Thursday, May 9, 2019

GOLDEN AGE: MY NEW FAVORITE ALBUM

My tastes in music runs from The Allman Brothers Band, Derek and the Dominoes, The Stones, Trower, Led Zeppelin, to Ricky Nelson. So it may come as a surprise that I tell one and all that Kacey Musgraves’ Golden Hour is well worth a listen.

The Academy of Country Music and the Country Music Association both awarded Golden Hour as the 2019 album of the year. In addition, the Grammy Awards picked Golden Hour as the Country Album Of The Year.

I don’t know how country Golden Hour is. It’s nothing like anything else in country music these days. Certainly no Miranda Lambert or Carrie Underwood…or Keith Urban or Jason Aldean for that matter. But the country music folk claim Musgraves as one of their own. So there you go.

As far as any comparison goes, Shawn Colvin comes to mind…but not quite. One can occasionally hear a banjo, mandolin and pedal steel guitar sneaking in the background here and there; but to my sensibilities, that’s as far as country it gets.

All that being said, Golden Hour is deep and heartfelt album. An assembly of songs of easily recognizable human emotions and predicaments. I am particularly fond of “Oh, What A World” and “Happy & Sad”. Give it a listen; then play it a few times more. I promise it’ll grow on you.

Thursday, April 18, 2019

ALTHOUGH THAT DAY IS FEARFUL AND TERRIBLE, EVEN SO: COME LORD JESUS.

Mark 13:28-32 New International Version (NIV)

“Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.  Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it[a] is near, right at the door.  Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.  Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.  But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”


Here in Indianapolis, we don’t know much about fig trees; but we do know a fair amount about the weather.  After all, as Hoosiers are wont to say, if you don’t like the weather, just wait fifteen minutes.  We may complain about the weather; but, for the most part, the winds, the rains, and the sunshine are fairly predictable.  Great days can be really fantastic and the less than great days are at least tolerable—until they’re not.

There are times when ominous thunderstorms or snows are gathering and moving our way.  The weatherman on television anxiously warns us—trouble is coming.  Houses and businesses could be seriously damaged.  Rivers could flood.  Many might be without power and clean water for days.  Worst of all, many people’s lives will be threatened and possibly lost.

We prepare the best we can.  But we cannot stop what is coming.  We stare at the weather map on television and watch the storms cross over the Dakotas, Iowa, and Illinois.  Will they break north and miss us?  Will they break south?  Could they stall over Peoria?  Could they lose their strength before they get here?

Christ’s own warning is actually two warnings.  Yes, Jesus does counsel us about the end of our world; but He also folds into that prediction the foretelling of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans (70 A.D.).  The fall of Jerusalem has already taken place.  The fall of the entire creation has yet to happen.
The fall of Jerusalem was terrible and horrifying.  Many died, others carried off into slavery, and others left to live among the ruins.  Rome was a great civilization; but what the Romans did to those who defied its rule was ruthless and appalling.  So what will happen that final day will be equally so.  Judgment for the evil of humanity could not be otherwise.  Against that day and for the hope of our deliverance, we are to be faithful and prepared.  Like the soldier even as the war approaches its end, we are to remain vigilant at our post.

But how close are we to the end?  Some think that Scripture leaves us enough clues to the exact events to tell us just how close.  While few narrow it down to the exact date, others are sure contemporary events are exactly what Scripture is talking about.  This is a kind of vanity Jesus tells us to avoid.  We should not claim to know what Jesus Himself does not know.  

The beings of Heaven know many of the secrets and mysteries of God; but the end of days is one secret the Father keeps to Himself.  Christ as our Savior and true man, renounced His right to this knowledge for our sake.  This fact brings out Christ's admonition all the more strongly:  be vigilant—and hope.

Lord, keep us mindful of Your return.  Although that day is fearful and terrible, even so:  Come Lord Jesus.

Monday, March 4, 2019

NOT THE GOD WE WANT


Mark 7:1-7 New International Version (NIV)



The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a])

So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
    but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
    their teachings are merely human rules.’



In the previous chapter (Mark 6), thousands of people rushed to Jesus to hear him teach, to be fed, and to be healed.  But here the Pharisees came not to hear the Word of Life; instead, they came to find fault—and they thought they found it.  A decisive failing.  They saw how Jesus’ disciples ate and in their questioning implied that Jesus could not be a true prophet because he did not uphold the tradition of the elders.  But Jesus did not quarrel with them.  Instead, He rebuked the Pharisees for the lack in their hearts.

