Category: Life

Plenty of electrons have been spilled about this already. I’ll limit my comments to a single point. In light of news like this, how should music listeners respond? The RIAA would have us respond by purchasing more CDs of their artists’ music. While I have no problem with those who do that, I think there is a much better response.

Stop buying music that is distributed through the traditional channel altogether. If you perceive that the traditional recording labels insist upon imposing unacceptable restrictions upon the sharing of their music (a practice beginning long before the digital age), then don’t support them with your patronage. Don’t give another dime to that branch of the industry, unless you have a very clear need to have some of the music that can only be obtained that way. Usually, we don’t have such a need.

Instead, encourage alternative channels of music distribution like Magnatune, which can give a dramatically higher percentage of sales proceeds to the artists themselves. At the same time, Magnatune allows its customers to sample the music of its artists as much as the customer would like, and pay (within reasonable limits) whatever they think it is worth, when it comes time to purchase.

Yes there are better alternatives for your music needs. I suggest that the best response to news like this is to use them in preference to the alternatives that poorly serve both customers and artists.

In the place where I live, the county court has decided to enact an ordinance against discrimination. In particular, this ordinance protects people who seek jobs or housing from discrimination based upon “sexual orientation,” whether or not the applicants are homosexuals.

One of the commissioners commented that there had been a lot of testimony and debate about whether or not homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Some say it is, while others seem to think it’s genetic. This commissioner noted that the county court is in no position to decide whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, nor should it do so.

The court passed this ordinance, but that commissioner raised an important question: Did the Wasco county court decide whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, or not? This question has application to other legal jurisdictions, as well.

So, did they? Yes, they did, even if it was unintentionally.

Protection from discrimination based upon race and gender recognizes that these are human traits, not choices of individuals. Discrimination based upon such traits is wrong, unless the traits demonstrably disqualify the individual in question. (For example, no man can be a wet-nurse, strictly speaking, no matter how much anyone may wish otherwise.)

So every time goverment seeks to protect a special group from discrimination, it strongly implies the assumption that the protected group is not distinguished by a lifestyle choice, but by traits beyond the control of the protected group.

There may also be ordinances protecting the disabled from discrimination in various ways. Disabilities are not essential to humanity like race or gender, but they are beyond the control of the protected group. Nobody wants to become more disabled.

You may believe that homosexuality is not a choice, and deserves protection from discrimination. Do you believe the same thing about alcoholism? Or a lifestyle of stealing, gambling, or smoking? Some people find these destructive behaviors impossible to stop. But so far, our government has not chosen to make special protections for such people.

The debate about whether homosexuality is a choice may continue, though it will not continue past the Last Day. My point is that the Wasco county commissioners have now weighed in on the debate. They assume that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, and based upon this (perhaps overlooked) assumption, they have passed their non-discrimination ordinance.

Martin Luther granted and even upheld the legitimacy of earthly government as an institution of God for the control of wickedness on the earth and the establishment of outward peace. He also wrote this:

The temporal government has laws which extend no further than to life and property and external affairs on earth, for God cannot and will not permit anyone but himself to rule over the soul. Therefore, where temporal authority presumes to prescribe laws for the soul, it encroaches upon God’s government and only misleads souls and destroys them. We want to make this so clear that everyone will grasp it, and that our fine gentlemen, the princes and bishops, will see what fools they are when they seek to coerce the people with their laws and commandments into believing this or that. (LW AE 45, p. 105)

First, I thank God for what protections exist in the United States (and elsewhere for that matter) against a government establishing a religion for its people. This is a key provision in the American Bill of Rights for which all American Christians ought to be thankful.

Continue reading “Luther on the Limits of Temporal Authority” →

This question is especially pertinent in the United States, where the Second Amendment to our nation’s constitution speaks directly to the matter, prohibiting the government from infringing upon the right of individual Americans to own and maintain (“keep”), and carry (“bear”) weapons (“arms”):

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Such a constitutional provision seems rare in the world, creating a possibly unique situation in the United States. How should Christians view this, in light of Jesus’ teaching from Matthew 5:38-41? (This is the second-series Gospel lesson for tomorrow in the Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary.)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.”

I was doing a little reading in a treatise Luther wrote on a closely-related subject called Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed. It’s actually quite helpful. Luther highlights some important biblical distinctions, one being the distinction between the two kingdoms we find on earth. The spiritual kingdom is ruled through the Gospel and faith, and will last longer than this world. Temporal authority, on the other hand, rules through Law and the sword. The United States government is an example of the latter.

Hopefully, that’s enough context for you to read one of Luther’s points quite salient to our question. It’s quoted from LW-AE 45:95. (Please excuse any typos. I don’t have an electronic copy of Luther’s Works yet, because the Logos library software is confined to run in a Windows environment, which I stubbornly refuse to use. I’ve successfully run Logos under Wine, but would prefer to have full and native functionality in Linux.)

