War Veterans facing PTSD, Depression, and Suicide: Why the current situation is bleak and what the Christian church can do to help.

This month, I'm going to do a series of blog posts discussing the topic of "Battle Fatigue".  While it is a very popular topic that is out there in the public consciousness, I perceive that it has really received the short shrift among Lutherans specifically and the Christian church more generally.

So why call it "Battle Fatigue" here?  Battle Fatigue is an older term which is about 25-75 years old.  These days, all of the issues surrounding the unique challenges faced by returning veterans are typically lumped into the clinical term called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  PTSD is a psychological diagnosis.  I am just a Christian war veteran and not a trained psychologist.  PTSD is a serious and real problem, but it is not the only problem that returning service members face and not the only topic that I want to address.

While some of my personal observations about PTSD and its treatment will come up, I am also going to speak about a wide range of issues facing returning veterans (and Christian veterans in particular) that don't always neatly fit into the more narrow set of symptoms and issues that that clinical diagnosis addresses.  It is my hope that this discussion will help start some dialogue and at least help some people address this issue.

Before I get into the topic, I'm going to get some house keeping out of the way.  I am no longer in the military so my personal observations on this blog obviously don't reflect any official policy of any branch of the military or the government as a whole... much less individual units or commands that I have been in contact with over the years.  Because these are often deeply private issues, I am going to do my best to speak very abstractly on this public forum without using names, places, or units so that I don't reveal very emotionally sensitive situations past and present.  I also come from the Army, so a large part of this is going to be from a "soldier's" perspective (as opposed to sailors, airmen, marines, civilians, contractors, etc).  Because the services have become so integrated and face similar challenges, I'm sure a lot of these topics are going to translate fairly well across branches.  For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to say "soldier" to encompass military personnel as a whole.

As you can probably tell from the tiny amount of actual comments that I get on this blog, most of the feedback that I get from my posts is via email anyway.  I really appreciate any and all feedback... especially on this important topic.  Public conversation is great, but I would encourage anyone who wants to talk to me privately about these issues to email me.  You don't even have to give me your name or anyone else's name and I certainly won't share anything that anyone tells me to anyone without permission.

Here is my email:  twntysdr@hotmail.com.

Here are some of the topics that I am going to discuss in various posts (feel free to suggest additional topics or revisiting of already covered topics):

1.  The Military Honor Culture:  Why the very high-performance culture that has to be in place to keep soldiers safe and the military so effective at what it does also contributes to soldier emotional and spiritual distress, discourages self-reporting of serious problems, and adversely affects healing.

2.  Counterproductive Hero Worship:  How the ghosts of the Vietnam War and the changing American culture have caused a well-meaning public to overcompensate thus creating the myth of a romantic, idealized soldier that feeds into the worst aspects of the "Honor Culture" which sometimes hurts individual soldiers rather than supporting them.

3.  The Chaplaincy:  Some "outside looking in" observations on how the military chaplaincy is forced to operate in the combat environment and how various challenges in the situation make it very difficult for soldiers to receive meaningful spiritual care.

4.  Reintegration and the Congregation:  How some of the unique challenges faced by returning war veterans affects how they relate to their home congregation and what the local church can do to welcome back these members and help them.

5.  Deployment and the Congregation:  What the church can do to spiritually support deployed members and their families.

6.  The Spiritual Reality of the War Environment:  How modern American culture as a whole (and the American church by extension) is not equipped to address the spiritual aspect of a combat environment and what we can do to change that.

In each of these and any other topics that I plan on discussing, I will do my best to include my thoughts and suggestions on:

What pastors and elders can do to help.
What congregations and family members can do to help.
What individual service members can do to help themselves.

I'm really looking forward to getting some informative and proactive information out on this topic and I hope that it will be constructive and valuable.  Really, if I can help one person, it will be worth the effort.

Faith is NOT the Assurance of Our Guesswork

Trinity 12:  Gen 15:1-6, Heb 11:1-16, Luke 12:22-34

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."  -Heb 11:1

Now one finds this passage misquoted out of context on wall art and stitched into couch blankets all the time and well meaning people use it to validate themselves in all sorts of ways.  After all, all you need to do is believe something... anything really...and be really, really, really convinced about it and it has to be true.  Isn't that what it means?  Well what is this "faith" that the apostle is talking about and what are these "things" that we hope for and don't see?

