I don’t say this based on the Bible, and a good thing because what does the U.S. military care about that?  Neither do I make my case made based on ethics or morals because apart from Scripture what absolute ethics or morals can you have?  You only have the dictates of conventional wisdom, the social contract, or mutual self-interest, and these have given us education funded by lottery; parental consent for piercing but not aborting, and the public school system.

Even if the military somehow regard the Bible in general as authoritative, this aspect of the 6^th Commandment is the latest in several Second Table Commandments to be made obsolete.  First the lure of painless taxes caused the State to accept gambling the 7^th Commandment notwithstanding.  The fear of feminism or perhaps the supremacy of the individual caused the state to accept the murdering of babies in the womb the 5^th Commandment notwithstanding.  Now easy divorce, long term fornication, and gay right have made the 6^th Commandment meaningless.  What case can be made before the world against gays and lesbians openly serving in the military based on a Commandment it views as passé, irrelevant, a historical anarchism?

To a world that still had a moral foundation you could make the case that just as the military cannot allow murderers, adulterers, thieves, and liars to openly serve, so they can’t allow homosexuals.  But to a world that recognizes no binding authority beyond what all can agree to the case against homosexuality has to be made from what homosexuals themselves say.

Gays and lesbians claim they are naturally attracted to the same sex.  It’s not something homosexuals turn off and on any more than heterosexuals do.  So we should treat their same sex desires the way opposite sex desires are treated.

In 1979 at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas, my unit was made up of males and females.  The unit had a perimeter all the way around it to protect it from the “enemy;” within the perimeter was the female’s tent.  It was surrounded by three rolls of Concertina barb wire.  This wasn’t to protect the women from the “enemy” but from the male soldiers. 

The military has generally recognized that there is no denying nature, or in the words of Luther, it does no good to put paper next to fire and command the paper not to burn.  So for example, a female soldier may not strip down to her bra though the males may take their undershirts off.  A female soldier may not even go without her bra with her undershirt on.  Why?  You know why.  Finally, at a certain age in the quadrennial physicals, all female soldiers will get pelvic exams and all males prostate exams.  If the doctor doing the female exams is a male, a female nurse must be in the examining room.

Paper is paper; fire is fire, and you must respect the properties of both.  Therefore, if by their own admission homosexuals are naturally attracted to their same sex, then we can’t have them showering or sleeping with their same sex.  They have to be housed with the other sex.  Lesbian’s don’t need another female in the room for their pelvic exam, but they sure can’t be the one’s doing them, and male soldiers might have to ask for another male soldier to be present for their prostate exams.  Then again depending on his “orientation” he might not.

Do you see how impractical this would be?  Ah but we’ve grown beyond these gender distinctions placed upon on us by society.  There is no more male or female just people.  Yet, even the homosexuals would deny this.  They aren’t attracted to the opposite sex; they are attracted to the same. 

Where will it end?  Ask the Romans and the Greeks before them, or the Book of Romans after them.

God did tread on Haiti.  Let’s not believe the forces of nature randomly, haphazardly, or coincidentally came together to shake Haiti.  When we’re talking about who can cause the earth to shake, we’re talking about God.  And, unlike Pat Robertson, I’m not sure what this says about Haiti, but I am sure what it says to us all: “Repent” (Luke 13: 1-9)!  Now for the heresy: I’m not sure it says, “Help!”

While the churchmen will study and weigh theological issues ad infinitum, while when confronted with a controversial point of confession, they will shrewdly say, “I’m not sure what that means,” they show no such caution in the footsteps of God.  No, they all know we should help and we should do it by sending money.

LCMS World Relief sounds the alarm as does Lutheran World Relief.  LCMS World Relief crows that only 7% of monies raised go to administrative costs.  LWF trumpets their’s is 8.9%.  Both are good for charitable agencies, but neither are good enough.

 To provide a kingdom of the left service LCMS World Relief takes three pastors from the kingdom of the right.  Since LWF is headed by an LCMS pastor too, that makes four.  There is no reason for this duplication.  World relief is something we can and should, in the name of efficiency, cooperate with the ELCA.   LWR gives out in aid each year what it takes LCMS World Relief to distribute in three.  If it’s only about giving aid in Jesus’ name, if it’s only about kingdom of the left issues, we don’t need two Lutheran agencies.  If World Relief is about preaching the Gospel, we are confusing the two kingdoms.