The Pharisees tried to find fault in Jesus in the name of holiness.  The tragedy of the Pharisees is that they couldn’t see that the one true Holy God was standing right in front of them.  And so it is with us:  the God who calls us to follow is not the God we want. 

Except these days we try to pick God all apart according to what seems reasonable to ourselves.  We have our doubts—serious misgivings—about this God.  So much the Bible tells us about Him makes no sense to us.  Some parts even make us angry.  The God we want, the God that must be the most logical and real, is not the Christ Christians go on and on about.  We are so sure this Christ is too primitive and barbaric for any modern and intelligent person to believe in.  Yet, there He is.  And He deliberately isn’t measuring up.

So, we harbor our doubts.  Sometimes we hold on to them like prized treasures.  In certain times, we even take them out and use them as weapons to rage against Heaven.  And, like the Pharisees, we miss what is standing right in front of us.

Many of us, from time to time, have found ourselves sitting in the pew quietly reflecting on what hypocrites we are.  If you get to a certain age, perhaps it will quietly dawn on you that, whatever you may do, in one way or another a hypocrite you’ll remain.  We sing the hymns and the liturgy; but our hearts speak falsely.  We listen to the Word of God; but we live by our own code.  Surely, we think, Jesus would have harsh words for us.

Yet Jesus comes to us and says “peace be to you”.   The rank hypocrite you are and He says to you “peace”.  There is much to say about all this and rest assured someone will.  But know this:  Jesus didn’t come to give us more rules—or, more in our case, more answers.  He came to give Himself—and that is more than enough.



Turn my heart to you, my Lord.  From dawn until dawn, fill my spirit and thoughts with Your Word.  Let me be as You to all I meet.   Amen

Thursday, February 21, 2019

THE ONCE AND FUTURE THUNDERSTORMS



Mark 13:28-32 New International Version (NIV)



“Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.  Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it[a] is near, right at the door.  Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.  Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” 




Here in Indianapolis, we don’t know much about fig trees; but we do know a fair amount about the weather.  After all, as Hoosiers are wont to say, if you don’t like the weather, just wait fifteen minutes.  We may complain about the weather; but, for the most part, the winds, the rains, and the sunshine are fairly predictable.  Great days can be really fantastic and the less than great days are at least tolerable—until they’re not.

There are times when ominous thunderstorms or snows are gathering and moving our way.  The weatherman on television anxiously warns us—trouble is coming.  Houses and businesses could be seriously damaged.  Rivers could flood.  Many might be without power and clean water for days.  Worst of all, many people’s lives will be threatened and possibly lost.

We prepare the best we can.  But we cannot stop what is coming.  We stare at the weather map on television and watch the storms cross over the Dakotas, Iowa, and Illinois.  Will they break north and miss us?  Will they break south?  Could they stall over Peoria?  Could they lose their strength before they get here?

Christ’s own warning is actually two warnings.  Yes, Jesus does counsel us about the end of our world; but He also folds into that prediction the foretelling of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans (70 A.D.).  The fall of Jerusalem has already taken place.  The fall of the entire creation has yet to happen.


The fall of Jerusalem was terrible and horrifying.  Many died, others carried off into slavery, and others left to live among the ruins.  Rome was a great civilization; but what the Romans did to those who defied its rule was ruthless and appalling.  So what will happen that final day will be equally so.  Judgment for the evil of humanity could not be otherwise.

Against that day and for the hope of our deliverance, we are to be faithful and prepared.  Like the soldier even as the war approaches its end, we are to remain vigilant at our post.


But how close are we to the end?  Some think that Scripture leaves us enough clues to the exact events to tell us just how close.  While few narrow it down to the exact date, others are sure contemporary events are exactly what Scripture is talking about.  This is a kind of vanity Jesus tells us to avoid.  We should not claim to know what Jesus Himself does not know. 

The beings of Heaven know many of the secrets and mysteries of God; but the end of days is one secret the Father keeps to Himself.  Christ as our Savior and true man, renounced His right to this knowledge for our sake.  This fact brings out Christ's admonition all the more strongly:  be vigilant—and hope.

Lord, keep us mindful of Your return.  Although that day is fearful and terrible, even so:  Come Lord Jesus.

Monday, January 7, 2019

REAL QUESTIONS--REAL HONEST OPINIONS


Another exchange between this writer and a lay Catholic.  The touchstone of our conversation was an article in the Federalist website entitled “No, 'Mere Christianity' Isn't Enough To Keep Me Catholic Post-Scandal”.  In it, Casey Chalk, a convert to Catholicism, goes into some detail on why the present “sex scandals” provide no grounds to leave the Catholic Church.  Chalk ends his piece:



“Catholics “truly believe that ‘our faith is in Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone.’” Yet commensurate to that belief is a recognition that the Catholic Church–in all her magisterial authority, and all her scandals and sins–is where the fullness of Christ dwells, especially in the Eucharist as faithfully administered by those with apostolic succession. In the Catholic paradigm, those two realities of human weakness and salvific glory coexist . My appeal for all Protestants is to find out how.”



I threw in what I thought was a random comment—sure to be ignored.  My point was that, in my humble experience, Catholics refrain from serious theological discussions with Protestants—thus the “finding out” quest is dead before it begins.  To my surprise, Nick from Detroit took up the cudgel.  What follows is a transcript of our conversation so far. 



[It should be noted that both Nick and I have had difficulty keeping our conversation going.  Strangely, after posting replies from my end, some disappeared from the articles’ comment section a mere few hours later.]






The problem most Protestants have in discussions with Catholics is that Protestants want to talk about the theological doctrines which divide us and Catholics simply refuse to engage. Instead, Catholics talk endlessly about the Church as "be all and end all". It is if the Catholic response can be summed up as "The Church says it--I believe it--that settles it". Once when I brought up my theological problems with Catholicism with a Priest I had befriended, his reply was "Come back to the Church and we'll sort all this out later". Not exactly the respectful heart to heart discussion this Protestant was looking for. Not what this Lutheran needs--at all.

Thus Protestants and Catholics keep talking in circles around each other. Which is tragic in that we have so much in common.






You must not have found the right Catholics, then! Ha-ha!
What would you like to know?

I'd like to know why you guys named your church after a mere man, when Saint Paul clearly admonished the Corinthians for doing the same (cf. 1Cor.1:10-17, 3:4-8).

Was Luther crucified for you? We're you baptized in the name of Luther? God Bless!






We were called "Lutherans" (and not in a nice way) by Catholic wise asses like you in the 16th century. The name stuck. We use "Lutheran" to let folk know what they'd be getting. Look at it a kind of "truth in advertising". We wouldn't want you to get upset because you accidentally visited one of our churches for worship.

Perhaps, we would have remained Catholics if the Pope Julius II (you know, that "warrior Pope") hadn't kicked us out and executed many of our theologians. Maybe he was too busy taking up the sword to keep his papal states to bother with those pesky reformers.

You know very well we baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Snarky smarty-pants slander doesn't qualify as an olive branch for dialogue.

Maybe there are "right Catholics" out there. It's clear, however, you aren't one of them.






I was not being snarky. Those were sincere questions. I'm sorry that you were offended by them, Mr. Dooley. That was not my intent.

I'm still willing to discuss our theological differences, if you are? In a respectful manner, please.

I'd still like to know how Lutherans justify violating Saint Paul's admonition? (I was paraphrasing him, when I asked if you baptize in the name of Luther.)

Are you aware of Luther's writings on Jews, by the way? People in glass houses, and all that. God Bless!






In Germany, our church is called the Evangelical Church. We would have been quite happy to keep that name. The problem came when we came to America and were faced with multitude of various denominations—particularly when the use of “evangelical” by many of them doesn’t mean the same thing. We are not “evangelicals” as the term is commonly used in America—and believe me they wouldn’t have us. I have been in many ecumenical gatherings and most evangelicals find us suspect. Most Protestants lump us in with the Catholics. “Them Lutherans are practically Catholics. Best avoid them.” (Given the mess of antagonistic and amorphous theologies out there, I for one am quite happy to keep company with the Catholics.)

[We find most Protestants are positively allergic to what “By grace alone” actually means. We hold to “divine monergism” rather than “synergism”.]

It might be quite curious to you that we Lutherans draw our linage back to Saint Augustine and from there to the Apostles. {Luther had been an Augustinian priest.} Contrary to common notions, Luther was quite respectful to tradition. Tradition was valid to the degree it supported Scripture. That is, tradition was to be subordinate to Scripture. Catholics take a different view—which is where in part our mutual differences stem.

As far as the use of “Lutheran” in our Church’s title, I refer you back to what I have written before. Luther himself preferred “The Christian Church”. Indeed, our theology is principally “Christocentric”—proclaiming the “Theology of the Cross”.

Yes, we are very aware of Luther’s “The Jews And Their Lies”. We are also aware that he had written that ghastly tract when he quite old and sick. It was also uncharacteristic of what he had written about the Jews beforehand. As far as it goes, “The Jews and Their Lies” was ignored by the German princes at the time and purposely left unread by Lutherans since. After Hitler’s resurrection of the tract from obscurity and the holocaust, the various Lutheran synods roundly condemned it. We forbid even reading it.

It has been long taught among us that Luther was no saint. He was a deeply flawed man—something he himself said about himself. Like St. Paul, he regarded himself as “the chief of all sinners”. His importance for Lutherans is that he is an example of a wretched man saved by the forgiveness of Christ.

Historically, in spite of Lutheran overwhelming support for the American Revolution, Lutherans were not warmly received here and that hostility still rears its ugly head in unexpected places and at strange times. (During WWI, Lutherans (German certainly—but Swedish and Norwegian ones as well) faced persecutions and many of our churches were burned to the ground by vicious mobs.) It has only been since Vatican II that antagonisms between Catholics and Lutherans have cooled. Nevertheless, in discussions with Catholics, I have frequently been met with an attitude of something of a combination between dismissiveness and bitterness. Scandalous accusations disguised as questions. It is in this light, I take exception to the tone of your missives.






Thank you, for a well-thought out and respectful response. There were several points of which I was unaware. (Sorry for the delay in my response.)

I'm also sorry that you've encountered uncharitable Catholics in the past. That shouldn't prejudice your dealings with the rest of us, however. Don't judge a book by its cover, and such. My missives have only a lighthearted tone, I assure you.

I have read about Luther's scrupulousity and Lutheran/Anglican appeals to Saint Augustine. Plus, that Luther, along with Calvin, retained devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Holy Rosary. Is this tradition still taught in your particular synod?

A friend that I made, in my senior year of high school, was Lutheran. He ended up converting to the Catholic Church after years of exposure to my family, and a miracle kidney transplant.

Please, feel free to inquire about any point of Catholic theology you would wish to explore. Anytime. God Bless!






Thank you for your reply. After my last missive, I came to think you had simply moved on. Hardly uncommon with most online exchanges. I assure you, I take no offense with the delay.

One thing I have learned as a writer is that humor does not always turn out apparent when reduced to cold hard print. In my own bitter experience, often times in my letters, when I thought I had written some hilariously funny couple of lines to my own brother and sister, they thought I was dead serious. More than once, to my chagrin, they felt insulted.

Luther’s scrupulousity is an essential feature to the “Luther story” among us. It is said that he lived his early years frightened that he might have left some sin or another unconfessed and would face damnation from an angry God. He drove his own confessor in the monastery nuts. I am sure most Catholics (and most other folk) should find this behavior rather strange. But this formed the basis for Luther’s question of how can we know that we are fully forgiven and saved. That is, how can one know one has DONE ENOUGH to be truly saved? After his “tower experience”, Luther referred to such spiritual anxiety as the “terror of the conscience” that can only be “cured” by Christ’s sacrifice and forgiveness. In Christ we are to find our assurance. He warned the Christian to trust Christ rather than listen to Satan’s sharp reminders all of the things he had done wrong. Luther latter joked that, when the devil prodded one with doubts about one’s forgiveness, one should blow the foam off the top of his beer tankard in his face and point to the Cross.

Luther's Marian theology, from what we know from the historical record, seemed to change as he aged—although not nearly as much as our contemporary Protestants would expect. The temptation is to take one odd quote from his expansive body of writings and herald it as the definitive answer to what he actually believed. But Luther’s beliefs changed through his years. As we are want to caution, “what did he say and when he say it?” Luther’s writings began when he was a young Catholic professor of the Bible at Wittenberg and ended some thirty five years later with his death. Luther was not a systematic theologian and didn’t pretend to be. Several times during his later years he lamented that “they try to make me a fixed constellation when I am really just a brief shooting star in the skies.

Be that as it may be, throughout his life, Luther held fast to the decrees of the ecumenical councils and dogmas of the church. He believed in and taught the Perpetual virginity of Mary, the Theotokos (Mary’s reality as the Mother of God), and the Immaculate Conception. His devotion to Mary was quite real along with the imperative caveat that all doctrine and piety should exalt and not diminish the person and work of Jesus Christ. This was fairly uncontroversial at the time in that Protestant and Catholics teachings about Mary didn’t differ all that much in the sixteenth century. Luther himself vehemently preached against the removal and smashing of pictures and statues of Mary from church sanctuaries as radicals like Andreas Carlstadt had done.

Classic systematic Lutheran theology did not solidify until a century or two after Luther’s death. This came after the Council of Trent (1545-1563) and it was in large part as a reaction to Trent that Catholic and Lutheran theologies began to diverge to an even greater extent. (As necessary as Rome felt it was to counter the Protestant Reformation, for Lutherans, Trent was a disaster for Lutheran/Catholic rapprochement.) Thus Lutheran teachings about Mary took the form which has existed to this day.

No Lutheran synod retains the devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Holy Rosary. The root reasoning for this is the absence of any command or encouragement to do so in the Scriptures. In contrast to many of the old Lutheran churches in Germany, the interiors of Lutheran sanctuaries are starkly ascetic with very few exceptions. One will not find any pictures or statues of any saint let alone Mary. Aside from the creeds, public readings of the Biblical birth narratives, and the teaching of the birth of Christ in Sunday school, Mary is hardly mentioned at all. There has been much encouragement in recent years to preach about Mary as an exceptional model of trusting faith; but that has yet to filter down to actual parish practice—at least in my experience.

Lutherans still teach the virgin birth and Theotokos; but the Perpetual virginity of Mary and the Immaculate conception are not. Again, this is due to the lack of a scriptural basis. The Immaculate Conception is for all practical purposes unacceptable. Whether Mary remained virgin for the rest of her life is regarded as an uninteresting issue. It isn’t that Mary couldn’t have refrained from sexual congress; it is simply that, compared to the centrality of Christ, it doesn’t matter.

Likewise, because of a lack of Scriptural authority, the relatively modern Catholic doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, is largely discounted. As a matter of the practical daily life of the individual Christian, one is free to believe in the Immaculate Conception (or the Assumption of Mary for that matter)—they just aren’t “saving doctrines”.

In my life (I am 66 years old), I have met several Catholics who had converted to Lutheranism. They seem to come in three varieties. The first are what I call genuine seekers who found a home in the Lutheran Church. Their personal reasons all differ from one another. In the end, however, their conversions all came with the embrace of the “By Grace Alone” doctrine. (These tend to be “revelatory” experiences.)

The second group came into it by marriage. That is a Catholic (or Methodist, Anglican, Baptist, etc.) individual had married a Lutheran spouse and came into the Church to share the same faith. In general, what began as a matter of convenience in time became an occasion of truly embracing the faith.

The third group is the most perplexing to me. It is usually a case of a Catholic marrying…say…a Methodist. They decide to compromise and become Lutherans. To me, this is like one preferring bananas and the other preferring grapefruit, so they choose an apple. Makes no sense to me. In practice, however, against any reasonable expectation, it works. The Catholic likes it that Lutherans keep the creeds and the order of the mass—although the absence of Mary and the saints (among other things) makes it all seem a little anemic. The Methodist likes it because at first glance Lutheran theology seems to be like Methodist theology—although liturgical worship bothers them somewhat. In time, even these come to the faith.

In all these cases, they explain that Lutheranism is exceptionally different from what they believed before. I say this not in a triumphalistic way. In fact, I am uncomfortable with it in that it saddens me that, even if one removed the “Lutheran” label from it, the Theology of the Cross had been so foreign to them in their original Churches. Perhaps, I tell myself, it was there all along—they just didn’t hear it. As you yourself may have observed, a lot of people come away from their original Churches with some goofy ideas of what those Churches were all about.

For what it’s worth, as a personal note, my wife and I have been married for 45 years. We both grew up as Lutherans. We were baptized, catechized, confirmed, and married together all in the same parish. We are sometimes asked how we’ve been able to stay married so long. It is in no small part because we share the same faith and attend the same worship service each week. I’m sure this is true for other couples of other communions. Sadly, in a world of widespread divorce, sharing the same faith is not necessarily a guarantee that one’s marriage will not crash and burn. But, perhaps you’ll agree, it’s not a bad place to start.
I fear that I may have written more than you wanted for your question. If that’s the case, I apologize. In my defense, these are more complicated matters to unpack than we’d want them to be.

May the Lord bless you and your house.






Another very informative reply, Mr. Dooley. Thanks. Don't worry about the length, you packed a lot in there.

I agree, my humor gets lost on people, even my sisters, in my texts. Seems that if we do not include some sort of humor emoji when we're joking, people cannot see the punchline.

And, no, many Catholics also suffer from scrupulousity, today. I, myself, would succumb to it when I returned to the confessional after a ten year absence, two decades ago. It has different levels of severity. I've read that some experts have conjectured that Luther was bi-polar, which could explain his torments and extreme mortifications after being absolved by his confessor.

The other day, I happened to catch part of PBS documentary on Luther. It was also informative. It stated that people started calling themselves "Lutheran" during his lifetime, and that it appalled him..."at first." They never said when it stopped bothering him, however. Do you have a source for your claim that it was Catholics who first called them Lutherans as a pejorative?

It's a shame that the other Protestants didn't keep devotion to Our Lady, as the Anglicans have. As Queen Mother, she only wants to point all of us toward her Son the Savior.

By the way, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not a modern doctrine. It is an ancient tradition that has two different versions. It was not made a dogma of the Church until quite recently (1950). Pope Pius XII did this, after the horrors of WWII, to give hope to the world that God's mercy is still present. Not as a means to salvation.

I'm not married, so I'm no expert. But I believe our modern/post-modern age is at war with the family. From abortion to divorce, contraception, pornography, child abuse, same-sex "marriage," sex-ed in elementary schools, perversion, etc.; it's faith in Christ that helps to combat Satan in this spiritual warfare. And the Sacraments are the armor Christ left us as the surest way to defeat the Accuser.

Speaking of which, last week I watched a video that delved into the forerunners of the Reformation. I learned that I've been under the mistaken notion that the Modern Era began towards the end of the 15th Century, A.D. In actuality, it started during 14th with the rejection of God's Fatherhood in favor of the view of His power detached from His just will and intelligence. I.e., completely arbitrary power, not God the FATHER Almighty.

If you have an hour+ to spare, you might find it interesting.
Merry Christmas to you and your family. God Bless!







That Luther may have been bi-polar seems to be an entirely reasonable possibility to me.  On the other hand, others have supposed schizophrenia, a latent death wish, persistent debilitating delusions, idiopathic depression, or some other analysis out of the APA Handbook of Clinical Psychology.  Who knows?  We should be cautious, however.  Even with Luther’s extensively recorded long-windedness, at this remove of 500 years, our capability to make a diagnosis is very limited.  Even with our own contemporaries, it would be wrong to unearth any such estimation without a face to face consultation. 

 Do you have a source for your claim that it was Catholics who first called them Lutherans as a pejorative?” 

Though the years, I have read this assertion several times—albeit mentioned each time only in passing.  I perused some my old books; but I couldn’t find the relevant passages easily and didn’t have the spare time to go through them page by page.  It is mentioned briefly in Joseph Stump’s 1910 preface to Luther’s Small Catechism—but you might consider the source suspect.  The most direct I’ve found comes from Wikipedia’s general article on Lutheransim:

“The name ‘Lutheran’ originated as a derogatory term used against Luther by [the] German Scholastic theologian Dr. Johann Maier von Eck during the Leipzig Debate in July 1519.[10] Eck and other Catholics followed the traditional practice of naming a heresy after its leader, thus labeling all who identified with the theology of Martin Luther as Lutherans.

The footnote says this comes out of Fahlbusch, Erwin, and Bromiley, and William’s, The Encyclopedia of Christianity.  I am not familiar with this compendium; so I cannot vouch for its reliability.  I can’t vouch for the accuracy the Wikipedia article for that matter.  (Although it’s discussion of Lutheranism as a whole is very good—far from complete and unnuanced; but respectable given it is only a few pages long.)  Be that as it may, its account of the practice of “naming a heresy after its leader” seems reasonable to me.  (i.e.  Apollinarism after Apollinaris of Laodicea, Arianism after Arius of Alexandria, Nestorianism after Nestorius of Constantinople, Pelagianism after Pelagius of Britain, and so on.)

You are quite right, the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was made as Catholic dogma in 1950—but its seeds or threads go back much further.  Many if not most believe goes back at least from the early centuries of Christianity in both the Western and Eastern Churches.   This would be entirely consistent with John Henry Newman’s “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”.

In the end, even after centuries Catholic appeals to enlighten Lutherans as to the benefits of the devotion to Mary, it all comes the naught.  At its root, it comes down to the mutual disagreement over the place of Scripture and Tradition.  The Lutheran doctrine of Sola Scriptura precludes any concept of devotion to Mary.  In a nutshell, “Where in Scripture is the command, encouragement and promise?”

I should think Catholics would be dismayed with the absence of devotion to Mary in Lutheran piety.  Perhaps both the Catholics and the Eastern are bewildered (and maybe a bit offended) by the Lutheran rejection of Marian devotion.  John Michael Talbot, once a fundamentalist, converted to Catholicism.  When asked about why Protestants baulked at praying to Mary, he said it was just a “hang up”.

For our part, Lutherans feel no poverty in the matter and don’t believe they are missing anything in their spiritual lives.  Perhaps you might think this is due to a kind of blindness; but it is what it is. Together with the emphasis on Scripture as the fundamental standard of faith, Lutheran belief is that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God the Father and humanity.  Our prayers are only to be made to Him.  I am sure Catholics believe prayers to Mary and prayers to Jesus are not mutually exclusive; but we Lutherans cannot pray to Mary in good conscience and remain true to ourselves.

Catholic–Lutheran dialogue has endeavored to make rapprochement on the issue; producing the “The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary” joint declaration in 1990.  (VIII Round of Discussion)  Like the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” in 1999, however, the agreement was more apparent than real.  Dig into each document, one will find each party essentially reiterated their differing, historic positions.

So we are left, however unsatisfactory, with a critical disagreement between us.  Perhaps the best we can do is “agree to disagree”—although such an arrangement may be unacceptable to many if not most Catholics and Lutherans.  Each wants to get in the last word—as if that would settle the matter.

[I should note, going back to my original response, as contemptuous and dismissive I have found the many Catholics to be in my encounters, by no means does fault rest with Catholics alone.  To my embarrassment, many of my fellow Lutherans can get quite cranky.]

All that being said, both Catholics and Lutherans (the Orthodox and all other Protestants for that matter) now live in a world in which there are armies mobilized against us.   They make no distinction.  They are working to undermine Christianity if not crush it altogether.  We are told that the only place to practice the faith is within the walls of our places of worship.  In all other areas, it’s hands off.  (“You go and bake that cake.  You got problems with it?  Shut up.  We don’t want to hear about it.”) 

We should not be fooled.  Our antagonists have no intention of binding themselves to this one-sided “compromise”.  In time, they will reach into our sanctuaries and pulpits to enforce contemporary social norms as they choose to define them.  (Many feminists advocate taking away the Catholic Church’s tax exemptions unless it installs women into the priesthood.  The demand for the installation of openly practicing gays would soon follow.)  We will find the subjects our sermons and classes being monitored for “hateful” content.  Traditional Christian teachings will become suspect-- subject to correction to reflect the prescriptions of the sexual revolution in all its evolutions.  “Intolerance cannot hide behind religious freedom”, they are want to say.  “Religious freedom cannot stand in the way of justice”.

John Paul II correctly believed that we are finding ourselves surrounded by the culture of death.  Just speaking of the issue of abortion, just a few years ago they described it as a “tragic choice” and the aim was to allow to destruction of the most voiceless and powerless among us but also make abortion “safe (i.e. no “coat hanger”, back alley terminations), legal and rare”.  Now it is championed as a positive good.  By extension, even now, euthanizing the old and sick has gained significant traction.  Stretching the meaning of family into social constellations in which the only distinguishing characteristic is “love”.  Reducing marriage to an artless, economic contract.

I fear this will be just the beginning.  We have on our side the Gospels, the sacraments, and our prayers, but the array of worldly antagonists can be dispiriting.

Our historic doctrinal differences are unlikely to be resolved anytime soon and Christian unity will continue to elude us; but we must find a way to bind ourselves together.  All Christians find ourselves in world in which I’m afraid we will be hanged together or strung will separately.

I have yet to watch the video you recommended.  As you might imagine, the season has been quite busy.  I promise I will watch it soon and then convey any thoughts I might have.

In spite of the infirmities of old age, I am quite well.  I wish the best for you.

May our Lord bless you.  Merry Christmas!






I hope that you, and your family, had a very blessed and Merry Christmas, Mr. Dooley. May you also have a Happy New Year!

Did you get a chance to watch that video? If so, I hope that you enjoyed it.

I just watched another that explains how the Early Church Fathers used Platonic philosophy to comprehend the Semitic mind of the Sacred Scriptures to Westerners. And how the Rationalists distorted Aristotle to separate the transcendent from the natural, which turned the reality of symbol into a mere sign.

It was very fascinating. It's about 45 minutes long. God Bless!
https://youtu.be/filV-JMFc98






I finally watched with keen interest the first video you recommended.  Of course, given he could only provide a truncated retelling, Professor H couldn’t go into much detail in the time allotted.  Indeed, his presented account is a much simplified history for the viewer—not something he would teach in a semester(s) of classes.  As you might expect, I demure from some of his assertions.

The first note I would make is that via antiqua and via moderna shared some overlap between them in Late Medieval theology.  In other words, while we can see a sharp distinction between them at this remove, neither completely rejected the other at the time.  I am thinking particularly the notion of “going back to the source” in reading the Gospels in the original Greek.  Undeniably, what each did with that “original reading” made all the difference.

Luther himself we are told was educated at Erfurt in the via moderna in the nominalist tradition.  Early Luther was a norminalist.  However, as time went on, he was sharply critical of nominalism—particularly in its theology of justification.  In a nutshell, the nominalists taught that God extended his grace to one who prepared or brought himself to receive it.  Luther rejected this teaching saying that there isn’t anything one can do to “prepare” himself for then God to extend His grace.  There is no “neutral ground” on which one can stand between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Satan.  One cannot respond to the Gospel on one’s own.  We are all born as slaves to sin and cannot free ourselves.  Instead, God in Christ breaks into our lives by the Cross to “capture” us.

I fear I haven’t done the subject justice.  One can go much deeper and fill pages and pages fleshing all this out—finding better ways to express it all to be sure.  As far as it goes, treating God as an absolute power rather than a loving Father was quite foreign to him.  Perhaps the charge could be made against John Calvin, although even there it gets problematic.

I had a wonderful Christmas.  The height was at the midnight Christmas Eve worship where an unusually large congregation gave full throated singing of the hymns and liturgy culminating in Holy Communion.  OK, I liked the opening of presents under the Christmas tree, too.

May the Lord bless you.






Hello, Mr. Dooley. Sorry, I missed your last reply. But I'm not seeing several, for some reason. Only two in the past few weeks.

I've been celebrating the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God, today, by listening to several programs on Our Lady and her teachings. I always like to learn something new.

I hope that you get a chance to watch the other video on the Jewish understanding of symbol, too.

Were you able to find a reference to that claim that Catholics starting using "Lutheran" as an epithet? Also, do you know if Luther supported the peasants in the Peasants War? Or, did he support the nobels' suppression of those mobs? I've heard it both ways, so, I don't know who to believe?
Happy New Year, and God bless.






In a nutshell, Luther was sympatric with many of its grievances; but he strongly objected to the violence of the Peasant’s war and backed its suppression.




Ahhhh, that makes sense. Thank you, for answering. You are definitely the most knowledgeable Lutheran I've come across on the interwebs. I have a couple of more inquiries, if you do not mind?

At my great uncle's funeral, years ago, the family's Lutheran pastor wore a collar and they called him "father." Is that the personal preference of the pastor, or does it depend on which synod one belongs?

How do today's Lutheran theologians explain Luther's attempt to insert "allein" into Romans 3:28, and remove James & the Apocalypse from the canon, along with the Deuterocanonical books?






I have only heard of a Lutheran pastor being referred to as “father” a few times.  I have never met one myself; but, according to my own pastor, those who are are few and far between.  I can only speculate why those few are addressed as “father” and I doubt guesswork on my part would be of any tangible use.



Luther didn’t just try to insert “allein”, he did.  I looked it up in five current German Bible translations and it remains in two of them.  As far as it goes, Lutherans tend look upon the issue as a controversy which isn’t a controversy.



The sense of Romans 3:28 seems to be consistent across English language Bibles:



For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.  Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition



For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.  English Standard Version



For our argument is that a man is justified by faith quite apart from success in keeping the law.  The New English Bible.



For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.  New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition



On the contrary, it is the law of faith, since, as we see it, a man is justified by faith and not by doing something the Law tells him to do.--The Jerusalem Bible.

Translation from one language to another involves not just a literal word for word rendition.  The interpreter must frequently “flesh out” a passage to convey the idea it is putting forth.  Luther’s use of “alone” was a matter of emphasis rather than injecting a meaning that wasn’t there.  He stated that the adverb "alone" was required by idiomatic German.

Lutherans see the whole “alone” controversy (such as it is) as actually a kind of proxy war over the doctrine of “sola fide”.  Our differences get played out in how we read the passage.  Catholics see the exclusion of "works of the law" in Romans 3:28 as only referring to works done for salvation under the Mosaic Law, versus works of faith which are held as meritorious for salvation.  For their part, Lutherans see the exclusion of "works of the law" (as the means of obtaining justification) as referring to any works of the Mosaic law, and by implication, any "works of righteousness which we have done" (Titus 3:5).

To say that Luther wanted to exclude James & the Apocalypse of John from the canon is a little misleading.  What Luther proposed was to relegate them to an appendix.  He simply didn’t believe they were of equal value to the rest of the New Testament.  His main criticism of James & the Apocalypse of John was that, while they spoke of Christ and be profitably read, they did not proclaim the Gospel.

There are two main reasons Lutherans and most Protestants don’t include the Deuterocanonical books in the canon.  1.)  They were not included in the Hebrew Bible.  2.)  They were written in Greek—not Hebrew—indicating Hellenistic rather than purely Hebrew origins.  Again, Luther thought they could be beneficially read; but they do not reach the level of Holy Scripture.