2022-07-10T16:40:30-04:00

“Summer time, and the livin’ is easy.”  So said Gershwin, and he was right, at least ideally.  Summer is a time for taking a break,  for relaxing, for decompression.  So for one week here at the Cranach blog, we will move from vocation to vacation.

Unless some catastrophe breaks out–or, rather, something more catastrophic than we have gotten used to–this week our posts will shift to a lighter mode.  Instead of Big Issues and Items of Concern, we will shift to lighter topics, such as fun, sports, and books to read at the beach.

We will kick off our week of relative frivolity by considering the nature of “fun.”

The novelist Walter Kirn takes up that topic in his essay “The Holy Anarchy of Fun.”  Read it all, but here is an excerpt:

But what do I mean by “fun”? I’m not quite sure. I don’t mean “pleasure” in the old sense, which usually is associated with eroticism or sensuality, and I don’t mean “play,” which tends to refer to structured games. But fun, as such, is not competitive. No one wins at it. Nor is fun the ‘leisure” of the ancients, which one is supposed to spend in contemplation or civic engagement or other worthy pursuits. I mean something bouncier, simpler, more mundane, a feeling of antic stimulation, the opposite of seriousness. Often there is risk involved in fun. Manageable, perhaps simulated risk. You round a tight curve in a sports car that can handle it. You careen down a snowy hill in a red saucer sled. Sometimes you take a tumble or scrape a knee. Sometimes you scream—a laughing sort of scream.

Kirn writes about watching the movie Top Gun: Maverick in a theater with 4DX technology, which included vibrating seats and shots of water droplets.  He writes about how rulers don’t like their subjects to have fun, referencing the COVID measures that specifically targeted fun activities.  He writes about the difference between the fun-on-demand imposed by authorities and actual fun, contrasting his school memories of an educational activity with his teachers exhorting the participants to “have fun,” and the genuine hilarity that ensued when a hamster escaped from its cage while class was going on.

I think he is right that games are not fun, as such.  Professional athletes, for whom games are their job, will occasionally say that “we really had fun today” when a game degenerates into a blowout of the other team or when teammates do something out of the ordinary.  Playing Monopoly can be deadly serious, but it was fun when I played it with my father, mother, and siblings because of the way we would all tease and torment each other.

Kirn captures the “anarchy”–in a good way–of fun.  I like the other part of his title, which he doesn’t really discuss:  “Holy anarchy.”  Is there holiness in fun, if only as an analogy?  Could it be that joy for its own sake is something of a foretaste of the feast to come?

 

Photo:   “Hands Up!  Roller Coaster Fun” by Austin Kirk via Flickr,  Creative Commons 2.0 License [no changes].

 

 

2022-06-26T18:26:57-04:00

Last Saturday was the 492nd anniversary of the presentation of the Augsburg Confession on June 25, 1530.   Nine years earlier, Martin Luther–all alone–confessed his faith before the Emperor, Charles V, at the Diet of Worms.  Now, at the Diet of Augsburg–the term “diet” referring to the Emperor’s legislative body of nobles–seven princes and the representatives of two cities confessed their faith by presenting the Augsburg Confession, which summarized the teachings of the Reformation, to the Emperor.

Before long, more and more principalities, cities, and even countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland) would sign on, along with an untold number of theologians and congregations.

The Augsburg Confession became the definitive statement of faith for Lutheran Christianity.  It was written not by Martin Luther, but by the classical scholar Philipp Melanchthon, a layman.  But it succinctly and richly sets forth what it means to be Lutheran.  But because it was written to reassure the Emperor that the evangelical movement was not some quirky cult or new religion, but rather that it is historic, orthodox Christianity, the Augsburg Confession can speak to all Christians.

To respond to the papal critics, Melanchthon also wrote a defense of the various articles in the document known as the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, which also became a confessional document.

You can read the Augsburg Confession, which consists of 28 articles, here.   In belated celebration of the anniversary, I will post a few highlights:

Article I. Of God.

1 Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting; 2 that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and 3 yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And the term “person” 4 they use as the Fathers have used it, to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself.

Article III. Of the Son of God.