The temptation here is to make this "faith" a piece of head knowledge that we conclude or just an impression of the heart that moves us to feel something... and as fallen creatures we want to make these "things" into our own image of what we wrongly think we should put our faith in: people, treasures, fame, legacies, purposes, the American Dream, political ideals, even a god of our own making who supports our opinions and excuses our actions, etc, etc... the list is as limitless as man's sinful imagination.

But this faith is not the assurance of our guesswork.  It is not a kind of reasonless fideism that amounts to little more than positive thinking or letting whatever our heart wants be our guide and presumptuously call it a movement of God.  This faith is an external gift which God gives to us which we hear with our ears by the Word of Christ [Eph 2:8-9, Rom 10:17].  God reveals Himself concretely so that there is no mistake.  We have no excuse to be blown around by every wind of doctrine.  He comes to Abram and speaks His promises to Him [Gen 15:1-6].  He comes to Noah with terrible words of judgement and warning, but also the sweet means of salvation.  God did not rely on these heroes of the faith to know the hidden will of God or force them figure these hidden messages of God by blindly searching the depths of their being.  Additionally, these faithful witnesses did not go forth with the blind confidence that God would back their whims no matter what they might be.  They did not have to test the whims of the culture around them to see what the popular course of action might be as if God was speaking to them through the trends of mankind's cultural development.  Instead, Almighty God called them and declared His promises and--by the gift of faith--they believed and it was counted to them as righteousness.  From that they naturally responded with action from faith.

And what are these "things" that we hope for?  They are the very "things" that were hoped for by those saints who have come before us.  They certainly are not the things of this world or a place in this life only [Heb 11:13-14, 1 Cor 9:24-25].  They are not the things that we encounter every day and desire for ourselves because the Scripture clearly says that we have convictions of things not seen.  Wealth, success, fame, happiness, power, glory... we may not have it personally, but we have at least seen it around us.  These cannot be those "things" that we don't see.  Faith does not hope for mortal stuff or earthly glory. 

These "things" are not the things of this world that we see all around us: the lusts of the flesh and the pride of life [1 John 2:16-17], but are the very "things" that God has promised in his Word which are ours through the Son by the work of the Spirit which are salvation through the Gospel by the death of Christ and an eternal kingdom which lies ahead for all who believe. [Rom 1:16].  Not this world, but a better country, a heavenly one.  Therefore God is not ashamed to be called our God, for He has prepared for us a city [Heb 11:16], a city that St. Augustine calls "The City of God" which is "The Heavenly City [that] outshines Rome beyond comparison. There, instead of victory, is truth; instead of high rank, holiness; instead of peace, felicity; instead of life, eternity."

How could sinful man with his limited understanding be sure of such a wondrous thing without having seen anything like it?  And as a free gift no less?!?  Indeed, we cannot by our own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, our Lord, or come to Him, but the Word of Promise that went out to Abram and now goes out to us does the very thing that it says must be accomplished [John 6:44].  God draws man to Himself and makes what must be out of what is not.  He brings Abram on this journey of promise and by pure declaration transforms Him through His divine will on account of Christ.  By grace alone, God declares something new about Abram.  Abram who is a fatherless old man doomed to see his wealth pass to another upon his death.  Abram a man whom Hebrews calls "as good as dead" would have God name him Abraham the father of many nations.  From Abraham's seed would come the messiah, the Lamb of God, Christ Jesus, who takes away the sins of the world [John 1:29].

And even today, this Word that does not return void comes to us in our hearing and declares us to be what we were not.  We too would be "as good as dead", but are given new names and made new by the working of the Holy Spirit.  Just as Abram is named Abraham so the Spirit mercifully regenerates his own and makes us new by the washing of regeneration [Titus 3:4-7].  We were named "Sinner", but God declares us "Righteous" in Christ.  We were named "Fruitless", but by grace we are made "Fruitful".  We were named "Slave", "Enemy", and "Old Adam", but God calls us out of our sinful condition and declares us to be called "Heir", "Child", and "Saint".  God always keeps His promises and with this promise He provides the means with which it is accomplished.  With this new good name we bring forth the good fruit that God gives us to bring forth in the form of good works in keeping with the fruits of repentance [Matt 3:8-9].

