Reformation Sunday Message

Since I last posted, much has happened. Through one of my classes I spend several hours a week with a wonderful rural congregation and their pastor. The pastor and her family were away this weekend, so I had the opportunity to supply preach and conduct a service of the Word. Here is the passage and following that is the text of my sermon. Enjoy!

John 8:31-36

³¹Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; ³²and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” ³³They answered him, “We are descendants of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone. What do you mean by saying, ‘You will be made free’?” ³⁴Jesus answered them, “Very truly, I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. ³⁵The slave does not have a permanent place in the household; the son has a place there forever. ³⁶So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

As Americans, freedom is a concept we’re very familiar with. We fought for freedom from the British to form our own nation. Throughout our history we have fought on behalf of others for their freedom from oppression. We have parades on various patriotic holidays to help us celebrate our liberty from oppression.

We know a lot about freedom… or do we? Just what is the kind of freedom Jesus is talking about in today’s gospel text?

This passage begins in a curious fashion referring to the Jews who had believed in Jesus. But what about the Jewish groups like the Pharisees who were always trying to trip up Jesus? There are several meanings for the word translated Jews. Here it refers to the Jewish people in Jerusalem who had been listening to Jesus' teaching in the temple and had believed his claim to be the Messiah. So this group already believed in Jesus, but the exchange between them has an odd twist.

Jesus said to them, "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." There are two unusual things about this statement. First, if they were already believers in Jesus, wouldn’t they already be disciples who knew the truth? Are there levels of discipleship? Is Jesus saying that there are those that follow from a distance and those that follow more closely? Are we among those who casually follow Jesus or are we seeking to continue in Jesus’ word to truly be his disciples? I believe that here Jesus was challenging those Jews who believed and that he is challenging us today as well about how committed we are to discipleship.

And just what is truth? In our day, isn’t truth considered relative? What’s true for you may not be true for me and vice versa. Truth here refers to the revelation of God that Jesus brings or perhaps, to Jesus himself for what he actually is as the revelation of God according to one scholar.

Another curious thing is the way the Jews respond to Jesus’ statement. Jesus speaks of spiritual freedom and they understand it as political freedom. Have you ever had disconnects in conversations where you’re just not on the same page? This happened to us regularly when we would order pizza from various places in Gettysburg. If the delivery person didn’t know anything about the seminary, we would eventually get a call. “Hello, I’m here at Gettysburg College, where are you?” Well we don’t live at Gettysburg College, but at the seminary. “Did you say you’re at the cemetery?” No, not the cemetery, the seminary! We have finally found one pizza place that can always find us, so it’s the only one we order from.

These Jewish believers were not on the same page as Jesus. If Jesus is saying that the truth makes them free, then they would have to be in some kind of bondage, otherwise there would be no need for freedom. They took offense at this and responded that they’d never been slaves of anyone. Oh really?? What about the story of Moses who set the Jewish people free from Egypt? And what about the time the people were taken into captivity in Babylon? And if that’s not enough, what about the fact that at the time of Jesus they were under Roman occupation? Never been slaves to anyone????

What is it about this freedom Jesus offers that is so different? One writer suggests:

Only in this passage does "freedom" language appear in John. Jesus' mention of freedom offends his hearers, who insist they have always enjoyed freedom (even though, ironically, Jesus and his Jewish contemporaries live under Roman rule). But Jesus contends that without him they live as slaves. First, they are enslaved to sin, living as oppressed people. Second, this slavery relegates them to inferior status; because of it they cannot claim a permanent place or identity in God's family. Jesus then shifts his household metaphor to suggest that, as "Son," only he can ensure true freedom and secure membership in God's family.

The sin to which they are enslaved is unbelief, not moral error. Sometimes we think because we don’t do awful things, we aren’t so bad. But we all struggle with unbelief from time to time.

How does Jesus’ claim apply to us? What should our response be? One commentator writes:

To take seriously Jesus' claims about setting us free is to take seriously the proposition that we are all enslaved to powers beyond our ability to master. Reformation Day offers a suitable occasion for considering the ways in which we often find ourselves enslaved to particular religious identities, heritages, and practices, all the while pretending that dwelling in those things is the same as dwelling in Jesus and his word.