1 Also they teach that the Word, that is, the Son of God, did assume the human nature in 2 the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that there are two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably enjoined in one Person, one Christ, true God and true man, who was born of the Virgin Mary, truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and 3 buried, that He might reconcile the Father unto us, and be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.

Article IV. Of Justification.

1 Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2 Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3 This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.

Article X. Of the Lord’s Supper.

1 Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2 to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.

Article XII. Of Repentance.

1 Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted 2 and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these 3 two parts: One is contrition, that is, 4 terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of 5 the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ’s sake, sins are forgiven, comforts 6 the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance.

Article XIII. Of the Use of the Sacraments.

1 Of the Use of the Sacraments they teach that the Sacraments were ordained, not only to be marks of profession among men, but rather to be signs and testimonies of the will of God 2 toward us, instituted to awaken and confirm faith in those who use them. Wherefore we must so use the Sacraments that faith be added to believe the promises which are offered and set forth through the Sacraments.3 They therefore condemn those who teach that the Sacraments justify by the outward act, and who do not teach that, in the use of the Sacraments, faith which believes that sins are forgiven, is required.

Article XVI. Of Civil Affairs.

1 Of Civil Affairs they teach that lawful civil ordinances are good works of God, and that 2 it is right for Christians to bear civil office, to sit as judges, to judge matters by the Imperial and other existing laws, to award just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to make oath when required by the magistrates, to marry a wife, to be given in marriage.

Article XVIII. Of Free Will.

1 Of Free Will they teach that man’s will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work 2 things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man 3 receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received 4 through the Word.

Article XXIV. Of the Mass.

1 Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among 2 us, and celebrated with the highest reverence. Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved, save that the parts sung in Latin are interspersed here and there with German hymns, which have been added 3 to teach the people.

The articles start short, but then get a little long, and they are divided between “The Chief Articles of Faith,” I-XXI, and “Articles in which are reviewed the abuses which have been corrected,” XXII-XXVIII, such as allowing priests to marry, the critique of monastic vows, and insisting that ecclesiastical power has to do with preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments and not civil authority,

Vocation is covered in XIV, “Of Ecclesiastical Order”;  XX, “Of Good Works”; XXVI, “Of the Distinction of Meats”; XXVII, “Of Monastic Vows”; and XXVIII, “Of Ecclesiastical Power.”

We usually treat October 31, 1517, when Luther posted his 95 Theses, as the beginning of the Reformation.  But, as our pastor Ned Moerbe said, that event may have got things rolling, but much of that document still reflected medieval Roman Catholic theology.  With the Augsburg Confession, though, which took form out of extensive Bible study and theological reflection by many people, the content of the Reformation took shape.  Thus, June 25 is the true Reformation Day.

 

Illustration:  Presentation of the Augsburg Confession, 1530, 19th century engraving.  Via Lutheran Church of Canada.

2022-06-25T19:27:57-04:00

I have to admit that I was surprised that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

I thought that Chief Justice John Roberts would persuade at least one of the other new judges to go along with the solution that he favored:   Keep Roe v. Wade in place, while expanding the right of states to put limits on abortion.

Roberts voted along with the 6-3 majority in the case at issue, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Healtha Mississippi law that outlawed abortion after 15 weeks.  But he did not vote to overturn Roe, which passed 5-4.

The halfway measure Roberts favored had been tried before.

Daniel Silliman, writing in Christianity Today, says that Roe v. Wade was almost overturned in 1992.  The court was hearing Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the abortion provider was suing Pennsylvania for requiring a waiting period and notification of a spouse or parent.

Silliman says that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (a Lutheran) drafted an opinion in the case that would overturn Roe and that he had cobbled together a 5-4 majority to pass it.

Then at the last minute, Justice Anthony Kennedy switched sides. He joined Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter to craft a compromise that would allow states to regulate abortion to some extent—but also uphold the validity of Roe. They got the two more liberal justices, Blackmun and John Paul Stevens, to sign on.

Though it may have been conceived as a “compromise,” the 5-to-4 decision in Casey was in fact a reaffirmation of the core claim of Roe—while almost entirely abandoning the legal reasoning. The court decided that it was crucial to recognize the precedent set by Roe, adhering [to] the legal doctrine of stare decisis.