So, as heirs of the promises of God with our new name, we hope for this heavenly kingdom that is to come and eagerly await its consummation with repentant joy.  We wander here as strangers and exiles with that coming promised land in mind.  What good are Sodom and Gomorrah to us when we are being lead to the place of God's choosing? What good is the Land of Ur?  So, as children of God called by his name, what profit is there in thinking of those lands from which we have been called out of?  With what lies before us, let us keep our eyes fixed on that prize so that we do not have the opportunity to return from whence we came.

With such a bountiful inheritance, what worry or need do we have that the Lord does not provide for us?  What paltry treasures, titles, or experiences could we care to possess when compared to that heavenly glory that is yet to come and the peace that comes in the knowledge that it is most assuredly ours no matter our present circumstance?  Like the undeserving and spoiled heirs of a rich father, we are without want or need and are free to cast off or give away the things that others desire and fight over [Luke 12:29-34].  God has given us the knowledge that those things are passing away and we are certainly provided with all of our needs.  How easy it is to give away the temporary small things when the one big thing is in view!  Even the best and truest things of this life are here today and gone tomorrow.

But our faith is not in those "things"... that guesswork of man's feeble mind, that impulse of his heart, that idolatry of his sinful desires, that creation of his seemingly grand designs, or even that work of his mortal hands.

No, our eyes are fixed on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith [Heb 12:1-3].


Come, Thou Fount of every blessing,
Tune my heart to sing Thy grace;
Streams of mercy, never ceasing,
Call for songs of loudest praise.
Teach me some melodious sonnet,
Sung by flaming tongues above.
Praise the mount, I’m fixed upon it,
Mount of Thy redeeming love.

Sorrowing I shall be in spirit,
Till released from flesh and sin,
Yet from what I do inherit,
Here Thy praises I'll begin;
Here I raise my Ebenezer;
Here by Thy great help I’ve come;
And I hope, by Thy good pleasure,
Safely to arrive at home.

Jesus sought me when a stranger,
Wandering from the fold of God;
He, to rescue me from danger,
Interposed His precious blood;
How His kindness yet pursues me
Mortal tongue can never tell,
Clothed in flesh, till death shall loose me
I cannot proclaim it well.

O to grace how great a debtor
Daily I’m constrained to be!
Let Thy goodness, like a fetter,
Bind my wandering heart to Thee.
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
Prone to leave the God I love;
Here’s my heart, O take and seal it,
Seal it for Thy courts above.

O that day when freed from sinning,
I shall see Thy lovely face;
Clothèd then in blood washed linen
How I’ll sing Thy sovereign grace;
Come, my Lord, no longer tarry,
Take my ransomed soul away;
Send thine angels now to carry
Me to realms of endless day.

How Important was the Hiedelberg Disputation Really?

There is no doubt that Luther's 1518 Heidelberg Disputation holds a great deal of historical significance in the development of the events that lead to the Reformation.  If nothing else, it was the presentation of these theological arguments that won Luther an invitation to debate Johann Eck at Leipzig.  It is interesting to note that the thrust of the Leipzig Debates centered around matters Luther had brought up in his 95 Thesis (Papal primacy, indulgences, purgatory, etc) and could not really be called any kind of "Heidelberg II: The Legend Continues".

So, as a new Lutheran several years ago, I was tickled to hear from other people that the entire world had got it wrong and that the 95 Thesis, while historically significant as the catalyst for the reformation, did not really hold a candle to the theological importance of the little known Heidelberg Disputation.  The 95 Thesis was really about errors in practice after all while Heidelberg really gets into some doctrinal meat.  Right?  Who doesn't love doctrinal meat!  I fell for this idea because no one really holds the 95 Thesis up as an important doctrinal work in itself... but this Heidelberg Disputation.  Could it really be a theological dark horse that has gotten centuries of short shrift?

Gerhard Forde really did a great job selling me on the theological importance of Heidelberg in his work On Being a Theologian of the Cross.  As a neophyte I clearly missed the word "reflections" in the subtitle of this book and Forde's own admission on page 30 that its purpose was not to explain Heidelberg but rather to expound his own theological impressions with the Disputation as a back drop.  Looking back now I can see that on my first read I didn't really understand what I was reading. It took a second read years later after I had read alot more to see this book and its points more clearly.

