Jason Kaspar – Page 3 – What Does This Mean?

Can Christians Abstain from Political Discourse?

I’ve been grappling for several years with the notions of Christian submission under the 4^th Commandment (or 5th, in the Protestant numbering tradition), and its interaction with a republican form of governance. Yes, the United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, as is so often misstated in public discourse. But, I digress… How ought we navigate this interaction as Christians, or should we at all?

For clarity’s sake, I’ll be speaking here in terms of sin and the commands of God’s law. I’ll also be speaking of things that are speculative in my mind. So, I’ll expend every effort to parse one from another with concrete verbs (will, must, shall, etc.) for the clear understanding of God’s Law, and modal verbs (may, ought, should, etc.) for my own speculation concerning our peculiar system of governance. Additionally, by “submission” or “absolute submission,” I mean that submission, which Christians can in good conscience give to rulers, when there is no conflict with the first 1st Commandment or the other nine. No Christian may obey a ruler’s command to despise the Word of God, its preaching, or the holy day of rest and worship. Nor can we take oaths against the faith in God’s name. And we shall never acknowledge a power or authority over the Triune God.

With that out of the way, regardless of the numbering tradition your readers may understand, by the 4^th Commandment, I mean this, “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.” (Exodus 20:12 ESV) All authority in Heaven and on Earth and under the Earth belongs to the Lamb in His kingdom. The Earth, His footstool, is given to temporal rulers, whose authority flows from the 4^th Commandment.

Expounding upon the commandments is in keeping with the Lord’s presentation of the 1^st and 3^rd commandments in Exodus, chapter 20, and Jesus’s exposition on the 5^th and 6^th commandments in Matthew, chapter 5. Martin Luther teaches it this way in his 1529 Small Catechism. “As the head of the family should teach [the ten commandments] in a simple way to his household … What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we do not despise or anger our parents and other authorities, but honor them, serve and obey them, love and cherish them” (SC 1:4–emphasis mine). The other authorities bit gives us an understanding of the head of household duty for secular rulers and our duty to them as subjects.

In his 1529 Large Catechism, Dr. Luther spoke this way about civil government. “The same should also be said about obedience to civil government. This (as we have said) is all included in the place of fatherhood and extends farthest from all relations. Here ‘father’ is not one person from a single family, but it means the many people the father has as tenants, citizens, or subjects. Through them, as through our parents, God gives to us food, house and home, protection, and security. They bear such name and title with all honor as their highest dignity that it is our duty to honor them and to value them greatly as the dearest treasure and the most precious jewel upon the earth” (Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, Readers Edition, Second Edition, © 2005 & 2006, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, MO, p. 376, paragraph 150).

These rulers are clearly due our submission in temporal matters. They are here to provide for our good, and rule justly. The dilemma, as I see it, in a republic such as the United States, lies in identifying who wears this hat of 4^th commandment authority at which various times. In Luther’s day, there was no functional republic for him to observe or reflect upon. That places the onus upon us to apply his wisdom through that lens.

For Luther and the other reformers, kings & princes, electors & dukes were easily identified. They would often claim a divine right, that is, selection by God, to their governance. This is not entirely untrue. We Christians confess that all rulers, including Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus I, King George, and the President of these United States are placed there by God for our benefit. We owe them our respect, submission, and obedience.

There’s still a rub.

Who’s in charge in a republic?

The right answer is “many people” at various times. Between election cycles, the voters are subjects who shall submit within the bounds of the first commandment. During campaigns and elections, candidates are under the rule of “We The People.” After votes are cast, voters and candidates are submissive under the electors tasked with their duties. When the courts exercise their authority, submission goes to them. When legislators write and pass laws, review appointments, and scrutinize officials, they are to be obeyed. And all are bound to rule justly and in submission a sort of king constraining and conforming the republic.

We do actually have a king, but it’s a document. The constitution is the sole temporal governing authority in the land. This king pays honor to the Lord in recognizing rights in creation that precede itself. And it defines who does what, when, and with what powers.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” (First Amendment of the US Constitution).

This protection of political speech isn’t only a right, it guards a fourth commandment responsibility. You, the electorate, have a job concerning your own authority. This responsibility does not begin, nor is not limited to the ballot box. Participation in the entire electoral function is necessary for all Christians. This means Christians ought to engage in public exhibition of their opinion concerning candidates. Christians ought to engage in public discourse concerning their opinions of candidates. Christians ought to share ideas and attempt to convince other people of their opinions, informed and defended by the Christian faith, concerning the candidates up for election.

The “petition for the redress of grievances” is also a Christian’s duty. The electorate, who wears their ruling crown in these instances ought to be willing to file suits against the government for actions outside the bounds of their authority. The redress is not limited individual suits. We also should be engaged in public discourse on the matters, filing of briefs amicii, and financial support of the NPOs in these legal battles. Legals NPOs like the Alliance Defending Freedom is one such group heavily involved in defending the LCMS from such government overreach (point initiated by Rev. Bob Smith, 26 Sep 2024).