More of this at another time.  The real issue for me is rushing in to Haiti with greenbacks flying.  I know the world did that; the world always does, but should we?  In the President’s State of the Union address, he told how an 8 year old boy sent him his allowance and asked him to give it to the people of Haiti, and the two Houses of Congress went, “Awwwh.”  And for 10 dollars sent by this Lutheran, the 100 sent by that Lutheran, the 1,000 sent by this congregation, I’m afraid that’s all we might get.

Here are some tidbits from an article entitled “2 weeks after Haiti quake, food aid falls short” by Associated Press Writers Vivian Sequera And Ben Fox,– Wed Jan 27, 6:15 pm.

-          “Street vendors openly sell U.S.-donated rice by the cupful from bags marked “not for resale.” At a homeless camp, a young woman told of thieves who tried to sell her own food back to her.”

-          “Whether locked up in warehouses or stolen by thugs from people’s hands, food from the world’s aid agencies still isn’t getting to enough hungry Haitians, leaving the strongest and fittest with the most.”

-          “The U.N. food agency urgently appealed to governments for more cash for food for Haiti — $800 million to feed 2 million people through December, more than quadruple the $196 million already pledged.”

-          “Fears of official corruption also are surfacing.”

-          “Paul Coroleuski of the U.S.-based Convoy of Hope, which has distributed aid in Haiti for three years, said he has more than 100 tons of food in a Port-au-Prince warehouse ready to hand out, but it has been delayed for days by Haitian officials who say they will take over distribution. “

-          “Private agencies like his worry that Haitian officials “will do what they always have done, which is the government takes care of the government and the people are secondary,” he said.”

-          “’If they turn it over to the Haitian government, they would take it all for themselves,’ said Muller Bellegarde, 30, as he waited for food in the unrelenting tropical sun.”

-          “Haitians remember that when the government took charge of delivering international aid to the city of Gonaives after deadly hurricane floods in 2008, much of it ended up sold on the black market.”

It was the same in the latest Ethiopian famine.  Tons of money was donated that really did buy loads of food, but it rotted in warehouses or was enjoyed only by a few.  It should give us pause when former President of the United States George Bush tells Americans that they should not send food, clothes, or water to Haiti but only money to the private fund he and President Clinton are heading because “trust me; we know how to best spend your money.”  If you think politicians really know how to best spend money, you haven’t been paying attention for a few years now.

But what should we do?  If you want to send money, by all means do.  If you think this is the best way to help, then go ahead and pay.  However, don’t begrudge those who don’t.  Money might not be a good way to help Haiti.  Even if you think it is, consider that you have already paid, are paying and will continue to pay to help Haiti.

These tidbits are from NPR.  80% of Haiti’s Gross Domestic Product is foreign aid.  The US provides the lion’s share of that.  You are the U.S.  The earthquake is said to have destroyed 25% of Haiti’s GDP.  Well, you can’t destroy foreign aid, so Haiti’s lost 25% of 20%.  The 82^nd Airborne is on the ground in Haiti.  Who do you think pays for them?

Have you ever noticed that when people want us to buy into a loosening of morals they magnify the size of the world?  “Who are you to speak?  What are you among so many?”  But when they want us to buy, literally, into the world’s problems they shrink the world to the global village.  In the first area which the world insists we tread lightly, I think Holy Scripture gives us the right to tread like stormtroopers.  In the second area, where the world insists we tread like dragoons, I think a step tempered by angelic fear is more in order.

The Rev. Dr. Samuel H. Nafzger, former head of the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations and now Director of Church Relations as an assistant to the president, has written an article entitled “Relating to Other Christians Charitably and Confessionally” (Concordia Theological Quarterly 73 (2009), pp.347-363).

To begin with, I would transpose ‘charitably’ and ‘confessionally’ and I would make the “and” epexegetical.  “Relating to Other Christians Confessionally that is  Charitably.”  I think the best way to be charitable is to be confessional.  However, Dr. Nafzger is, with no sarcasm intended, a much brighter theological light than I.  However, he doesn’t always shine brightly.

In the 90s, the CTCR produced a document called “Levels of Fellowship” under Dr. Nafzger’s headship.  Confessionals, myself included, were up in arms, and we wrote papers in protest.  I never recall a retraction or even a redirection.  In went the way of many LCMS fundraisers and Puff the Magic Dragon.  It went back to wherever it came from never to be seen or heard again.  So I was stunned to read Nafzger saying, “Church fellowship means ‘agreement in doctrine and practice.’  But since this is true, then there can be no ‘levels of church fellowship,” for there can be no levels of ‘complete agreement’” (357).  Bravo!  Well played old man!