And yet there are many Lutherans, particularly among the theological elite in the laity, that puppet the idea that the Hiedelberg Disputation was this unknown theological gem worth in depth study.  I have even heard it (along with Forde's book) called a "must read" for any Christian.

But how theologically important was the Heidelerg Disputation really to Lutheranism?

That's not just a rhetorical question.  It obviously has historical significance.  It is a major event in the timeline of the Reformation and it is a significant window into the mind of what more than a few LCMS pastors and scholars have called "Early Luther".  In a few short years of study in Lutheranism I have gone from "Very Important if not Critical" to "Not all that much actually".  I am open to hear some opinions on this subject.

Here are some of my reasons why I no longer put much theological weight behind Heidelberg:

Lack of Explicit Influence.  I have yet to find a place where Johann Eck challenges Luther directly on his "Theology of the Cross vs Theology of Glory" concept (the reason why everyone loves Heidelberg).  While Luther opposes Erasmus in The Bondage of the Will with themes that appear in the 1518 Disputation, I do not see a robust rehash of Cross vs Glory there.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Luther ever had the Heidelberg Disputation published and I don't think that they appeared before him at the Diet of Worms.  I haven't found the theologia crucis in the Confessions.  While my monolinguistic handicap makes my study of Lutheran theology far from exhaustive, it is hard to find any doctrinal analysis or even mention of Heidelberg until the 20th century.  It would seem that there is scant reference to this work as anything of theological significance until modern times.

Lack of Efficacy.  This goes hand in hand with my theories about it's lack of concrete influence.  It is my opinion that Heidelberg did not receive the broadside that say the 95 Thesis did because the former failed to correctly address the problems it diagnosed while the former was much more successful at dealing with the issue at hand.  There is no doubt that the 95 Thesis identified and directly combated some serious errors.  Did Heidelberg really do this or was it really a first attempt at getting a grasp of the theological mess of medieval Romanism.  The Gospel is badly muted in Luther's argumentation because much of Luther's talk of "grace" and "belief" are still influenced by monastic synergism.  While the Augustinians disapproved of Luthers ideas in 1518, it is unlikely that suggesting that the answer to wrongly trying to do good is for us to suffer more as Christ suffered would have gotten Luther excommunicated.  That conclusion really isn't "Lutheran" in any kind of confessional sense and might not even be all that traditionally "Protestant".

Lack of Transcendent Relevance.  I attribute the rediscovery of the Heidelberg Disputation as a theological work to situational expediency.  Rather than addressing transcendent truths that are timeless and largely relevant to the Christian in all times and places, Heidelberg seems to hit all the right check marks for a certain brand of theologians that did not exist as an organized school of thought in 1518.  As is so often the case, its rising popularity has more to do with its pragmatic usefulness as a theological support for particular ideas and various philosophical approaches.  Like any great man, Luther suffers a high degree of appropriation from later minds.  This "Early Luther" is particularly vulnerable to appropriation because his ideas are still so subjective and vague.  The Heidelberg Disputation is a prime example.  Is it theologically important because its concepts are transcendent and universally relevant?  ...Or is it being made theologically important because its language and argumentation can be used to easily support theo-philosphical ideas that the more robust and developed ideas found in the Book of Concord do not?  This might explain why the rest of the world and 500 years of history have missed the importance of the Heidelberg Disputation and why many of its current greatest admirers and advocates come from relatively new schools of thought:   Christian Existentialism, Hegelianism, Liberation Theology, and Post-Modernity just to name a few.

Thoughts?  Critiques?  Pitchforks and burning effigies?

Baptismal Regeneration & Infant Baptism vs. Baptism as Testimony & Age of Accountability

In the last few days, a great deal of ink has been spilt and even more podcast time here and here has been dedicated to the Lutheran (i.e. the Biblical) position on baptism... particularly in Lutheran circles.

They have done a fantastic job defending infant baptism and baptismal regeneration from our critics using Biblical and patristic sources.  I have nothing to add for either of those approaches... and I have, over the years, tried both approaches with my Anabaptist friends and family with little success.  I have used the scriptural supports and the list of patristic quotes and even posted some of them on this blog before.