Continuing in God’s word, being a disciple, knowing the truth and being set free is not about our heritages and practices. Truth in John’s gospel is the revelation of God in Christ. Discipleship is knowing the Truth. In fact it’s more than just knowing the truth; it’s the basis for living.

So, we can look at what Jesus is saying as a type of equation: If you continue in my Word, then you are truly my disciples, you will know the truth, the truth will set you free. We are freed from slavery to sin, but we are also freed for something. Through remaining in or welcoming Jesus’ word, we know the reality about God and this reality is what frees us. We do not have to fear divine punishment. If we sin, and we will, the word assures us of forgiveness, not punishment for those who believe. This frees us to serve not only God, but our neighbor.

Because of reformers long ago like Martin Luther, we have the freedom to read the Bible in our own language, the freedom to partake of both the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, the freedom to serve God as a pastor and be married and the list goes on. But mostly, as we gather together today as a community of faith, we celebrate the freedom in Christ that has brought us here to this place and made us brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus.

flickr picture

TOFOOEY

ON A RECENT EPISODE OF THE "LARS LARSON" TALK SHOW WE HAD OCCASION TO HEAR NOTED CONSERVATIVE ROCK STAR TED NUGENT expound on the flaws in "pacifist" thinking. Ted pointed out that for anybody to eat EVEN TOFU, living things had to die; that bugs and gophers and such had to be eradicated from the soyabean patch so as to ensure that they did not eat the food before humans did. At a minmum these beings were denied food and died of starvation, and in most instances they were killed outright; all so some "nipple-pierced wierdo can eat tofu and say he's not harming anything"

NOW OF COURSE TED IS RIGHT, bur we got to thinking about various responses that might be posited by members of the Left and the Vegan crowd and/or parroted by the jejune youngsters these evil people decieve. And the first thing to come to mind was "organic Vegan" gardening wherein "natural" repellents are used to dissuade uninvited guests from the soybean harvest. Well, other beings - and according to Vegan theory, an aphid's life is as valuable as a human child's - STILL starve to death. But let's just say there is something called "common-sense" Veganism. There isn't, of course; but just for the sake of argument....

SO. WITH "NATURAL REPELLENTS" AND NETS TO KEEP OUT THE STARVING BUNNYKINS (and assuming there is some way to deal with gophers and moles) and an intense amount of labor in growing and processing, the end result is "certified organic Vegan tofu". Now, if your mission in doing all of this was to get everyone to eat "harm-free" tofu, we would think that it might be offered at the same price as "evil tofu" and that greater sales volume would make up the profit difference, or even (Leftie Vegans being by and large rabidly anti-Capitalistic) just provide enough to keep the old tofu commune producing. Yes, we would think so. But we would be wrong.

SUCH VARIETIES OF TOFU EXIST and they cost much more than ordinary capitalist-produced tofu. These chunks of soy protien are almost invariably wrapped with labels featuring sunrises and buttercups and butterflies and labelled "Organic" or "Artisanal" or some such. W.C. Fields would be at awe at such a scam. "Artisanal" tofu!! What a crock. (and some of it is in fact sold by the crock!) You see, these tie-dyed throwbacks need all that extra cash to convert their Mercedes to run on marijuana-seed oil or some such crapola.

NOT THAT THE REST OF US OUGHT TO BE GADDING ABOUT WHEREVER WE WANT in a car fuelled by cannabis byproduct or anything else. According to the Vegan Left, we need to cram ourselves as tightly together as possible and rely on whatever shops are "in walking distance" to (hopefully) provide what we need (which the Left will tell us what that consists of). We are baffled, given the "peace and love" mentality professed by the Left, why they have this attitude. All experience has shown that, the closer human beings are forced to live to one another, the greater the potential for conflict; and the more "diverse" the crowded population the greater the potential for violence. There is a good reason why God confounded Human speech and stopped the building of the "Tower of Babel".

WE DISPARAGE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS; and we certainly do not say that there is a mighty "Vegan Left" conspiracy to take over the planet or even these United States. What we face here is a situation in which a mixed bag of individuals have been inspired - brainwashed in most cases - by two men in history: Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky (who was himself inspired by Marx).