Now tell me; what are these two sentences of his saying? “Where there is agreement in the confession of the gospel, it would be separatistic for church bodies not to commune together, to exchange pulpits, to lead public worship services together (i.e., to remain apart from one another).  But where there is disagreement in doctrine, the basis for church fellowship as the church has defined this term throughout its existence, does not exist” (357).

Where have you gone Dr. Nafzger?  I’m pretty sure there is broad agreement among Christians about the confession of the Gospel, but not the doctrine and all it articles that Formula Concord, X, 31 speaks of.  It seems to me that the second statement should again refer to the Gospel somehow.  Where there is disagreement in any of the articles of the Gospel fellowship doesn’t exist.

Finally, Dr. Nafzger refers to the well-known fact that Paul had Pastor Timothy circumcised by not Pastor Titus.  He says, “The same principle that the gospel be purely preached was applied in differing ways in different circumstances, but it was the same principle” (361).  No, this wasn’t about purely preaching the Gospel; it was about exercising one’s Christian freedom or not.

Where have you gone Dr. Nafzger?  Have you gone back to the 2001 prayer service in Yankee Stadium that no one is supposed to speak of?  In the January 2003 “Kiss and Make-Up” conference sponsored by the LCMS in the Texas District, this same way of doing theology was used.  The question officially posed to us all was how could one and the same thing be viewed by some as serving the Gospel and by others as denying the Gospel?  I said then, and I still say now, this can only happen if there is a different understanding of what the Gospel is. 

The Gospel doesn’t care if you circumcise or not.  The Gospel only comes into play if you circumcise or not as a requirement for salvation.  To make Paul’s two different decisions a preaching of the Gospel is to make the Gospel two different things.  As I have said all along in regard to the Yankee Stadium prayer service (Blast! I mentioned it again.), the disagreement in the LCMS is about nothing less than what the Gospel is.  We are free to circumcise or not but we aren’t free or not to participate in a pagan prayer service.  The Gospel says both things, and they really aren’t different. 

Where have you gone Dr. Nafzger?  Away from levels of fellowship into a muddiness about what the Gospel is?

I was at a birthday party for a member’s child 15 or more years ago.  It was at a local rec center.  There was a clown.  He was doing a great job clowning around as one would expect from a clown.  He came up to me rapidly magically, twisting a long balloon into a short animal.  His opening words were, “You’re going to love this.”  If you are in a clerical collar and a stranger says this to you, it is almost a given that you will not “like” let alone “love” whatever is about to be proffered.

Still holding the animal formerly a balloon, he says, “I hold up the balloon, and I make like I’m sprinkling water on it.  Then I say, ‘There I’ve baptized it.  Now boys and girls is he saved?’  Then I say, ‘No he needs to have a personal relationship with Jesus.’”

In fairness to this theologian formerly a clown, I can’t remember after all these years what his final words were.  It might have been, “He needs to ask Jesus into his heart,” or even worse I vaguely remember the clown saying, “No, what could a little water do?”  In fairness to my memory, it might be do more to a rage blackout than a memory lapse.

I launched.  “How dare you make these little children of Jesus doubt the power of their Baptism to save!  How dare you deny what Scripture plainly says, “Baptism does also now save us.”

At this point, the clown/theologian was physically backing up from the pastor/pit-bull.  “Hey, hey I didn’t mean anything.  I wasn’t trying…” I didn’t let him finish.  I said,  “Do you see me going around trying to make balloon animals?  Why don’t you stick to making them and let me do the teaching.”  At that we parted.  He to clown and me to explain to the hostess why there were “tears” from this clown when so many people were around.

As I said, a clown first said it.  Fast forward to the October 24, 2009 issue of World magazine, page 75, and the article “Pioneering saint” by Andree Seu.  She is telling the tale of Thein Htay a Burmese doctor turned evangelist.  Converted to Christianity by The Navigators he was removed from “his Sunday School position, the pastor being uncomfortable with his suggestion that salvation lies in relationship with Jesus and not in being baptized.  Htay looked around in horror at his church and realized, ‘They are all going to hell.’”

Seu relates this tale with no qualification, no innuendo, no apology that perhaps Htay was wrong.  She goes on to praise him for his starting of “ministries” and orphanages and how he lived and was supported “’by faith.’” 

