Tag: reason

Expelled

JesseLeave a comment

I’ve been entertained by Ben Stein, and was impressed with what he achieved with his game show. I had no idea about his past. This guy knows stuff! He’s done stuff!

From the advertising, it seems he’s involved in a forthcoming movie, which aims to educate its viewers about an important contemporary cultural issue. In particular, the long trailer available at the movie’s web site smartly presents a problem with the free exchange of ideas on their own merit, within some segments of academia and science. If its premise is true, the movie is virtually guaranteed not to win any academy awards, but I’d like to see it anyway. Will it improve conversation on this topic? I doubt it. The adherents of Darwinism follow its doctrine more zealously than most Christians follow the Bible.

Which ministry did Christ institute?

Jesse1 Comment

There is a perception that this point has been hashed through thoroughly by this time, but that perception is mistaken. While statements have been made on the subject from time to time, they have not been directly answered. The closest to an answer that we have seen was in a paper delivered to the official General Pastoral Conference in 2006, entitled “An Exercise in Parsing.”

I understand the knee-jerk reflex that some will have when this topic is touched upon: “Quick! Quote the relevant part of the adopted statement, and wash our hands of the matter!” However, that reaction doesn’t qualify as doctrinal discussion. Whether we like it or not, genuine discussion includes the possibility that either side might be won over, however strongly-worded their arguments may be. Quoting “the adopted doctrinal statement” is an attempt to end discussion, equivalent in effect to pulling rank. The only way to “win” in a theological discussion is to agree with clear scripture. Hopefully, both sides “win” in the end.

So read this thoughtful explanation of the term “representative ministry” from a certain controversial figure in recent ELS history:

[There is an opinion] that the public or official ministry of the church exists by means of a delegation of the private authority of every individual Christian to preach the gospel, administer the sacraments, and forgive and retain sins. We may call this the “representative ministry” definition, because it claims that whenever one Christian uses God’s word or sacraments “on behalf of” other Christians this is the divinely instituted public ministry of the word. According to this opinion, every time one person exercises the keys (or uses the means of grace, or teaches the word — the language varies) on behalf of believers, this is the divinely instituted public ministry of the word, whether it is a “full use” of the keys or a “limited use” of the keys. In either case it is representative ministry and that is what is divinely instituted, according to this opinion.

That quote came from a certain controversial writing, but has been mostly ignored because of the inordinate amount of attention lavished upon another paragraph (to the detriment and sorrow of all).

Another writing from a month prior says this, explaining the problem the author had with the concept of a divinely-instituted “limited public use of the keys.”

These texts allegedly address the matter of the church calling someone to exercise a limited part of the public ministry of the Word but none of them does. Nowhere does the New Testament speak of the church assigning the responsibility of teaching God’s word to someone who is forbidden to preside over the congregation, preach publicly, and administer the sacraments. What the specific duties of the deacons were is uncertain, but the Scriptures nowhere say that anyone taught God’s word but was not permitted to teach the entire congregation. Simply put, the very concept of a limited public use of the keys as this is set forth in the PCM document is foreign to the Scriptures. Nevertheless, these texts are cited as biblical proof that “the extent to which one is authorized by the call of the church to exercise the keys publicly is the extent to which one is in the Public Ministry of the Word.” Being “in” the Public Ministry of the Word to this or that “extent” is quite impossible if this office is the concrete office of preaching of the gospel and administering the sacraments.

Whereas the texts cited to prove a limited public use of the keys in the Bible don’t teach this, these texts do show that the Holy Spirit moves freely in giving His gifts to men. The Wauwatosa Gospel teaches that it is the evangelical activity of the Holy Spirit here and now in the hearts of Christians that constitutes the divine institution of the office in whatever form it may take. Here we see the Wauwatosa influence on the PCM document. John Schaller put it this way: “For whatever the Christian congregation decides upon to further the preaching of the gospel it does at the instigation and under the guidance of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.”[29] The PCM document puts it this way: “But it is by divine right that one exercises that work on behalf of the Christians through whom the call has come.”