Karl Marx of course was (along with Freiderich Engels) the founder of the political philosophy of communism. In fact, the word "capitalism" is itself a Marxist invention. The linchpin of Marxist philosophy is "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". And we at the Alexandria Daily Poop must agree that ideally that would be just great. Except that there has to be some way of determining what those abilities and needs are. And someone has to do the sorting. After all, if you have twenty individuals whose best ability is the manufacture of lamps trying to meet the needs of fifty blind people, there's a problem. And how often have you said, "I need a vacation!!"? Well, says you. The Marxist authorities might just say otherwise.

AND SO HOW DO YOU DIVERT THE TALENTS OF A LAMPMAKER TO SATISFY THE NEEDS OF A BLIND MAN? The Marxist answer is "re-training". But what if the lampmaker is quite happy to make lamps? Well, this is the reasoning behind the Soviet "GULAG" system. The lampmaker, being resistant to being retrained, must be harshly and expediently re-educated. And if the "re-education" results in his death, it will be an example to his fellows who; if they are at all concerned about their own hides, quickly fall into line and learn to produce canes and seeing-eye dogs. And if a dearth of lamps results from this, the elite rulers can then claim a savings of electricity costs. A win-win situation unless you are eating dog-doo soup in Siberia. That is communism.

"Socialism" is nothing else but the larval stage of communism. But and especially to the young words have exaggerated meaning. "Socialist" and "Liberal" sound much more agreeable and comfortable than "strict" and "conservative". Famously, in their hit song "Chicago" (which was about the "Chicago 7" trials of the 1968 Democrat Convention Protest leadership) the group "Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young ("CSNY" or David Crosby, Steven Stills, Graham Nash, and Neil Young) sang these lyrics:

"Rules and regulations, who needs them?"

Indeed. BUT from the very same then-kids who now run this nation comes the chant for more and more rules and regulations. This, while the chanters disparage "strict constructionalism" in "interpreting the Constitution". We are at a loss. "Strict"= restrictive=bad=evil; While "Liberal"=regulation=need for strict enforcement=restrictive=good??

The popular music group "Tears for Fears" put it succinctly: "Everybody Wants to Rule the World". And there has been no truer statement ever made. And here is where Saul Alinsky comes in.

Saul Alinsky was a goddamned Communist who wrote a book called "Rules for Radicals" (previously mentioned on this web log). Alinsky's proposition was that "power" must be taken from the "Haves" and given to the "have nots". Now this is a splendid example of "circular logic" since what Alinsky meant by "Haves" and "have-nots" is those who have and do not have "power". This absolutely begs for an answer to the question: If those who have power are evil by lief of their posession of power; and those who have not power are good because they do not posess it; then what net good can result from a reversal of the situation? And let us suppose that Alinsky meant not power but material goods? Should the rich keep their material goods but surrender power to the "have-nots"? What else will the "have-nots" use this power for other than to forcibly confiscate the wealth of the "haves"? Thus making them - according to Alinsky - virtuous "have nots" while the erstwhile "have-nots" morph into evil, parasitic "haves".

Actually, "Haves" vs "Have-nots" is a false dichotomy. We have seen in our experience the estate of a very wealthy lawyer - one to whom we were delivering about ten suitcases full of documents for him to work on over the weekend. And the estate was a marvellous thing. An Olympic-size swimming pool and a tennis court, and the house so large we mistook it for a church of some kind. And we realized as we watched this harried individual sign for the buttload of work we had delivered; that he would not be doing any swimming on Saturday. But we would; and perhaps a bit of fishing as well. We suppose we might have the best of both worlds - the freedom to swim and fish plus lots of money to buy better fishing tackle and even overnight accomodations to extend our weekend - if we could forcibly take from that lawyer all of his wealth, leaving him in a truly "have-not" state. But then we would be one of the "haves"; and God forbid he might read a copy of "Rules for Radicals"!