Here is the divide between Reformed and Lutheran.  Many think it is a mile wide but only inches deep.  No, it appears only a mile wide because the Reformed are willing to speak about Baptism in the same terms we do even calling it a means of grace.  But the width of the divide is not near as important as the depth.  It’s not inches deep but miles.

From the deep gulf between Baptism being your salvation because it puts Christ on you (Galatians 3:27), and believing that trusting in your Baptism means you’re going to hell a whole Babylon of errors can and do multiply and thrive.  It’s the difference between an act of God saving you and your actions doing it.  What we do, decide, and even believe is always riddled with uncertainty.  What God does is certain.

Even though a clown first said that Baptism doesn’t save you, it’s not funny; it’s sad.  Clowns may or may not tear up when no one else is around, but simple, baptized children of God will tear up when this sort of clown is around. 

Worthy of more than misty eyes is the fact that the official Pastor’s Conference of Texas District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod’s had Max Lucado as keynote speaker.  Lucado is a pastor in the denomination which goes out of it’s way to attack baptismal regeneration (Church of Christ).  Google his name; see how many LCMS churches regularly use his books for “Bible” study.

“But we don’t study what he has to say about Baptism.”  Only a clown would fail to see that what you believe makes you a Christian impacts the rest of your Christianity.  This error is like a clown car.  You won’t believe how many “clowns” will come out of it, but not a one of them will be funny.

I know this isn’t what you want to hear, but it’s funny (or not) that an organization whose reason for being is the antithesis of what the LCMS is doing in youth ministry and worship would want to be a Recognized Service Organization of the LCMS along with 298 other organizations “whose operations foster the mission and ministry of the church, whose program activities are in harmony with the programs of the boards of the Synod, and who agrees to respect and not act contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Synod” (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=13433) .

I can certainly see why LCMS, Inc. would want this.  Put those tent pegs out farther, broaden the base; it’s a coup to get those who believe youth ministry is Word and Sacrament ministry to, maybe not go along but at least, get along with those who for 30 years have believed it’s happy-clappy.  As usually is the case in a pluralistic church body, one group is busy building what the other group is tearing down.

But let’s me clear on who, humanly speaking, will be the torn and the tearee.  LCMS Youth, Inc. puts on a show once every three years that gathers 30,000 plus participants.  Higher Things does their thing each year and gathers no more than 2,000.  But now they’re an RSO!  Now The Synod recognizes them and what they are doing, and they in turn recognize her and what she is doing in youth work.  Something is lost by Higher Things, and something is gained by The National LCMS Youth Gathering.

Don’t get me wrong.  My youth and I attend Higher Things.  My congregation sends money to them each year; I think  they are doing a great job.  But we did this; I thought this before LCMS, Inc. recognized them.  I thought highly of them when they were still a lowly organization without recognition, and I find they’re recognition by the powers from on high leaves me feeling lowly.

But, perhaps, as Martha Stewart would say, “That’s a good thing.” And Higher Things perhaps would say “to whom much is “Given” much is expected” while the National LCMS Youth Gathering might respond, “We believe.”

Now, not so gentle reader, compare the past themes of Higher Things gatherings “Dare to be Lutheran,” “The Feast,” “For You,” “Amen,” “Sola” with the “We Believe” of the 2010 LCMS, Inc. gathering.  There’s theology in them there themes.  Before it was openly considered different now that HT is an RSO it’s considered complimentary. Just when “reconciled diversity” is declared a dead ecumenical model (Logia, Holy Trinity 2009, 5), it resurfaces within our Synod.  Truth be told, I think we invented it.

Paul says that “the Spirit clearly says” about the latter days: “They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer” (I Timothy 4: 3-5).

What usually jumps out at Protestants, including Lutherans, is the forbidding to marry part, but I want to focus on “For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.”  Many believe these words of approbation apply to everything except alcohol and many more believe they can’t apply to tobacco.  Can’t receive these creations of God with thanksgiving; if you think you can, try putting a bottle of wine and a pack of Camels on your thanksgiving altar at church.  Nope, no how no way that alcohol that God gave to make glad the heart of man and to alleviate his sorrow (Ps. 104:15; Pr. 31:6) or tobacco that has stimulated the noses, bowels, and minds of men for centuries can be consecrated by the Word of God and prayer.

Fruits and vegetables (Make sure you get five servings a day now.) and not just grains but whole grains are good for you and praiseworthy.  Lean meats are also okay.  Be like the Israelites and give the fat to God.  But don’t be like them when it comes to getting your Omega 3 acids.  You’d have to cut out things like shrimp and crabs (Lv. 11:9-12).  Come to think of it some foods are so good for you that you can simply leave out consecrating them by the Word of God and prayer.

