Kelly’s Blog

I found some recently that look like this. Food erasers are the best. I think I shall never grown up.

Re-posted from Gene Veith’s blog.

**********

“Here is a good quote from C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity that came up at a Washington Monthly blog in the context of a discussion of vicious ad hominem blog comments:

“Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, ‘Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,’ or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything — God and our friends and ourselves included — as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.”

“The blogger, Hilzoy at Political Animal, concludes with this: ‘No one — not liberals, not conservatives — should forget that their opponents are human beings. And no one can afford to start down the road Lewis describes, in which you allow yourself to be disappointed when your opponents aren’t as bad as you first thought, or want them to be as bad as possible. And no one should get so wrapped up in political fights that in focusing on the mote in someone else’s eye, they lose sight of the beam in their own.’”

*********

Internet Monk wrote a recent post of related subject matter called “Responding to the Whoppers.” He asks: “Your Christian friend has been staying up late on the internet, listening to Christian short wave and now comes up with a collection of completely bizarre, totally mythological pieces of anti-factual, conspiratorial nonsense—’They drilled a hole to hell,’ ….’Obama is a Muslim’ …..’NASA has proven the sun stands still’ ….’9-11 was prophesied in Ezekiel’ ….’Christianity is going to be illegal by the next election.’ What do you do?… What is the right response to ignorance, factual error, and sweeping untruths?”Check out the discussion here.

Alex put all the info you need on this page of his By the Font website. Check especially near the bottom of the page. The book is available both as a free PDF and as a book published through Lulu.

I tried to put the most important disclaimers in the Introduction, but a couple things to be aware of anyway, just for your information.

1. We’re not making a profit off this book. This keeps it inexpensive and avoids hassle from our end. It was a “for fun” project (because some of us have a bizarre idea of “fun”). :)  The free PDF is there so you can preview it before ordering a copy, to be sure it’s something you really want. Having said that, I’d strongly suggesting ordering a copy of the paperback through Lulu because the product is really beautiful and professional-looking.
2. Lulu is an American company and international shipping can get pricey, so contact us if you’re in Canada and you want a copy, and we may be able to get it to you more cheaply, from our own current stash. But fortunately, because the book is already cheap, even high shipping added on doesn’t make it an unreasonably-priced purchase.
3. The book is in Q&A format and deals with why Lutherans believe in the efficacy of Baptism and infant Baptism. The questions are frequently-heard ones from those Christians who reject the efficacy of Baptism, mainly stemming from my own initial objections to the concept. Many objections I respond to are straw-men or based on misunderstandings that can be simple to clear up. If disagreement remains with the Lutheran view of Scripture on this matter, that’s fine– my primary aim was for readers to at least dispense with stereotypes or misinformation when considering what we believe about it.
4. It’s not a scholastic work. I’m a layperson and it’s very much on a lay level, more conversational and extremely simplified. If you want something more in-depth and better-written than a simple Q&A, I refer you to other works in Appendix C. 

Alex and I spent a lovely afternoon in Portage la Prairie on Friday, and we stopped in Carman for a short break on our way back. In the Carman Bargain shop, Alex found and purchased an inexpensive CD by a band we’ve seen live together. This CD had album artwork that was covered with a whole bunch of Sacred Heart images. Now I discover that Friday, June 19 is actually the feast day for the Sacred Heart of Jesus on the Catholic calendar. Go figure. (Lutherans generally aren’t privy to such things, not tending to go in for devotions related to mystical apparitions by nuns.)

Anyway, Portage actually has some very beautiful park areas and riverfronts, and the weather today was perfect. The kids were even good. It was a splendid, restful afternoon.

In the way of blog posts and such things…

Rev. Cwirla holds forth on the topic of faith and doubt in response to a recent “de-conversion” from Christianity.

Internet Monk posts briefly on Edwards’ famous sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” and points out the lack of Gospel in it, replaced by “revivalistic demands and incomprehensible explorations of the divine will.” This is not an uncommon phenomenon even now in tons of purportedly Christian sermons, Bible studies, and devotions. Don’t believe me? 

Eric at On the Wittenberg Trail comments on the danger of Christians playing the “victim” card when it comes to power and politics.

And Pr. Weedon comments on the poverty and richness of a single net– what brings people into God’s kingdom.

Now it’ll be stuck in yours, too! Heehee!

On a somewhat related note, I never blogged about my thoughts on the whole Susan Boyle news phenomenon, because it really ticked me off. It bothered me that it should even make the news that a person could be a talented singer without fitting the Hollywood stereotypes and expectations for attractiveness. Why should people be so surprised? Why should they applaud longer and louder, as though a person were overcoming some sort of handicap by singing well without being a young and anorexic cover model?

You’d think that just a cursory glance at certain pop music icons of the past would be instructive in this. It’s true that a lot of the more famous pop singers have also been attractive, since Elvis and the teen idols, because attractiveness sells. But it’s equally obvious that plenty of great pop singers and songwriters have been almost notoriously unattractive. At least some of my favorites seem to share that in common. Anyone who’s listened to Billy Joel, Elton John, Jim Croce (etc. etc.) on the radio before getting a glimpse of them should have have that initial surprise worn off ages ago. “Yes, I get it. You don’t have to be an Adonis to have a great singing voice.” But I think we’ve moved back into the teen idol era, where particularly gifted musicianship and songwriting capabilities have taken a back seat to how a person looks. Probably our modern tendency to stare at more screens has contributed to this. I mean, if you’re just listening to a CD (or a record), who cares what you have to look at? But nowadays you can have discussion about the latest TV talent competition and talk more about what people were wearing and how good they looked than about their musicianship.

Most of you who read this blog know by now, but we had our baby boy on May 21, Ascension Day. He’s healthy and everyone is doing okay; I’m just a bit low on iron for now, so it makes me extra tired.

And I just read a great Pentecost sermon on what a Spirit-filled life really looks like, go check it out. (HT: Cranach)

…as well as my baby, one of these days, and posting on my blog gives me something distracting to do…

Here’s a sample Q&A from the upcoming product, soon to be available online in PDF form as well as a printed book through Lulu. The book is called “Water with the Word: A Baptism Q&A”; subtitled “Explaining the efficacy of Baptism to Christian friends.”

********

“Is the practice of confirmation, a special period of instruction and profession of faith for older children, essentially a parallel of the profession of faith and instruction that happens before an older child or teen receives ‘believer’s Baptism’ in a different church?”

At first glance, there may appear to be some similarities between a Lutheran confirmation and the public profession of faith or “testimony” that is required for older children or adults to be baptized in some churches. However, in these churches with different notions of Baptism, these practices are conceptually coming from completely different places and should not be considered to be interchangeable.

The point of the public profession of faith and instruction before Baptism, as put forward in church bodies which deny infant Baptism and its efficacy, is that such profession with the mouth by the individual is necessary before a person can become a Christian. Only after this public commitment is stated may the candidate be baptized. Some of these churches, when looking at the Lutheran practice of confirmation, think of the instruction and profession given through this rite as “validating” the Lutheran’s infant Baptism, or “making it work.”

Lutherans do not believe that confirmation gives Baptism its validity or power. They hold that Baptism is valid in and of itself through the power of God’s Word and promise. Obviously, those who are baptized as infants are expected to be continually taught the faith that they have been given and grow in their understanding throughout their whole lives. Confirmation is about “confirming” what God has already told us: we were made his children through Baptism, and we intend to continue on in that Christian faith which God has already graciously worked in us. Practically speaking, confirmation instruction is used to make sure that older children are well-versed in the basics of the Christian faith so that they can properly examine themselves before receiving the Lord’s Supper, that they might eat and drink to their benefit (1 Cor. 11:27-29). The rite of confirmation is not “essential” in the Lutheran faith; it is a practice used for the sake of good order, as one consistent, concrete way of following Jesus’ command to teach the faith.

How to induce labor, according to the Bible. Can you tell I’m just a little tired of being pregnant? Not that I’d recommend any of these as voluntary methods…

-Eating the wrong fruit.

-Just keep muttering, “Peace and safety…”

-Become suddenly widowed in a time of national crisis.

-Sit under a nice apple tree.

-Get a scary prophetic vision.

-The Day of Judgment.

Yeah, on second thought, I guess I’ll just keep waiting a bit.

Not his perfection, hehe, but on the verse “Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.” His reflections were originally featured on the Internet Monk’s recent discussion on what that verse means. You might notice, as one commentor did, that instead of the more purely typical “law, obedience, and sanctification focus,” there is Jesus at the center and all that that entails (like real Law and real Gospel).

Unfortunately, you can’t read the Scriptures with an absolute central focus on Christ without hordes of Christians screaming that you’re against good works or sanctification. Jesus must be seen as a jumping-off point only, whose cross was primarily to accomplish Positive Life Transformation and our ability to follow his sacrificial example. Regardless of what a church claims to believe, its members should be taking a look at what the real bottom line of their sermons and Bible studies are. Verses like “be perfect” (or “be holy”) become viewed as a perfectly reasonable goal that can be achieved by trying harder at your Christian duties than the “nominal Christians” do. And so ensues the desperate (though often subtle) struggle to appear more righteous than the next guy in order to validate the reality of your really sincere faith to yourself and the rest of the world.

This was brought to mind again when I discovered, through happening upon various youth resources, the popular “Do Hard Things” book and youth movement. Like almost all youth movements, the focus is on youth rising above the mediocrity which culture expects of them, challenging them to have higher standards and better character, etc. etc. I have no problem with the goal of rising above mediocrity. I do have a lot of issues with some of the stuff I’ve read about the “movement,” though. On the official blog, there was an article posing the question: “How does this ‘do hard things for God’ article relate to the Gospel?” The conclusion was that Jesus had done the really “hard thing” of dying on the cross so we could live in this world doing hard things for him (Jesus the Inspiring Good Example). Another poster suggested that we do the “hard thing” of accepting Jesus into our lives and surrendering to him, and we get help in return to do more hard things. 

A related problem with this crushing burden of Law is that in my experience, young (and old) Christians are quick to associate anything difficult that they do in the name of ministry as being a God-pleasing act of service. One teenage girl posting on this blog tells of how she would go up to parents of a screaming child in a supermarket and offer them some Christian tract on how to do godly child-raising. Though she was terrified to do this, she felt like she had to, and that it was God-pleasing (”Just wait till you have your own kids…”) Or you have Christians holding other believers accountable for things that aren’t really sins, and consequently extolling acts that aren’t really virtues. Living a sheltered life is probably part of it: youth are led to believe that godly living means attending multiple small group Bible studies and not kissing before marriage, and sinful living means not looking as pious as possible in the eyes of the world.

With a Jesus-centered approach to “be ye perfect” instead of a Pharasaical approach, we find the Law much harder than “Do Hard Things” would lead us to believe, and the Gospel much more powerful.