Most of the time, that approach is met with apathy and a glazed look.  It has been my experience that most Anabaptists don't put too much doctrinal thought into why they reject Baptismal Regeneration and are against Infant Baptism.  They think even less about the theological grounds for why they support Baptism as Testimony and the Age of Accountability.

Even if you prove your point from the Scriptures and the early church, they either tend to just "agree to disagree" or they acknowledge your point as some non-essential piece of trivia that has no impact on anything important.  Why?  I think it is because most of the modern Anabaptists I know fail take the ramifications of this debate seriously.  In fact, this theological debate coming from the Anabaptists is the first robust discussion that I have ever heard on the actual Scriptural merits of the differing practices.  So, while the Scripture and the early church fathers is the BEST approach, it is almost never my FIRST approach.

Most American Christians, mirroring the anti-intellectual culture they are in, put much more stock in experiential evidence than grammatical facts and historical evidence.  I have come to think that one must meet them where they live first with a few experiential arguments to move their hands off of their ears and then follow up with the dogmatic supports on the back end.

So here is my contribution to this web discussion:  the experience-based evidence and a harsh first-hand appraisal of what is at stake if the Anabaptists are right (which they aren't):

I grew up as an Arminian Anabaptist with most of that time spent in churches of the Southern Baptist Convention.  I was a child growing up under the "Age of Accountability".  It has given me a few first hand observations that I believe are helpful.

First, I had a difficult time "converting" to Christianity.  When I reached the vague "Age of Accountability" range, I could not really look back and recall a time when I did not consider myself a Christian.  In practice it is more of a rite of passage than a spiritual awakening because (contrary to the theory behind Age of Accountability) children who grow up in church GROW UP IN THE CHURCH.  You don't point to a four year old and tell their parents, "I can't wait until he becomes a Christian."  That's crazy... especially when he is singing "Jesus Loves Me This I Know... For the Bible Tells Me So."  Especially given that, in many churches, this is about as deep as the doctrinal teaching goes for Christians at any age.

By the time I reached my teens, it was very difficult for me to formulate my "conversion story" for witnessing to the lost.  Some how, "I have always been a Christian" was just not something that my Sunday School teachers were prepared to deal with.

Second, the way that many Anabaptists handle the Age of Accountability is not consistent with the dire situation that the teaching implies.  Looking back as an adult, why weren't the adult members of my church carefully watching me to discern the subjective time at which Almighty God was going to apply the guilt of my sins to my soul?  If the ability of human reason and guilt is what brings about the wrath of God for sin, why weren't my powers of reason rigorously tested?  Why was I just thrown into an age appropriate information class when I started to self-report a desire to take communion?

I would think that the parents of children approaching the Age of Accountability would lie awake at night praying for the ability to foresee the exact moment when their child's wretched soul was destined for hell... when my mental faculties and personal conscience matured enough to make me "responsible" for the evil that I was already doing.  I was certainly in fear of hell many years before anyone else seemed to be concerned about my eternal destination.

Third, there is the next gross inconsistency that I realized at a very young age.  If God can abide sin in children and not hold them accountable, why does he change the rules as you get older?  If He can overlook actual sin because kids "don't know what they are doing" or "didn't really mean it" or "didn't understand the eternal consequences"... well, then why doesn't He do that for lost adults who are in practically the same situation?

As an adult, I am not really that much more aware of the manifold ways in which I sin than I was before.  I am not really that much more empowered to halt my sinful condition.  I certainly don't "feel" more guilty than I did as a young boy... because I grew up wracked with personal guilt... guilt that my "testimonial" Baptism did not comfort.  When is this Age of Accountability really?  Is it 4?  Is it 5?  Is it 10?  Is it 13?  45?  No one knows.  It is different for each person... well that is a pretty subjective answer to base the fate of eternal souls on.  We are talking about hell here.

Fourth, I remember my pastor as a child saying the following phrase before each Baptism, "Baptism doesn't save a person.  It is an outward expression of an inward experience."  I must have heard that 100 times growing up.  Well, what is that Inward Experience?!?  How do I know if I had that for real?  Now I know that it was a summary of the misinterpretation of the 1 Peter 3:21-22 passage.