What is divinely instituted is representative ministry in whatever form it may take. When I argued at the microphone during the convention against applying Romans 10:15 (“how shall they preach unless they are sent?”) to the calling of a parochial school teacher I said that nowhere in the New Testament is a woman told to preach. The President of the Synod took issue with me and cited Mark 16:15, words that were spoken to the “eleven.” But the exegetical tradition to which we have become bound insists that this text teaches the giving of the means of grace to all Christians. The fact that nowhere in the New Testament is a woman told to preach must yield before this tradition. The fact that AC XIV refers to the call of men who are ordained and hold the concrete office of preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments must be reinterpreted to accommodate the new definition of the office. [emphasis added]

It should be noted that the author has focused in these quotations on part II.B of the PMW and any statements elsewhere that support it.

This is how the concerns were addressed in the 2006 GPC paper:

God permits, approves, blesses, and works through those external vocational arrangements that are made in an orderly way for the purpose of carrying out public activities that he wants to be carried out. But this does not mean that God has directly instituted all such external vocational arrangements. In fact, he has not. The PMW document acknowledges this when it says that those offices which have only “a limited public use of the keys” exist as distinct positions of responsibility — if and when they do exist — because of the church’s sanctified judgment, and not because of a divine command. If God has directly instituted something for the church, this would mean that the church cannot ordinarily do without it, and that the church would in fact be sinning against God’s will if it declined to have that divinely instituted thing. According to God’s will and institution, the church cannot do without the public use of the keys. More specifically, the church cannot do without the full public use of the keys. But the church often can do without specific external offices of one kind or another that are set up for the purpose of carrying out only a limited public use of the keys, or only a limited part of the Public Ministry of the Word. Such positions of responsibility are not commanded for the church of all times and places, and they are therefore not indispensable for the church of all times and places. [emphasis original]

And again:

Section II B of the PMW document is an elaboration on, and an explanation of, the “Public Ministry of the Word” in its wider sense. The focus and purpose of this section must be kept in mind when we consider the meaning of antitheses 8 and 9, which appear within it, and which can be a source of some confusion if they are not interpreted and applied according to their context. These antitheses state that “We reject the teaching that only those qualified to carry out a full use of the keys are in the Public Ministry,” and that “We reject the teaching that the Public Ministry is limited to any one divinely fixed form, that is, limited to the pastoral office to the exclusion of other teachers of the Word.” Understood contextually, these statements are simply reaffirming that there is indeed a legitimate “wider sense” of the phrase “Public Ministry,” which refers to the public use of the keys as carried out to any degree or level, from within any and all ecclesiastical offices. These statements should certainly not be understood as repudiations of the teaching that appears in section II A of the document: that the “Public Ministry of the Word” in its narrower sense does in fact refer exclusively to “the exercise of spiritual oversight” that is carried out (by divine design) only from within “the pastoral office”; and that the “Public Ministry of the Word” in its narrower sense does in fact require competency for a full public use of the keys. [emphasis original]

And finally:

But let’s not forget that the “divinely instituted Public Ministry of the Word” — which is synonymous with the “divinely instituted preaching and teaching office” — includes two senses or meanings. From the perspective of the narrower sense of the phrase, we can say that when Jesus trained and sent the apostles, and entrusted to them the full public ministry of Word and sacrament, he was thereby inaugurating in and for the Christian church the full public use of the keys. This continues to be a defining trait of the Public Ministry of the Word in the narrower sense. Whenever the full public use of the keys is being exercised in an orderly and proper way, this is an example of the Public Ministry of the Word in the narrower sense — and of “the pastoral office,” from which, according to God’s command, the full public use of the keys is carried out. From the perspective of the wider sense of the phrase, we can say that when Jesus trained and sent the apostles, and entrusted to them the full public ministry of Word and sacrament, he was thereby inaugurating in and for the Christian church the public use of the keys. This continues to be a defining trait of the Public Ministry of the Word in the wider sense. Whenever the public use of the keys is being exercised in an orderly and proper way — either to the full extent by pastors, or to a limited extent by other ecclesiastical office-holders — this is an example of the Public Ministry of the Word in the wider sense.

The full public use of the keys includes within it, at least potentially, any and every limited public use of the keys. There is no divine institution of a limited public use of the keys per se. There is a divine institution of the public use of the keys, as a whole and in all of its parts, from which, in the church’s freedom, limited public uses can be vocationally extracted and entrusted to qualified individuals, according to the church’s needs and circumstances. Section II B of the PMW document explains that when the church in this way calls individuals to fill positions of responsibility involving only a limited public use of the keys, it is thereby separating, “by human right,” a “limited portion of the office” to such individuals, and is authorizing them to exercise or carry out only a “specific” and “limited part of the Public Ministry of the Word.”