Narratives on the Catechism published by Lutheran Book Concern of Columbus in 1915 gives food for thought in this regard.  It says, “He who goes to the table without prayer goes away without the blessing of God and his meat and drink may prove the means of his death just as well as, had he sacrificed them with prayer, they would have ministered to the support of his bodily life”  (Vol. III, p. 77.).

Hmm, what a strange thought.  It is biblical but hardly medical; it is theological but hardly technological.  The Word of God and prayer is what consecrate food to my health.  The demon isn’t in the rum and the health isn’t in the food itself.

As the good Baptist preacher is wont to say, “That will preach.”  But not my a coward such as I.

  I realize that thees and thous have as much chance of coming back where they’ve been lost as fins on cars do, but where they are let them remain particularly in the Divine Service.  As there is a rhythm in the versicles and responses, so there is a dance between ye and you.

The Lord proclaims to us in the Verba, “Take eat; this is My body, which is given for you.”  It’s given for us all, every single one of us, even those not present or caring.  But with the dominical command regarding the Cup it’s, “Drink ye all of it.”

If you’re individually going to participate in the Supper of the Lord, if you’re going to take part in the Body He gave on the cross and the Blood He shed there, ye can only do it individually and that orally.  There is no communing with the eyes as the Medieval Church thought.  Sure you are sprinkled with that same Blood in Baptism (I Peter 1:2-3) and you are joined to that same Body by Baptism (Romans 6:4), and the Word of Absolution surely paints over your door the Blood of Christ and presents His Body as the Bread of your life.  But if ye want to eat His Body and drink His Blood you can only do that orally and individually, hence the command, “Drink ye all of it.”

But then the ye gives way to a you.  “This do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me,” gives way to “The peace of the Lord be with you always!”  And the Church that keeps Her Lord’s Communion Table closed, opens the door wide to His peace.

Luther regarded The Pax Domini as an absolution.  Even though we may not commune you at our altar, we don’t deny that the forgiveness of sins Jesus won on the cross is for you too.  The peace of the Lord is for everyone, and it is our wish, desire, hope that you have it.  “The peace of the Lord be with you always!” 

There is a delicate dance going on, a point – counterpoint, of ye and you in the Divine Service.  Dropping them doesn’t mean the theology is no longer there; it’s just hidden.  If you’re a critic of continuing to use archaic language, you probably would say it hides the theology, but ye would be wrong, and so would you who would agree with him.

When Tiger Woods burst on the golfing scene in August 1996, he quickly showed himself to be head and shoulders above his competition.  At the time I remarked that Sport’s Illustrated’s depiction of how Woods was raised by his father was tantamount to child abuse. He was raised, formed, molded, bent, to play professional golf. Motivation tapes were his bedtime listening as a toddler.  This man didn’t choose to play golf; golf was chosen for him.

None of that was said, as far as I know, by anyone but me. After Woods ran away from the field once more at one of the majors, two commentators were talking about what could derail this marvelous athlete from going on to be the greatest golfer ever. The two concluded only two things could. A bad marriage (Tiger was single at the time.) or bad health. Well Tiger appears to have surmounted his health issues, and he didn’t marry badly. What derailed his career was himself and only himself.  However, the only rails his upbringing seems calculated to keep him on were those running to golf courses.

Tiger has been lauded, hailed, and praised as a master of his emotions. In fact he was criticized for being too unemotional.  In 1999 a malfunction in Payne Stewart’s Lear jet led to the depressurization of the plane and the death of Stewart and five others.  Just days later a tribute for Stewart was held at the Tour Championship. The whole field of golfers went to the tribute except Tiger. He went to the driving range to hit balls; he also went on to win that tournament.  Now this stone cold golfer, this master of his emotions has been shown to have no more control over certain emotions than the always emotive Bill Clinton.

There are several lessons here. One is that if you think all you need is millions (probably it’s billions) of dollars and a Swedish bombshell for a wife and then you would be happy, think again.  Another lesson is, thank God that you don’t.   Luther liked the German proverbs: “You need strong legs to stand up under good times,” and “Gold makes bold.” In the same situation, would we have stronger legs than Tiger or weaker boldness? I doubt it.