Taking their belief as fact for a second, how do I know that my inward appeal was good?  What if I was under the Age of Accountability when I made that appeal and didn't fully understand what I was doing?  Did that invalidate my inward experience?  Can a child still in the Age of Accountability make that appeal and convert?  What if he does it too early and thinks he is converted when he wasn't biologically ready to convert?  Does that still count?  What would have happened if I ran over the Age of Accountability by six months and died?  What would happen to me then?

You can see that this whole topic really tore me up as a child.  Second only to missing "The Rapture" it was the highest point of dread that I experienced.  The emotions are as raw today as they were when I was a child.  So, Biblical truth aside for a second, it is a deeply emotionally wounding practice for kids who care about their eternal destination... and parents who bother to take the doctrine seriously as if it has eternal ramifications.  How was all this questioning handled?  Well, I was told that I should love God and have faith in Him and not try to "just use Jesus as a fire escape".  Turn me back onto the Law.  That's nice... No wonder I left.  Okay.  My ranting is over.

The big problem with Age of Accountability from a practical stand point is that it simultaneously over-estimates and under-estimates children.  It over-estimates their ability to communicate their spiritual condition and needs because adults DO NOT know what kids are really thinking.  It under-estimates their capacity for guilt and reason because adults DO NOT know what kids are really thinking.

I would also point people to this other experience that I had that proves that children are often a lot more theologically savvy than adults give them credit.  It really illustrates the foolishness of the Age of Accountability.  Look at this old post about a young child's proclamation.

Called the Divine Mysteries by Faith: Not because they are absent from us, but because they are above our understanding.

"In the second place, they raise in opposition also those statements of the ancients in which they call the Lord's Supper a mystery or sacrament, a mystic benediction, and mystical food.  Likewise, that the body of Christ is present or received in or under a mystery or sacramet.  They [the adversaries] understand a "mystery" as a figure or a sign of an absent reality.  But the ancients called both Baptism and the Lord's Supper mysteries, not with regard to the absence of anything but because they could not understand them with their minds or grasp them with their senses; rather, these sacramets occupied a position far above and beyond the range of the senses and the mind and had to be understoood and judged by faith on the basis of the Word of God alone.

Thus Paul says: "We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery" [1 Cor 2:7], and again he speaks of the dispensers of "the mysteries of God" [1 Cor 4:1; Col 1:25-27]."  Chyrsostom, Homilia 82 in Matthaeum, says: "In the mysteries of Baptism and the Lord's Supper we must not only look at those things which are subject to the senses but we must particularly believe that those things which are taught us by the Word are present and bestowed upon us, even though to the senses and to reason they seem absurd, for they are above our senses and our reason."

-Martin Chemnitz

An All-Encompassing Nature

"The Spirit of the Lord fills the world;" (Wis 1:7) "where shall I go from Thy Spirit or where shall I flee from Thy presence?" (Ps 139:7) The prophet says:  "I am with you, says the Lord of hosts... My Spirit abides among you." (Hag 2:4-5)  If wherever God is, the Spirit is present also, what nature shall we presume Him to have?  An all-encompassing nature, or a nature confined to particular places, as we have described the nature of the angels?  No one would say the latter.  He is divine in nature, infinite in greatness, mighty in His works, good in His blessings; shall we not exalt Him; shall we not glorify Him?   I reckon that this "glorifying" is nothing else but the recounting of His own wonders."

-St Basil the Great
From On the Holy Spirit

"...My peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives."

"All things of earth are fleeting and transitory; but the soul is immortal; how then can it find peace in these?  All of these are of the earth earthy, but our souls are of heavenly origin, how then could these satisify its holy desires?

In Christ alone it finds the peace it seeks (Matt 11:29); He only can satisfy and fully meet its immortal desires.  Against the holy wrath of God, it quietly rests in the wounds of Christ the Savior; against the accusations of Satan in the almighty power of Christ; against the terrors of the law in the gospel of Christ; against her accusing sins in the precious blood of Christ, that speaketh better things in the presence of God than the blood of Abel (Heb 12:24); against the fear of death it reposes in joyful confidence in the intercession of Christ at the right hand of the Father above.

And so faith finds rest in Christ; but our love also finds there its most blessed repose.  If we set our hearts upon earthly things, we shall not have this true peace, because these earthly things themselves do not have it, nor can they possibly satisfy the longings of the soul, because they are finite, whilst our souls, made in the image of God, ardently long for that Infinite Good, in whom all good things are.

