am often involved in the same activities just because it is the right and Christian thing to do. Matthew 25 commands followers of Jesus to visit the sick and imprisoned and to feed and clothe the poor, not to change human society, but because those people are Jesus in the flesh.

"And when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?" And the King will answer and say to them [on his right], "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me." And He will also say to those on His left, "Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me." (NASB)

As a liberal I had no hope or good news to offer anyone except maybe training for a job, or a Sunday visit during a prison term, or holding their hand as they died. Really temporal, cultural stuff. Not much in the scope of things is it? Not that conservative Christians are always politically conservative (I wasn't for a long time), or even that they do what Jesus explicitly commanded. However, study after study have shown that a solid belief in the work of Jesus on the cross on our behalf creates a much more generous and open spirit, than a socialist or humanist mentality, which seems to create more turmoil, dissension and a stingy spirit. But even if the research and polls didn't say that, he will know a sheep from a goat (Matt. 25:32-33), and I want to be sure that the good news comes first.

3979

Upkeep for the Joneses

One of the cottages I passed on my walk yesterday had the name, "Upkeep for the Joneses." Here at Lakeside, many people give their cottage a name, and it sometimes is passed along to the new owner. Ours doesn't have a name, but we tell people we live in the Thompson cottage, the previous owner's name. He died in his 80s and was born on that site in the previous house.

Robert J. Samuelson writes about the happiness scale in the Washington Post, and syndicated elsewhere (I saw it in the Cleveland Plain Dealer). Although much wealthier than they were in 1977, Americans still rate about the same on "happiness." So money doesn't buy happiness.

In 1977, 35.7 percent of Americans rated themselves "very happy," 53.2 percent "pretty happy" and 11 percent "not too happy," reports the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. In 2006, the figures are similar: 32.4 percent "very happy," 55.9 percent "pretty happy" and 11.7 percent "not too happy." Likewise, in most advanced countries, self-reported happiness has been flat for decades.

Go figure. After the basics are satisfied, we can spend a lifetime chasing something we think money will buy. My husband says the happiest people he ever met were the Haitians he got to know last February on a mission trip. By our standards, they had nothing.

One of the happiest people I've talked to recently is suffering (without complaint) from a post polio condition, and is retiring soon with a very limited income. She talks enthusiastically about selling her home and moving into a small apartment on her son's rural property. She has a very full life of service to others, some as a missionary with YWAM and is joyful and excited about life.

No social scientist can explain this. And although she is a committed Christian, even that isn't an explanation, because I know many Christians who aren't happy even if they do serve others and they aren't pleasant to be around. I suspect she was born with some "half full" genes.

3934

No dog in this fight

There's a discussion going on at BeliefNet's blog by Kuo on whether Apple users are "religious" about their Macs and devotion to Steve Jobs. David Kuo writes as an "Appleist." One commenter writes that they do have cult like behavior:

"They all tend to be the edgy, artsy, wanna-be SEEN as mad-genius types who want power over others so that they can 'teach' that person how to live / eat / dress / what to smoke and what not to smoke / etc. Ergo, an overwhelming portion of liberals (not classical liberals, mind you) use Macs and worship its creator.

Of course you can't convince them of this. Have you ever had a conversation with a cultist of any stripe? No matter what ground you are standing on, persecution is to be expected and re-inforces their identity with the group. You are a labeled an outsider who does not have their special knowledege of salvation. Likewise, when they have a problem with their religion/cult, it is instinctively their own problem and not due to anything on Apple's behalf."

I guess everyone I know is just a stodgy, frumpy ol' PC user. I do resent the Apple ads, but insulting your competition is old stuff in advertising. I'll stay out of this one, but if you're using a Mac and causing me problems, now I know why.