The answer given in this paper does not provide the scriptural basis for a divinely-instituted limited public use of the keys. It says that such a thing does not exist. Instead, there is a divinely-instituted use of the keys (not “limited public”), and the Church has freedom and authority to entrust a limited part of that use to certain individuals.

Is that “representative ministry?” Yes, in a sense. (See how nuanced this discussion can be?) It is representative ministry, with the caveat that it is not divinely instituted. In other words, we may call it ministry simply because we need a word for it, and we want to call it that. By definition, it is ministry because it is a kind of service.

I have wondered why our doctrinal statement would take such care to describe what is more a matter of our choice than a matter of doctrine. That is, why not just let II.B say that the Church has freedom to entrust certain ministerial duties to individuals alongside the “office of oversight,” and call it finished? Do we have to pollute a summary of biblical doctrine with descriptions of what the Church has elected to do in her freedom? In my mind, this is one of the most important criticisms of the PMW. In its current form, it leaves itself open to the charge of teaching human traditions as though they were the Word of God.

A Fifth Improvement for the PMW

JesseLeave a comment

For a long time now, I’ve pointed out that testing the spirits (1 John 4:1) is not an exercise of the Keys. How do I know? Because sometimes the “spirits” that need testing don’t belong to living people. For example, doesn’t that passage apply when Christians are reading theological writing from the controversies of the 16th Century? Are they not to test those spirits? Yet, if a Christian, reading Calvin’s Institutes or the Variata of Melanchthon, finds something doctrinally suspect, how is that an exercise of the Keys?

Short answer: it’s not. The Keys are for opening and closing heaven, but Calvin and Melanchthon are now beyond their influence. If they were still living, then maybe our reading and hearing them would eventually lead to an application of God’s Law, but a Christian’s own judgment of their teachings in itself would still not be a use of the Keys.

It is evident where the confusion arose. Christians possess the Keys by virtue of being Christians, that is, having Christ as their God and Savior by faith in His Word. Christians also have a responsibility to judge the teachings they find on earth, a responsibility to test the spirits. Christians have many other things by virtue of their faith, but not all of them are the Keys.

Presently, the PMW says this:

Christians also use the keys to judge the teaching of their pastors and teachers; they are to beware of false prophets (Matthew 7:15-16, 1 John 4:1, 2 Timothy 3:16).

If it must be treated here, I suggest this wording instead:

All Christians have the right and the duty to judge the teaching of their pastors and teachers; they are to beware of false prophets (Matthew 7:15-16, 1 John 4:1, 2 Timothy 3:16).

Doesn’t that make sense?

Hmm. Upgrades.

JesseLeave a comment

If something seems different at The Plucked Chicken, I’d be surprised. But if it does, it’s because I’ve upgraded and rearranged some things on the old home network.

It began when I wanted to install something on the server that hosts the PC. (I don’t even remember what it was at this point!) For those who don’t use a Debian-based flavor of Linux, I have to explain how most software installs and upgrades work. It’s pretty easy. Software is split into packages by task, functionality, mutual compatibility, and versions. So the first step is to find the package you want to upgrade or install, and there are package-management tools that make this fairly easy. (Understand that there are somewhere over 6,000 Debian packages.) After that, you use one of several package-management tools to do the upgrade or install. The computer handles the rest: figuring out dependencies, downloading packages and installing them. It even checks cryptographic signatures when possible to make sure nothing insidious has happened.

So I tried installing something remotely on the server machine, but it had been a long time since I’d performed a major upgrade, and years more since I’d upgraded the Linux kernel. I just didn’t want to mess with it, because it sits there, happily running connected only to 115v AC and 10Mb ethernet. Then, I messed with it. The installed system was quite outdated compared to current Debian systems, and it needed a new kernel.

Time past, I’d compile a new kernel without blinking. It was standard operating procedure for a long time while using Linux 2.2 and 2.4 kernels, and pretty easy. (I fondly remember a presentation Joe Abrahamson made to the LUG in Mankato on configuring a kernel for compiling.) This machine was still running 2.4, and Debian is now shipping with something like 2.6.20. I didn’t like the prospect of a full kernel compile on that 333 Mhz machine, not really remembering exactly what hardware it contained. So tried a few short cuts and rebooted it remotely, fingers figuratively crossed. It didn’t come back up. That was Friday morning.