As then our faith ought to rely upon nothing in all the world but the merit of Christ alone, so also our love should be set upon no earthly object, not even upon ourselves.  The love of self hinders the love of God, and we ought to prefer that love to all things else.  Our soul is the bride of Christ (2 Cor 11:2); it ought then to cling to Him alone.  Our soul is the temple of God (1 Cor 3:16), and hence it ought to be the dwelling-place of God alone."

-Johann Gerhard
From Sacred Meditiations

Amplified Error: The Danger of Biblical Word Studies

It is a common joke among philosophy majors that the most dangerous thing in the world is a first year philosophy student.  Why?  Because he knows just enough to be really dangerous.  He has just enough knowledge to solidify his uniformed opinions in his own mind and just enough rhetorical tools to convince the people who know less than him that he is some kind of expert.

The same is true of original languages when doing Bible study.  Probably the most dangerous study in the world is carried out by someone who knows "a little" Greek... or "a little" Hebrew.

Or worse... he doesn't know either of those languages at all but has a Greek to English dictionary or thinks his Amplified Bible coupled with his Strong's Concordance makes him a Biblical scholar because it has two lexicons in the back.  The truth is that a solid English translation (like the ESV or NASB or even the old NIV) studied and read in context is far more advantageous than listening to pseudo-scholars writing Greek words one at a time on a white board.  After all, context is important because scripture interprets scripture.  Insight into the original languages is good BECAUSE it sheds more light on the original context... not because it gives you trivial knowledge of all the possible meanings and uses for Agape.  If you can't understand the context of the phrase in its original language, what does one word really profit you?  There might be an advantage there, but the danger should not be underestimated. 

I'm no linguist and I don't have a Master of Divinity so I am not an elitist here.  I am someone who was suckered in by the people described above for most of my life.  The sad fact is that most of them fall under the New Testament rebuke that warns to avoid people who are "always learnimg and [are] never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth."

Here's an example in English so everyone can know the danger that I am talking about. I am going to remove the dead language from the equation to simplify the point. Let's take a simple English sentence and play the Amplified word game.  I will show you how easily something can go wrong if you take one sentence out of context and amplify one word out of that sentence.  Let the twisting begin:

"At that time, Billy climbed over the fence."

Now I'm going to play the pseudo-scholar word games with this one sentence as if this was a passage of Scripture.  I don't have time to read a whole paragraph where I found this thing so I will do the "scholarly" thing and look at word meanings.  Let's see... Fence... that's an interesting word.  More often than not, the ugly truth is that I only found this sentence because I did a word search for "fence" and this thing popped up so I decided to use it.  (If you don't think that that happens then you are truly naïve... and you trust too easily.)

Let's look in my English to English lexicon (called a dictionary) and figure out what all the possible meanings are of this word.

Fence (noun) 

1. a barrier enclosing or bordering a field, yard, etc., usually made of posts and wire or wood, used to prevent entrance, to confine, or to mark a boundary.

2. Informal. a person who receives and disposes of stolen goods.

3. the place of business of such a person.

4. the act, practice, art, or sport of fencing.

5. skill in argument, repartee, etc.

 

Now, the first one is the most common, but there are all these other meanings!  Let's play around with it and get all scholarly.  Using 2, we can conclude that it is possible that Billy is working with some kind of criminal who specializes in stolen goods... and he is trying to climb over that person.  He must be trying to get over on that activity.  Since number 4 has to do with a sport involving swords and 5 means that Billy is a skilled talker, clearly we are dealing with some kind of shady individual.  Even when you look at number 1, what are most fences for?  They are for keeping out unwanted people... so at the very least, Billy is trespassing somewhere.  This lexicon has unlocked great truths here... Billy is clearly some kind of criminal.

 

Entire sermon series these days are built on the system I just described in the above paragraph.  I've read whole books and sat through bible studies with only that method as the source of truth.  Now let's look at the whole paragraph with no definitions and see what is there. 