The effect of Casey was to establish abortion as a constitutional right all the more.  Importantly, Justice Alito’s opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade also overturned Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Also opposing a halfway measure were the attorneys in Dobbs who argued against Mississippi’s abortion restrictions.  Silliman reports this exchange with Justice Alito:

“I read your briefs,” Alito said to the attorney defending Roe and Casey. “Your briefs [say] that the only real options we have are to reaffirm Roe and Casey as they stand or to overrule them in their entirety. You say that ‘there are no half-measures here.’ Is that a correct understanding of your brief?”

She agreed it was. And Alito, soon after the hearing, started drafting a bold decision overturning Roe and Casey completely.

Indeed, there are no half measures when it comes to abortion.  If the developing fetus is a human being, abortion cannot be justified, and invocations of  “choice” and women’s rights are beside the point.  If the developing fetus is not a human being, abortion doesn’t matter.

The humanness of the fetus is not primarily established by religion, but by medical science and logic.  To say a baby becomes human when the mother wants it, or some time after birth, or when the child is able to reason, or the like, is little different from the medieval, pre-scientific notion of “quickening,” that the fetus receives a human soul when the mother can feel movement in her womb.

Most defenders of abortion don’t seem to care about the humanness of the fetus, insisting instead on the mother’s power, even to the point of violence against her own child.  Usually, progressives condemn that sort of oppression, but, strangely, not on this issue.

 

Photo:  Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=225918

2022-05-03T13:08:30-04:00

Loving our neighbor is foundational to Biblical ethics, to the doctrine of vocation, and to the Christian life.  God’s commandment to do so is repeated throughout Scripture (Leviticus 19:18; Mark 12:31 and parallel passages; Romans 13:9-10; James 2:8). What all, though, does loving our neighbor entail?

Martin Luther has some illuminating things to say about this.  I’ve come across a great passage on the subject from my Lenten reading, the devotional classic Luther for the Busy Man:  Daily Devotions from Luther’s Sermons on the Standard Gospels.

(Thanks to the Free Lutheran Bible College & Seminary and Ambassador Publications, the publishing arm of the Association of Free Lutheran Congregations for making this classic devotional resource, originally put together by P. D. Pahl of the Lutheran Church of Australia, available again.  You can also access it online and subscribe to it as a podcast.)

Here is the  Maundy Thursday reading:

LESSON: ROMANS 15:1-6

Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. Galatians 6:2

Not the least part of love or self-surrender is for me to be able to give away my self-conceit or arrogance. I can no doubt give my neighbor temporal good and bodily service with my painstaking toil. I can also serve him with instruction and intercession, for example, by visiting him and consoling him when he is sick or sad. I can feed him when he is hungry, free him from imprisonment, and such like. But the greatest of all the services I can render my neighbor is bearing his weakness.

We will always fall short of the mark here. We will never attain to the perfection of Christ in this regard. He is the pure, bright Sun in which there is no mist. Our light is just like a glimmering stalk of straw in comparison with this Sun. Christ is a glowing oven full of fire and perfect love. But He is still satisfied with our little candle, if we provide some sort of evidence of letting our love shine forth.

Take a look at the Gospel record and see how Christ dealt with His disciples. He bore with them when they were guilty of foolish conduct and even when they, at times, went astray. In their service, His wisdom yielded to their folly. He did not condemn them but bore their weakness with long-suffering patience. “What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand,” He tells them on one occasion (John 13:7). Through such love He gives up His righteousness, judgement, might, wrath, punishment, and the rights he has over us and our sins. He could condemn us because of our folly. But He does no more than to say, “You are in the wrong; you do not know anything; do not, however, reject me, but trust me.”

And so I say that it is no small example of love to be able to bear with our neighbor when he is weak in faith and love.

SL 11:597 (26)
AE 76:445-46

PRAYER: Dear Lord Jesus, fill our hearts at all times with such love for our neighbor that we understand his weaknesses and needs and continue to bear with him, for Your name’s sake. Amen.

 

 

Photo:  Neighbors across the Fence, Mid-City New Orleans by Bart Everson – https://www.flickr.com/photos/editor/7718654016/, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=103362576

2022-04-17T22:44:15-04:00

Milton prayed that his monumental Biblical epic Paradise Lost would a “fit audience find, though few” (Book VII, line 31).  He didn’t want a lot of people reading it, giving the example of the musician Orpheus who was torn apart by his frenzied fans.