Fast forward past a late night/early morning, one-man emergency computer rebuilding party, involving a GRUB emergency boot disk, a spare hard drive, a CD-ROM drive borrowed from the kids’ room, a newly-burned Debian net-install disk, and an uncooperative DSL modem. As you can see, the PC is up again. Now it has more hard drive space than ever before, sporting its own CD-ROM drive (invaluable for emergency boot/install situations), and a brand-new hostname in honor of a fictional young man whose brief experience as a dragon changed his life for the better. It still has only two wires: 115v AC and now 100Mb ethernet (swapped with kids’ computer).

I remember spending many late hours trying to get Windows or its programs to work. That was many years ago. It’s inevitable, because computers are just complex machines. Even appliances go berserk from time to time. The frustrating thing for me was that I paid good money for the privilege of that sleepless (and often fruitless) wrestling to get things working properly. It was about that time that I tried some alternatives in the hope of finding a Better Way. That included OS2/Warp, and would have included MacOS too, if I could have afforded it. (MacOS 7 was current at the time.) Then, I learned about Linux. I reasoned: “Why pay for my problems, when I can have them all for free?” The surprising thing was that my problems and frustration were also dramatically reduced, while my productivity and satisfaction were dramatically increased. See? You get what you pay for.

Linux is still free, and my problems are still few. Now, though, you can buy low-cost computers running Linux from Wal-Mart and many other places. Also, many (most?) of the embedded devices you use without even realizing it are running Linux.

Just think: my recent upgrade adventure, which wasn’t even so bad overall, used to be so commonplace that it was hardly worth writing about. Now, it’s rare enough — for me, anyway — that I mentioned it on the Plucked Chicken. So thank you, all who contribute to Free Software!

Comment to “Analysis of Appeals Commission Report”

Jesse2 Comments

This is a comment submitted by Shawn Stafford, in reply to this post. I’m including it in its own entry because the formatting available in comments is so limited that it doesn’t do the comment justice. Also, the post was so long ago, the comment could easily be overlooked. Without further ado…

Perhaps a memorial would be in order here. I was thinking along the lines of:

Whereas the 2007 ELS Convention elected an appeals commission to hear the appeal of the suspension of St. Timothy Lutheran Church in Williamsburg, Iowa, and

Whereas by doing so the synod acknowledged that a suspension had taken place and that an appeal should be heard in this case, and

Whereas, the appeals commission reported that there was no suspension in this case and therefore no grounds for an appeal, and

Whereas the 2007 ELS Convention floor committee on membership rejected a memorial by the Florida circuit winkel stating that there was no suspension in this case and therefore no grounds for an appeal,

Therefore, be it resolved that the synod in convention reject the conclusions of the appeals commission in the case of St. Timothy since it has rejected its purpose given at the 2007 convention, namely to hear the appeal of St. Timothy’s suspension, and further,

Be it resolved that another appeal commission be elected to carry out the directive of the 2007 ELS Convention in hearing the appeal of the suspension of St. Timothy Lutheran Church, Williamsburg, Iowa.

What do y’all think?

Shawn

Yet Another Book… for something completely different

JesseLeave a comment

This one is not available yet from our local library, but it’s on my medium-short list for books I’d like to read. It was mentioned on the front page of the Christian News. The author is Dinesh D’Souza, and it’s called The Enemy at Home. Here’s from the book’s web site, revealing an observation that has profound implications for the mission of the Church, specifically for the preaching of the Law which must precede the Gospel.

What has changed in America since the 1960s is the erosion of belief in an external moral order. This is the most important political fact of the past half-century. I am not saying that most Americans today reject morality. I am saying that there has been a great shift in the source of morality. Today there is no longer a moral consensus in American society. Today many Americans locate morality not in a set of external commands but in the imperatives of their own heart. For them, morality is not “out there” but “in here.” While many Americans continue to believe in the old morality, there is now a new morality in America which may be called the morality of the inner self, the morality of self-fulfillment.

Is D’Souza right about this shift in the location of morality, or is he idealizing the past? It would seem closely related to the rise of postmodernism. I’d also like to hear what my self-labeled “liberal” friends think of D’Souza’s reasoning relative to the major thesis of this book.

A Fourth Improvement for the PMW

Jesse2 Comments

Here’s another improvement about which I’d expect some strong opinions
and brotherly discussion.