 

"Billy is in the Under 10 baseball league at the local community center.  He plays center field.  In the second inning, one of the best players on the other team hit a home run and scored.  Billy's coach told him to retrieve the ball.  At that time, Billy climbed over the fence.  Billy got the ball and threw it back to his team mates.  After he got back on the field, they resumed the game.  Billy's team lost, but he congratulated the other team and had a good time.  After that, his parents took him out for ice cream."

 

With no definition explorations, reading the paragraph in context unlocks everything one could need to know about what is going on here.  This is how a true student of a text that really wants to know what is going on and uses context clues can realize that this text is an account of a little league baseball game.  The trick is to be humble and let the text tell you what it means instead of inserting every possible meaning or impression that you have into it.

But then this arrogant fool who wants to impress himself with his own knowledge and make sure that everyone else is equally impressed gets in the way of the paragraphs plain meaning... a plain meaning that someone who reads on a 4th grade level could understand with little difficulty.  That "scholar", "teaching pastor", or "small group leader" will take a story about little league and go on and on about the word "fence".  He will speak for a half our about the bad example Billy set by committing various crimes.  At the end, he will thank God for speaking to him and unlocking this hidden meaning.

Is Billy a criminal that you wouldn't let into your house or a little kid with ice cream on his face.  You be the judge.  ...you don't even need to know what Baseball is to get the sense of what is going on!

 

The clue is in the sentence itself.  "At that time..." already tells you that this one sentence is already out of context.  There is something more going on that you don't know.  All someone has to do is read the paragraph and it becomes painfully clear what it means.  Try it and you will be amazed how often people get this wrong when reading the Bible.

 

Don't get caught doing this yourself!

4 Years of Tentatio: Where then is Boasting? It is excluded.

This blog has had over two years of hiatus.  I don't know if it is going to come back, but I am still here... barely.  Life since 2009 has seen me greatly diminished.  Some where between the horrors and strain of doing my part in the war in Iraq and trying to pick up the pieces after I got back, I ran out of constructive things to say on here.

Life, this long road of tears, has really taken the starch out of my britches.  I have not made it this far unscathed by any means.  It became progressively clear that I needed to stop talking and start listening, reading, and praying.  It is in these moments, be they one day or over 1,500 days, that the reality of Christ becomes most potent.

What does a man have when so much of this dying world that he thought to be true is proven false, when so many temporal things fail him... and most especially when his own strength fails him?  What is left when much of his life passes away and the future plans that he had developed form himself have become so uncertain?

It is on this dark road that the life of a Christian, a sinner saved by grace and sustained by the gift of faith, snaps sharply into focus.  It is on the refuse heap of life that the theoretical dogmas and truths that the Holy Spirit has revealed to us are put into practice.

It is here where I have decreased and Christ has increased.  It is here, looking back over this long road, where this wretched sinner has run out of things in which boast... except for the surpassing love of Christ.

Thanks be to God that He has taken from me all of those things that I held to which are passing away.  Thanks be to God that He, in His insurmountable mercy, that he has left me with those things that I truly need:  His grace through faith, repentance and the forgiveness of sins, His church, Word and Sacrament, a wife that gives me continual support, the simple daily blessings which He pours out on me, and the strength He gives me to live out the vocations that He calls me to.

The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.  

Philippians 3: 8-11

8Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— 10that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Long Overdue!

***Warning!  My Own Private Opinion Follows!***

Pastor Harrison, President of the LCMS, announced on Issues, Etc that the synod will be ending its joint chaplaincy commitment with the ELCA.  In my personal opinion, this is long overdue.  We needed to make our chaplaincy effort consistent with the altar/pulpit fellowship policy of our church body.  I am sure that the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" drove the majority of this decision, but it should have been made even if the possibility openly homosexual ELCA chaplains was not an issue.

As a service member who is a member of the LCMS, I stand whole heartedly behind this decision.  It is hard enough to get quality Lutheran chaplain support.  It is even harder when the quality of ELCA chaplains has been -- quite frankly -- rather poor in my own personal experience on several occasions (with the exception of one ELCA chaplain who I met at Ft. Hood as we both were passing through mobilization).  I will be charitable and not share any of my "horror stories" on my blog.

In contrast, I have yet to meet an LCMS chaplain that is anything short of exceptional.

The LCMS is losing very little by this move.  It is good to see the synod standing on principle on behalf of its members who are in uniform.

***End of Private Opinion***