Ideals have their place. And in a perfect Universe there would be plenty of everything for everyone. Indeed we believe in an Almighty God who has unlimited supplies of everything and who can make unlimited quantities of anything, who overflows with everything and more. And furthermore, this same God is the only being in the Universe who is capable of doling out these goodies in any way even approximating Karl Marx's ideal. Yet the followers of Marx deny Him, or worse seek to subjugate His worship to their own selves. The modern Left consists not so much in a "global Communist conspiracy" - although great and small collusions of leftists abound - as in groups of people who have made contributions great and small to a false god -- an idol -- upon which they place their various faiths and bow down to.

What Alinsky meant by "haves and have nots" was and is mainly the American very wealthy and very poor. But by global standards, all but the very poorest one or two percent of Americans are richer than Henry VIII. Here in Alexandria, Virginia we have "Public Housing" containing "the poor" that is well above the standard of living for a middle-class family in, say. Hyderabad, India (where a family of Missionaries of our aquaintance went to teach the locals how to use "Squatty Potties" rather than just poop in the roadside). Only in America does a person who flushes his toilet with drinking water consider himself "underpriveleged"; and yet it is such as these to whom Alinsky ascribed the term "have nots".

And let us not forget that the current "President" Obama has a family member - HIS OWN BROTHER - who lives in poverty in Kenya, in a hut made of mud and sticks; and who subsists on one lousy dollar per month. Yet this same "President" who professes "Hope" for all America and for the world's billions; does not spare from his own - and considerable - wealth a measly double sawbuck to better the existence of his own blood relative. Yet Obama is an apostle of Alinsky.

As are most of the makers and sellers of "organic Artisinal Vegan Tofu". And we have nothing against tofu, we have eaten it and have even had some very tasty vegetarian cuisine; although we dined on such fare not to be morally superior but rather because we enjoyed the taste of it. Still, purporting to champion the "have nots" over the "haves"; quite like championing the gophers over the starving humans; necessarily means placing oneself in a position above them both; which means usurping the very Throne of God Himself.

"Everybody wants to rule the world". To-Phooey.

A GREAT AND MOST APPROPRIATE HONOR

YES, DEAR READERS, YOU NEED NOT PINCH YOURSELVES, WE AT THE ALEXANDRIA DAILY POOP REALLY DO BELIEVE that the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to "President" Barack Hussein Obama mmm mmm MMMM is altogether fitting and appropriate.

WE HAVE DISCOVERED in discussions with various members of the public that there are many victims of the public schools who do not know the background or origins of the prize. And so, a little history first.

ALFRED NOBEL was a Swedish weapons merchant who invented dynamite. Dynamite was one of the very first safe-to-handle high explosive compounds. Basically it was and is nitroglycerin compounded with diatomaceous earth. Such a thing naturally had tremendous implications for warfare, and the 19th Century was quite as infested with leftist peacenicks as the present day. Nobel was condemned as a "Merchant of Death" for his invention. Allegedly out of shame but more likely to shine up his "legacy"; he endowed a prize for outstanding contributions to peace. The endowment, however, was and is funded by the sales of weapons and explosives (Nobel continued to sell the stuff, and Dynamit Nobel is today a fully functional arms manufacturer. They make a humdinger of a rifled shotgun slug round)

BEING THEREFORE FOUNDED ON THE TWIN PILLARS OF IRONY AND HYPOCRISY; And having been born of Leftist scorn; the Nobel Peace Prize is therefore altogether fitting as an award for this "President".

NOW IT IS ALLEGED BY MANY CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATORS that "President" Barack Hussein Obama mmm mmm MMMM has done nothing to deserve this prize. We disagree. Obama has - even from the early days of his campaign - denigrated these United States, and since being elected has continued to do so. He has stated as a goal of his the diminishment of our role as the world's only remaining superpower. He has intimated that he is even willing to prostitute our National interests to the benefit of some of the world's worst tyrannies. And to the snooty Scandanavian leftists who run the Nobel Prize program, this is the road to peace. To them, the greatest goal of anyone seeking peace is to get the United States of America to surrender. "President" Barack Hussein Obama mmm mmm MMMM is the best hope they have ever had. Oh, Obama has done PLENTY to deserve the Nobel.