First, a bit of explanation. In my mind, a doctrinal statement should
be explicit in what it says, not implicit. That is, it should not
merely imply anything important, leaving the reader to draw the
implication out as something taught by the doctrinal statement.
Instead, it should say what it means at every point. To skim over some
points, leaving them merely implied, is to make the doctrinal statement
less useful by introducing confusion and uncertainty. In fact, it could
be harmful. I don’t claim that this part is necessarily harmful, but in
the wrong hands, or set in the wrong context, it could be. The wrong
context is not even hard to imagine when we survey the state of
“Lutheranism” in America.

Currently, the PMW says:

Christians also use the keys publicly or officially when scripturally
qualified individuals, who have been called by Christ through the
church, forgive and retain sins on behalf of Christ and His church
(Romans 10:14–17, Acts 14:23, Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the
Pope, 67).

Understood correctly, this sentence notes that because
ministers perform the office of the keys, the Christians through whom
God calls them to their office also use the keys, acting to call them on
behalf of Christ.

Continue reading “A Fourth Improvement for the PMW” →

Third Adjustment to the PMW

Jesse2 Comments

While the first two changes were relatively easy to understand, this one you might have to ponder for a while, and I would fully expect some brotherly debate about it.

The Bible uses some words in a way that makes their definition rather important. “Justification” and its cognates are an example, as well as “sanctification” and its cognates. We’re careful about how we use these words, so that we don’t cause unnecessary confusion.

Other words can be just as important, though their special meaning comes from the way we use them, rather than the way they are used in the Bible. “Trinity” is a good example of that. In the PMW, the words “public,” “private,” “official,” and “unofficial” are other examples.

Those four words are really two pairs of opposites, and they are not defined in the Bible. AC XIV uses the word “public” to describe the sort of preaching, teaching, and administration of the sacraments that requires a regular call. My own observation has noted that the Confessions usually mean “with many people” when they use the word “public,” and they usually mean “with few people” when they use the word “private.” While we are not bound to this usage, it is still noteworthy.

Meanwhile, the word “official” usually means “with authority pertaining to an office,” while “unofficial” usually means “without the authority of any office.”

Continue reading “Third Adjustment to the PMW” →

Justification and the Condemnation of the Lost

JesseLeave a comment

There have been rumblings out and about among Lutherans concerning the chief article (and material principle) of the Christian faith: the biblical teaching we call “justification.”

While we never complete the process of sanctification in this life, justification is what computer programmers might call an “atomic operation.” That is, it begins and ends in an unmeasured instant, being completely received to the benefit of a penitent sinner when he believes that for Christ’s sake, his sins are forgiven.

Notice also that sanctification is done with human cooperation, but justification is entirely a divine gift, without any human cooperation. If there were any human cooperation, then not only was the entire Lutheran Reformation woefully and tragically misguided, but we also are left without the certainty that we are actually justified before God.

So say the scriptures. So says the Augsburg Confession. So say we all. The somewhat insular controversy, however, centers upon another aspect of justification. It may be framed in several ways. Here’s how I choose to frame it, at the moment.

What is the condemnation of the lost? In other words, what does God say actually condemns those who are finally damned? Let’s look at John 3, verse 18, following close on the heels of the more well-known 3:16 and 17.
It refers to the Son of God.

He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

There are two things to notice here. First, faith in the Son of God is required to be saved. Second, the condemnation for those who do not believe is their lack of faith, not the guilt of their accumulated sinfulness. This should be surprising for some. What happened to all that guilt? Why doesn’t it condemn them? Answer: because someone else was destined to be condemned for it (and now has been), who paid the full propitiation. The proof of that payment was His resurrection.

Someone may ask if this is the only passage of scripture that teaches that the condemnation of the lost is precisely their lack of faith. First, I answer: who cares? There is no doubt that this passage teaches it, because it’s such a clear passage. To teach otherwise would contradict this clear passage of scripture.

But yes, there are other passages that teach the same thing. One of them also appears in the historic lectionary: John 16:8-11. There, Jesus refers to the promised Holy Spirit.

And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

This passage is a bit more obscure than the last, because of Jesus’ unusual use of the word “convict.” We usually apply it only to those whose evil deeds have resulted in the public proclamation of their guilt. However, it is possible to have other forensic or legal proclamations, as Jesus says here. Of interest to us are the first two.

Jesus says first that the Holy Spirit will convict the world of sin. Why is that? Not because of the guilt of their accumulated sinfulness, but “because they do not believe in Me [i.e. Jesus].” Suprised? You shouldn’t be, because it’s the same thing Jesus said in John 3:18. The condemnation of the lost is precisely their lack of faith. (The evidence of that is their lack of genuine good works, as we see in Matthew 25.)

Jesus also says that the Holy Spirit will convict the world of righteousness. It’s an unusual way of speaking, but it means simply that the Holy Spirit will make the forensic or legal declaration that someone is righteous. Why is that? Jesus surprises us again. This declaration does not come because someone believes in the Son of God, but “because I go to the Father and you see Me no more.” That does not omit the necessity of faith, but it does show that there is a different reason for the announcement of justification.

Some time when I was working on this as a sermon text, I think I was reading some of Luther’s sermons. This sermon had the best explanation I could find of the words “because I go to the Father.” It’s a way of saying “because My assigned task on earth as the Lamb of God will be completed, so the proper thing will be to ascend to heaven.” If you want to know what the task of the Lamb of God is, just ask John the Baptizer: to take away the sin of the world (John 1:29). So the reason the Holy Spirit convicts the world of righteousness (i.e. proclaims justification) is because the Lamb of God has made complete atonement for the sins of the world.

It shouldn’t surprise us, but those two points harmonize and reinforce each other rather well:

  1. The lost are condemned not because of the guilt of their accumulated sin, but because they do not believe in Christ.

  2. The Holy Spirit proclaims righteousness upon the world because the Lamb of God has made atonement for all of its guilt.

Someone may object to this terminology for some reason, but at this point I see no problem with calling the unlimited atonement made by Christ “objective justification,” especially because His resurrection proves that it was accepted by the Father.

As always, I am open to criticism, though God’s Word really isn’t.

Offensive Preaching

JesseLeave a comment

There is a real and strong offense inherent in God’s Law and Gospel, rightly divided. Those who find their god in their own bellies don’t care about it, but many others, who pay attention to spiritual matters, find the preaching of Law and Gospel to be offensive. This includes many “in Israel,” that is, church members.

Therein is the reason why there is such division in outward Christianity. If we insist on recovering, preserving and teaching the pure Gospel of Christ, we will risk further outward fracturing of Christianity. There will always be some — even many who find it offensive. In that sense, the Reformation has indeed had a part in the divisions that are so apparent. Is Christian unity so precious that we should seek to buy it with our certainty of salvation? I hope not.

A new “gospel” message has been arising in many churches, in which the only “false” teaching is one that discriminates between righteousness and sin, between saved and unsaved. Some churches have found that this message sits well with a great many people, especially if it’s seasoned with a generalized nod toward the Golden Rule. “God will save everyone who tries their best.” And the ranks of those churches swell to bursting. No offense there.

On the other hand, there are also divisions in outward Christianity that have no bearing upon our certainty of salvation, nor any relation to the teaching of God’s Word. Those sad divisions can be healed in only one way: by recovering, preserving, and teaching the pure Gospel of Christ. In other words, through Reformation.

This, from Luther in 1531:

For many years, it was common experience at many gatherings that preaching was done to please everyone and cause offense to nobody. But the fact is, if you remove the offense and the obstacle, then Christ is lost. For right from the beginning when this man came into the world to show himself, there was opposition and taking of offense. Yes, say the pope, the bishops, the wise, and the mighty of this world, we will not tolerate this. Very well, are you angry? Then suppress it. Christ came to the Jews. He did not ask them beforehand whether or not he should come. This started such a stir in their land that they could not suppress it. Now he has come to us through his gospel, without our knowledge or will, and has also started a great uproar. Are you angered? Then oppose it. Are you wise? Then speak your mind. There are many who want to resolve the matter by human wisdom, but that remains to be seen. If they’re going to resolve this, bring an end to division and offense, achieve tranquility and unity, as they suppose, then I will scratch this text. Christ himself says in Matthew 10:34, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” Therefore, it will likely be and remain, as Simeon states, “This child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel.” On the other hand, many will rise because of him and be saved. Those who try to resolve this matter through human wisdom will accomplish nothing; rather, they will fall, never to rise, and be smashed because of it. For they try to make Christ different from what God ordered and ordained.

— Luther’s House Postil vol. 1, first sermon for “First Sunday after Christmas”