You subscribers to the Cranach blog constitute a “fit audience.”  You want to be here, we have common interests, and you are committed to what we are doing with this blog.  Notice the high quality of the discussions since Patheos switched us to the subscription model.  No more trolls or drive-by commenters who don’t understand what we are talking about.  Just readers who are trying to think through issues, not always agreeing with each other, but joining together in a friendly conversation.

Right now, we are somewhere south of 100 subscribers.  The fit audience is “few.”  That’s OK.  I’m not going to get wealthy with a mass audience, though I’m already making three times as much with the subscription model as I was with advertising.  But I’m dropping down from around 2,000 readers per day to 100.  That is hard to take, I admit.  I know it would be better for the cause to continue t0 reach a big audience, but, at this stage of my life, I am more likely to retire from blogging, as I have from my day job, than to go back to what I was doing.  So I am kind of excited to write for a limited, defined, and receptive audience.  That is a different kind of writing, to be sure, but I am looking forward to it, and, since you are paying for this, I will do my very best.

One thing I have always wanted to do is form an online community around this blog, similar to what we had in its earliest days, only more so.  I know that only a fraction of readers make comments, and that’s fine.  (I have been told by several readers that they would like to comment, but have been scared to do so, due to the toxic nature of so many open-ended comment threads, something I hope to eliminate.)  But I need to know about my readers.  Plus, I think it will enhance your experience if you know at least a little about each other.

So today, to the extent you feel comfortable, please introduce yourselves.  Long-time commenters kind of know each other, from years of online interaction, but other readers don’t know you.  And in order to know my new audience, I would like to get a sense of where you are coming from and what topics you are most interested in.

Vocation is an important theme of this blog, so I’d like to hear about, but I’m less interested in what you do for a living–th0ugh mention that if you want to–as your callings in the estates of the family (married? single? a parent?  a child?), the state (where are you from and where abouts do you live?  how do you line up politically?), and the church (what is your church affiliation?  how would you describe your theology?).

I’d also like to know what you are interested in.  What causes do you feel strongly about?  What blog topics most intrigue you?  And anything else you’d like to say.

Even if you don’t normally comment, I’d like to hear from you.  For one thing, I am giving my subscribers a pre-approved status so that the “nanny-bot” on the Disqus comment software won’t censor your comment for “restricted words,” such as “bag,” “beer,” and similar non-obscenities.  I need for you to comment in order to give you this pre-approval.  I suppose if you aren’t signed up with Disqus, this is not an issue, but if you someday do want to comment, I want you to be able to.

I plan to keep up with the comments and sometimes to join in the discussions myself.  I will delete actual obscenities, as well as personal insults and other kinds of bad online behavior, even from those who pay for the privilege, though I don’t expect that to be much of a problem.  If we sort of know each other, social restraints can kick in, as opposed to the uninhibited viciousness that so easily emerges on the anonymous internet.

Another thing I want to do is occasionally host forums for prayer requests, issues that beg for discussion, and topics you want to raise.  Those will generally be in addition to the regular posts that I put up for every day.

Their sign will be Cranach’s seal–the dragon, winged and crowned–that Lucas Cranach, drawing on his coat of arms, used to sign his paintings.  That was a logo of this blog from its earliest days, whose spirit I hope to continue.

2022-04-22T17:05:21-04:00

 

In our discussion of John Kleinig’s translation of  J. G. Hamann’s London Writings, with which I was involved, I quoted part of Hamann’s account of his conversion to Christianity.  I want to give you a sample of what comes next, in which Hamann confesses his newfound faith.

Hamann’s mature style, even when he writes about serious subjects, is comical, filled with wordplay and allusions, dense, and sometimes hard to decipher.  John Betz, the author of the definitive book on Hamann, After Enlightenment: The Post-Secular Vision of J. G. Hamann, says that his style is purposefully counter to the straightforward, lucid style that characterizes the Enlightenment writers, thus making the point that reality is not as clear as the rationalists like to imply.