I was at a hospital owned and operated by the 7^th Day Adventists.  I didn’t know this when I went in.  I saw on the surgery floor a nurse’s computer displaying a page “Bread of Life Café.”  I thought this strange, but reasoned it might be a personal site.  When I walked into the waiting room there was Christian art, so I knew this was no ordinary hospital.  Then the hospital chaplain came up to me and the whole cat came out of the bag.  After talking to him, I further explored the art and literature.  It was all about natural healing, wholistic living, the mind body connection.  This is as it should be at a 7^th Day Adventist hospital.

In a local Catholic hospital I noticed how every pre and post surgery room has what sometimes is called a Christus Victor crucifix.  This is a cross with the corpus on it, but the corpus is attached only at the back and the arms are upraised in triumph.  This is Christ the victor over our sins, Death, and the power of the Devil.  Not a bad image to go into or come out of surgery with.  (This is to be distinguished from the Jansenist crucifix which has the arms of Christ pointing straight up because as a Catholic influenced by Calvinism Bishop Jansen (1585-1638) didn’t see an open-armed Savior welcoming all.)

In some ICU rooms of that same Catholic hospital it’s different.  Before the patient’s eyes, on the wall directly opposite him, is the crucifix.  No Christus Victor here to confront the suffering perhaps dying man.  No, here is Jesus crucified for sins and sinners.  Here is Jesus suffering for your sins, ergo, your suffering can’t be for those sins.  Here is Jesus abandoned by His Father who chose you over Him.  Here is Jesus at one with the suffer.

What do we find at Lutheran hospitals?  It’s been years since I’ve been in one, so I don’t know.  I do know what is found in many Lutheran Churches.  More bare crosses than crucifixes.  Walther in 1885 said the crucifix was on the altars of our churches, and while a person was free to have one or not, we would not permit it to be called a sin to have one (The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, 167).

It’s amazing how bare cross have replaced crucifixes in our churches.  This is the influence of Protestantism which is funny because they started out not even liking bare crosses.  Their objection to crucifixes is usually because it’s an image or because it’s focusing on the wrong point.  I can’t remember where I read this story, but a woman accosts another woman for wearing a crucifix saying, “Would you wear around your neck the bullet that killed your son?”  To which the other woman replied, “I sure would if he rose from the dead.”

This is good theology for a church that claims to preach Christ and Him crucified (not risen) ( I Cor. 2:2) and proclaims His death (not life) as often as we eat His Body and drink His Blood (I Cor. 11: 26).  We focus and embrace His death that His life might be manifested in us.

Theology is everywhere, but on our altars, in our churches, and in our liturgy it ought to at least be as clear as it is in the hospitals of 7^th Day Adventists and Roman Catholics.

Now I’m quite sure Bob didn’t mean that his mother had told him someday he’d find himself spooning with 3 other soldiers on a miserable March night in the mountains of New Mexico, but that phrase itself conveys a lot of comfort.  Forewarned is in some sense forearmed, and Mama spoke of trial in terms of limited duration.  There’d be “days” not week, months, or years like this.

Jesus forearms the apostles, and us too.  He tells them of the bad things to come, and points out that this is so they wouldn’t be surprised when they happen.  He too says they’re “days” i.e. they won’t last, they will in fact be shortened for the sake of elect (Matthew 24:22).  Paul tells Timothy “all that live godly in this life will suffer” (2 Timothy 3:12).  Jesus tells us if the world hated Me it will hate you (John 15:18-19).

Jesus told me there’d be days like this.  This goes not just for those “blue” days, but the downright black ones.  He tells us in John 16:2 “a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God.”  We are fooling ourselves if we ever thought we’d be taken to heaven “on flowery beds of ease” (TLH 445:2).  No, the Lord not only didn’t promise us a rose garden.  He promised us thorns, veritable messengers from Satan to buffet us as St. Paul said of his thorn.  Why?  Because of the surpassing glories that have been revealed to us by the Crucified One crowned with thorns.

The reading of this post can be enhanced by listening to the Shirelles here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns1exm8Y5r4 .  But if you’re going to do that you also have to listen to John Lennon’s “Nobody Told Me” here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBCdlBrgEmE .  It was released posthumously in 1984, but I think it was written in 1980.  So whether it was 19 or 23 years later, nobody told  John Lennon, not even his Momma (listen to the song), that there would be days like these.

Your momma, Holy Mother Church, your Father, and your Lord and Savior have told you.  That’s the difference between the tones of the two songs.  The Shirelles have been told and so being unsurprised can be upbeat.  Poor John wasn’t told and so is surprised and melancholy.