Sixth. You ask whether a Christian too may bear the temproal sword and punish the wicked, since Christ’s words, “Do not resist evil,” are so clear and definite that the sophists have had to make of them a “counsel.” Answer: You have now heard two propositions. One is that the sword can have no place among Christians; therefore you cannot bear it among Christians or hold it over them, for they do not need it. The question, therefore, must be referred to the other group, the non-Christians, whether you may bear it there in a Christian manner. Here the other proposition applies, that you are under obligation to serve and assist the sword by whatever means you can, with body, goods, honor, and soul. For it is something which you do not need, but which is very beneficial and essential for the whole world and for your neighbor. Therefore, if you see that there is a lack of hangmen, constables, judges, lords or princes, and you find that you are qualified, you should offer your services and seek the position, that the essential governmental authority may not be despised and become enfeebled or perish. The world cannot and dare not dispense with it.

So it seems that Luther would advise American Christians to make use of the Second Amendment as they are able. If an armed Christian finds himself in a place where he can hinder or prevent an evil and unlawful deed, and the authorities cannot do so themselves (perhaps because it takes 10 or 15 minutes for them to respond to a 911 call), then the armed Christian is free to do what is necessary for the benefit of his neighbors. This would also apply in the home, where a Christian might have to defend his family and their well-being. But what if you are the only one whose life, health, property, or honor is at risk? Luther continues, referring to the previous quotation above:

Here is the reason why you should do this: In such a case you would be entering entirely into the service and work of others, which would be of advantage neither to yourself nor your property or honor, but only to your neighbor and to others. You would be doing it not with the purpose of avenging yourself or returning evil for evil, but for the good of your neighbor and for the maintenance of the safety and peace of others. For yourself, you would abide by the gospel and govern yourself according to Christ’s word [Matt. 5:39-40], gladly turning the other cheek and letting the cloak go with the coat when the matter concerned you and your cause.

Fair enough. Thanks, Dr. Luther. There is still room for us to discuss whether a Christian parent ought to defend his own life for the sake of his young children, when only his own life is threatened. I think he should, because it’s a tragic evil when young children are deprived of their father or mother.

If you have any differing thoughts on this subject, fire away.

The author writes for Christians:

Let this be the first and most important point, that all our prayers must be based and rest upon obedience to God, regardless of who we are, whether we are sinners or saints, worthy or unworthy. We must know that God will not have our prayer treated as a joke. But He will be angry and punish all who do not pray, just as surely as He punishes all other disobedience. Furthermore, He will not allow our prayers to be in vain or lost. For if He did not intend to answer your prayer, He would not ask you to pray and add such a severe commandment to it.

In the second place, we should be more encouraged and moved to pray because God has also added a promise and declared that it shall surely be done for us as we pray. He says in Psalm 50:15, “Call upon Me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you.” And Christ says in the Gospel of St. Matthew, “Ask, and it will be given to you; … for everyone who asks receives” (7:7-8). Such promises certainly ought to encourage and kindle our hearts to pray with pleasure and delight. For He testifies with His own Word that our prayer is heartily pleasing to Him. Furthermore, it shall certainly be heard and granted, in order that we may not despise it or think lightly of it and pray based on chance.

You can raise this point with Him and say, “Here I come, dear Father, and pray, not because of my own purpose or because of my own worthiness. But I pray because of Your commandment and promise, which cannot fail or deceive me.” Whoever, therefore, does not believe this promise must note again that he outrages God like a person who thoroughly dishonors Him and accuses Him of falsehood.

Besides this, we should be moved and drawn to prayer. For in addition to this commandment and promise, God expects us and He Himself arranges the words and form of prayer for us. He places them on our lips for how and what we should pray, so that we may see how heartily He pities us in our distress, and we may never doubt that such prayer is pleasing to Him and shall certainly be answered. This <the Lord’s Prayer> is a great advantage indeed over all other prayers that we might compose ourselves. For in our own prayers the conscience would ever be in doubt and say, “I have prayed, but who knows if it pleases Him or whether I have hit upon the right proportions and form?” Therefore, there is no nobler prayer to be found upon the earth than the Lord’s Prayer. We pray it daily, because it has this excellent testimony, that God loves to hear it. We ought not to surrender this for all the riches in the world.

Large Catechism, part 3, Paragraphs 17-23

Quoted from Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions

The Summer, 2007 REACH! newsletter for WELS youth workers says that the upcoming youth rally will offer “Open Space.” This will be a collection of topical discussions or presentations in “an informal/open format.” Sounds like a good idea. It then lists some questions that will serve as topics, with a bit of explanation for each. Here’s one.

What kind of worship do you prefer?

The results from the 2007 Survey of WELS Teens found 72% of the 421 respondents preferring public/group worship that was described in these two ways: a) creative worship using the hymnal along with a variety of other resources, led often by an organ but also regularly involving other instruments – 51%, and b) contemporary worship, informal, with nothing from the hymnal, with praise choruses and a praise band of various instruments – 21%. Only 12% preferred historic worship using only the orders of service and hymns from the hymnal, led by an organ. 16% were unsure.

If I had to answer this, I don’t know where our congregations’ current worship practice would fall. As I began reading it, I thought that option A described what we’re doing. Really. We’re open to church members who can contribute musically on their own instruments, though we haven’t recently seen enough interest from any musicians (besides myself) to make it happen. It does take a lot of preparatory work to play an instrument in church. Ask any organist. I can vouch that our worship is creative, because an awful lot of work goes into the preparations for all the various parts — many hours each week. Sometimes even the choir sings, which I think is creative, too. We also use a variety of resources besides the hymnal. One look at my own library will confirm this. Chief among our “other resources” is the Bible.

But then there’s the bit about “historic worship,” which also describes what we do. We almost always use the orders and hymns from the hymnal, and that means that every single service is unique in theme and form as we proceed through the year. Many of the differences are a matter of choice: we could do things a certain way, but we opt for another way. Variety and options abound. I don’t see “historic worship” working against creativity in the least, so I’m puzzled.

Maybe I missed the real meaning of option A. Is it really what Lost and Found describes in Opener?

EVERY SUNDAY IS JUST LIKE THE LAST, AS IF THE CHURCH HAS NO HISTORY AND THE PEOPLE HAVE NO PAST. WE JUST SING THE SONGS WE LIKE TO SING AND WE PREACH ABOUT THE NEWS AND WE THINK UP SOME NEW THING JUST TO FILL UP THE PEWS.

That wasn’t my impression the first time I read A. Or, maybe “Creative” really means something more like “entertaining,” “amusing,” “diverting,” or “fun.” Or it could mean “spontaneous,” “unprompted,” or “impulsive.”

An important observation is the difference between Israel around the golden calf (“Is that the sound of battle?”) and Judah celebrating the Passover under King Josiah, about 8-900 years later. On the one hand, Israel impulsively does what seems right to man, and on the other hand, Judah pays close attention to observe exactly what God has provided, because therein lies His blessings. This was quite the Passover celebration. It was a universal sacred meal, recalling the time when God’s people were shielded from death by their communion in the body and blood of a lamb. Do we have any such thing today? We have something even better.

I think a great deal of creativity is appropriate for God’s people. King Josiah and his subjects took the initiative to do things in a way that God’s people had never done before: worship according to God’s Word, without any compromise.
But maybe I don’t really know what is meant by “creative.”

Or, maybe there’s something wrong with the way those three choices were described. So, I’d be glad to hear your thoughts. What kind of worship do you prefer?

This may be a “news post” of some kind, but it’s of a specialized interest. I’d call it a caveat. In other words: Beware!

One of my sisters recently had a problem with Arizona State Credit Union. It was disappointing to hear about, especially considering my own good experience with University of Wisconsin Credit Union.

This is what happened, briefly. They charged her a total of between $200-300 dollars, claiming that she made some accounting mistake. It would be easy to do that, if you miss one deposit and have a whole raft of withdrawals that cut your balance close enough.

Anyway, she wasn’t convinced and checked their math. It was wrong. She went and explained it all, complete with paper documentation. Their explanation? The critical deposit in question, which made all the difference — they had put a “hold” on the deposit, so it wasn’t registered in the proper time frame. This, they said, wasn’t their fault.

Problem was, it was a cash deposit. As she told them, since when does anyone put a hold on a cash deposit? Something is rotten in the county of Maricopa. When asked what the next lame excuse would be, they simply said they didn’t really know what happened. And it still wasn’t their fault.

Now, an unjustified charge of $200-300 dollars would irritate me sorely. It’s what we call theft. Go ahead and look it up in your catechism. You’ll find it under the seventh commandment, unless you’re in a Reformed church. Then it’s probably the eighth. That’s not the sort of practice I look for in my financial institution. Even to contemplate doing this would be wrong — see the Ninth (aka Tenth) Commandment.

Will there be justice? I think we all begin to accept these situations after a while. Most of us are not really in a position to set things right. That’s why Solomon was appreciated: he was a just king. But for anyone in such a position to set things right, to turn a blind eye is to participate in the injustice. The Day is coming when those accounts will be settled forever.

---

Update on 5/13

The excuse about a hold on the critical deposit amounted to an uninformed guess from the customer service representative. That’s less than impressive by itself, but not necessarily malicious. I’ll take one of my “bad marks” away from ASCU. But they still keep a whole pile of other bad marks, since they have no explanation for their charges, and no willingness to acknowledge that their customer with supporting documentation could be right, after all.