But the London Writings, written at the very beginning of his career as his personal reflections, are highly readable, making them the best introduction to the writings of Hamann, especially since here he formulates the ideas that he would develop in more detail later.  Hamann’s prose in these journals is passionate, incisive, and electric with discovery.  All of this is conveyed in Dr. Kleinig’s superb English rendition.

From “Thoughts on the Course of My Life,” London Writings, p. 291:

I conclude, from the evidence of my own experience, with heartfelt and sincere thanksgiving for His saving Word which I have tested and found to be the only light by which we not only come to God, but also get to know ourselves. It is the most precious gift of God’s grace that surpasses the whole natural world and all its treasures as much as our immortal spirit surpasses the clay of our flesh and blood. His Word is the most amazing and venerable revelation of the most profound, most sublime, most wonderful mysteries of the Godhead, whether it be in heaven, on earth, or in hell, the mysteries of God’s nature, attributes, and His great, bountiful will chiefly toward us poor people, full of the most significant disclosures throughout the course of all the ages until eternity. His Word is the only bread and manna for our souls, which a Christian can no more do without than the earthly man can do without his daily necessities and sustenance — — yes, I confess that this Word of God accomplishes just as great miracles in the soul of a devout Christian, whether he be simple or learned, as those described in it. I confess that the understanding of this book and faith in its contents can therefore be gained by no other means than through the same Spirit who inspired its authors and that His unutterable sighs which He creates in our hearts are of the same nature as the inexpressible images that are scattered throughout Holy Scripture with a greater richness than all the seeds of the natural world and its realms.

Secondly, I confess with my heart and my best understanding that without faith in Jesus Christ it is impossible to know God and what a loving, unutterably good and generous being He is, He whose wisdom, omnipotence, and other attributes seem to be only, as it were, instruments of His love for humanity. I confess that this preference for people, the insects of creation, belongs to greatest depths of divine revelation. I confess that Jesus Christ was not only pleased to become a man, but also a poor and most wretched man.  I confess that for us the Holy Spirit has published a book for His Word, in which, like a fool or a madman, yes like an unholy and unclean spirit, He turned proud reason’s children’s stories, trivial, contemptible events, into the history of heaven and God (1 Cor 1:25). I confess that this faith shows us that all our own deeds and the noblest fruits of human virtue are nothing but the sketches from the finest pen under a magnifying glass or the most sensitive skin as seen under it. I confess that it is therefore impossible for us to love ourselves and our neighbor without faith in God which His Spirit produces and without the merit of the only Mediator. In short, a person must be a true Christian to be a proper father, a proper child, a good citizen, a proper patriot, a good subject, yes a good employer and a good employee. I confess that every good deed, in the strictest sense of the word, is impossible without God, and that He indeed is its only author.

There is a lot to unpack here, and he unpacks it in his later writings, beginning with the other works that constitute the London Writings.  Notice here how he even brings up vocation!

After his transforming encounter with the Word of God, Hamann found a German Lutheran church in London.  He confessed his sins to the pastor, received absolution, and that Sunday received Holy Communion.  He met with the pastor for counseling, who told him, “go home.”  He did, and the next chapter of his life unfolded.

I’ll tell more about what transpired, which is recounted in “Further Thoughts on the Course of My Life” at the very end of the London Writings, including his romance with the sister of his friend, Katharina Berens.  I’ll do that in context of trying to explain why Hamann has become so important for contemporary thought.

Note:  Yes, the book is expensive at $75, though you can get it for $65 at the Ballast Press website.  It’s 473 pages, and it took 5 years to prepare.  Scholarly-level books often are expensive to produce, and they sell to a limited audience.  (Though I think this one has the potential to reach a broader audience.)  This is a book to read, re-read for your devotions, underline, and return to again and again.

If it is too much for you to buy but you still want to read it, ask your library–either your public library or, especially, if you are connected to a seminary or university research library–to order it.  Libraries are, as someone has said, the big market for expensive scholarly books.  Once the book get reviewed in academic journals, this will start to happen.  This is a primary source by a major figure in Western thought, so I am confident about that.  In the meantime, you can get the first edition.

Buy the book at Amazon or at the Ballast Press website (where it is actually a little cheaper).

Illustration:  Portrait of J. G. Hamann by unknown artist (1775-1778), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives