Northwoods Seelsorger

Do we really know our history as Lutherans? I suspect not in many cases. This was brought home to me the other night at a youth meeting when I showed a video clip from the Luther movie . Before I ran the clip, which happened to be Luther before Charles V at Worms in his famous "Here I stand" speech" (1521), I tried to review the basics of Reformation history. Basic as in "Does anyone know who Martin Luther is?" While some of the answers were predictable, as in confusing the great Reformer with the U.S. civil rights leader who happened to also have his name, they were also alarming in their ignorance. They seemed to have no idea of who this man was, what history surrounded his actions, and how any of that pertains to where we are at today. To my defense, in part, some of these kids did study these things under my catechetical direction. I realize that Americans, in general, are often ignorant of their historical roots, as evidenced more than once on late...

Twenty-third Sunday after Pentecost October 19, 2008 Text: Matthew 22:15-21 Election season, especially in a presidential year, can get pretty nasty at times. Candidates are placed under a public microscope where their lives and words are picked apart unmercifully. But it’s not just the candidates that are the focus of extreme scrutiny at times like this. It seems that government itself is often put on trial. Much ink is spilled during election years showing everything that is wrong and broken and misguided with government. And it’s easy to set the whole system up as a kind of “enemy” that is out to get us and our money. As Christians we may feel this tension as well. Government becomes the “necessary evil” we must endure, but certainly not support. We live in a different kingdom, a spiritual kingdom, right? After all, doesn’t the Bible tell us that our “citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20)? Yet, on the other hand, could it also be possible that we instead actually ...

I recently found this article in my email inbox from one of the 'lists' to which I currently subscribe. To find a clean copy to print here I did a Google search of the title and author and received 227 'hits.' Apparently others have found this as thought-provoking as I did. [Note: The pictures were added by me and were not part of the original article.] REMEMBERING COLLECTIVE SHAME By Uwe Siemon-Netto This column requires a caveat: I am not an American citizen and therefore neither a Republican nor a Democrat. But as a German residing permanently in the United States I believe I have a duty to opine on at least one aspect of the upcoming elections - the question whether years from now Americans will have to wrestle with collective shame, just as I have had to deal with collective shame over what has happened in Germany in my childhood for my entire life. It was West Germany's first postwar president, Theodor Heuss, who coined the phrase, "collective shame...

A recent article from the Religious News Service made me wonder: What is it like to die without the direct comfort of the resurrected and living Christ.? Pastor Forest Church of the Unitarian Church of All Souls in New York is dying of terminal cancer. But he is dying, it would appear, without the comfort of eternal life in Christ in which Christians find great comfort at times of death. The article notes: "Like other Unitarian-Universalists, Church rejects many aspects of Christian doctrine. He neither blames God for his illness nor asks God for a cure. "I don't pray for miracles," he said. "I don't pray to cure my incurable case. I rejoice and consecrate each day that I'm given as a gift. As to the afterlife, Church said he has "no idea what happens after we die. I go with Henry David Thoreau who, when he was asked about the afterlife, said, `Madam, I prefer to take it one life at a time.'" At the same time, Church says he has com...

The founding fathers certainly could not have imagined that people today would be so hypersensitive about anything religious in connection with the national government. Yet once again we hear the clarion call that something else has violated the constitutional ban on "government officials endorsing religion" and the so-called separation of church and state. This time the target is the National Day of Prayer. Note the recent AP article: ATHEIST GROUP SUES BUSH OVER NATIONAL PRAYER DAY By Scott Bauer, Associated Press Writer Fri Oct 3, 9:26 PM ET MADISON, Wis. - The nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics is suing President Bush, the governor of Wisconsin and other officials over the federal law designating a National Day of Prayer. The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued Friday in U.S. district court, arguing that the president's mandated proclamations calling on Americans to pray violates a constitutional ban on government officials endorsing religion. ...

The Diocese of San Joaquin of Fresno, Calif. (now known as the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin ) became the first to leave in 2006. Now the Pittsburgh Diocese is following suit. Bit by bit the Episcopal communion continues to fray apart at the seams. It would appear that even in this country, where diversity is praised above fidelity, a church can become so liberal that people will still leave - and take much of their church with them. Following the vote of clergy and lay members of the theologically conservative diocese to officially break from the Episcopal church, Assistant Bishop Henry Scriven commented: "I am delighted that what we have done today is bringing the Diocese of Pittsburgh back into the mainstream of worldwide Anglicanism ." Naturally not all were pleased. The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori , presiding bishop of the U.S. church , was critical of the vote saying: "There is room in this church for all who desiere to be members of it." It ...

It seems that there is the belief out there among some that faith is a purely subjective experience entirely divorced from reason. On "The View" the other day someone again made that claim, one I seem to be running across more frequently. To be fair, I understand how some arrive at this conclusion, especially if they have concluded that what faith is based upon is pure myth. If you do not acknowledge the premise, then the only conclusion is that faith is mere subjective opinion or wish. However, those who have concluded this a priori have neglected to examine the objective evidence of the faith claim - i.e. historical documents that underly the claim. If a faith claim (in this case Christian) asserts that it is based on objective, historical facts that can be authenticated and examined, then the claim deserves to be heard and reasonably debated on those terms. Christianity has not divorced reason from faith, but understands that reason can be wrongly used. Typically...