Side note on authority: under the 4th commandment, a father or mother shall not abandon their responsibilities as father or mother. Similarly, Christians in the electorate ought not to abandon or abdicate their responsibilities as absolute ruler under the constitution, during seasons of election.

Can a Christian vote for a sinful candidate?

There can be no doubt that every candidate who has ever run for office is a sinner. If we think otherwise, we have a much bigger problem than whether to elect Judy Smalls or Jacob Little. In choosing the sinner among us sinners, we must apply prudence and reason given to us by God to select the candidate who is the least likely to cause harm. In their sin, these men and women will sin in great and small ways while ruling justly over the people. This is no different than each of us. Elections are a zero sum game in our two-party system. A withheld vote is a vote for the winning candidate. With precious few exceptions, a vote for an inconceivable winner against the two major candidates is also a vote for the winning candidate.

This is the unique situation where our primary concern is the first use of the law. The first use, the “curb,” is chiefly the duty of civil government to prevent gross errors and sin from hurting or harming our neighbor. In the political process of a republic, you have a hand in selecting the officials who do or do not prevent this. This is where engagement in the political process is absolutely necessary. Christians ought to know the track record of the people they are electing. Christians should engage in moral triage.

By moral triage, I mean seeking the least evil and least harmful outcomes in civil governance. I don’t understand this to mean a binary moral standard, classifying a candidate as entirely “good” or completely “bad.” I would also suggest that personal life, though important, should take a back seat to the outcomes of governance in curbing great sin and violence with our society.

A potential or returning political candidate’s role is one of enforcing and uplifting the first use, civil law. That means the 10 commandments must be prioritized in our selection of leaders. We may not forget Cyrus, the great of Persia, all the good things done by wicked leaders like him at the Lord’s bidding (Isaiah 45:1-3; 2 Chronicles 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-8).

Using The Ten Commandments to Sharpen Our Focus

While selecting these leaders for their expected behavior in the case of the 10 commandments in the civil realm. In the case of the 1st through 3rd commandments, there is very little that government can do in particular in their first table function. The only thing that they can do is a very bad one. If government ever attempts to curtail religion, this is an evil thing. Pagans must be allowed to be pagans. priorBut more importantly, no activity of the Christian faith and life may ever be limited under constitutional governance. This is already prevalent in our society in varying degrees, and it must be pushed back. Even the rhetoric exposes a change in understanding that is deliberately put in play. At one time, the discussion will only concern itself with the “freedom of religion.”

Sometime around 2008, the language shifted to a different term. Candidates of all sorts began to speak about the “freedom to worship.” This is not concurrent with the language of a constitution that recognizes a previously existing free exercise of religion. The entirety of the Christian life and faith is protected in our republic, as it should be.

The second table of the law is the chief thing here, preventing gross wickedness by the threat of punishment, jail, or death. While a Christian leader would be preferable to a non-Christian leader, that does not mean that a Christian leader is a better selection than a non-Christian leader. This is a hard thing to consider, but the Christianness of the official isn’t a thing that will affect their governance directly. However, their behavior and policy making concerning things that effect their fellow man are directly effective in their capability or incompetence concerning governance.

The 4th commandment: honor your father and mother

A potential government official cannot step outside their own authority. They should submit when submission is required, and rule when ruling is their duty. Malicious prosecution, creation of rules that are not law but act as though they are, laws invented from the judicial bench, executives refusing to enforce the law, and actions like these are just a few examples of 4^th commandment actions not in keeping with God’s law.

The 5th commandment: you shall not murder.

A political candidate cannot encourage murder. This does not mean capital punishment, and it never has. By the 4th commandment, the authority to exercise discipline and punishment, including death, is the authority of the civil government.

Murder does, however, include things that cause the death of others, or allow the death of others to be legally permissible. The discussion here begins and ends with abortion. A Christian cannot elect a candidate who approves of, encourages, or propagates abortion. There are two bodies in the decision, and one is granted no choice. God created the life of the unborn.

This also means the likelihood of murder in a particular jurisdiction determines whether the elected officials in that area are abiding by their God-given and irrevocably commanded responsibility concerning the lives of their citizens. If a city has the highest murder rate the nation, they are doing something wrong, and everyone who supports their system of governance is probably on the wrong side of this commandment.

The 6th commandment: you shall not commit adultery.

This one concerns itself less with the personal life of the candidate, which is still a concern, and more with the resultant waves that flow through society. A government that creates systems that discourage marriage and that discourage the union of man and woman in holy matrimony for the procreation and rearing of children is failing in their duty and opposing the 6th commandment. Again, this is on display in many jurisdictions and municipalities throughout the world. The United states where single motherhood is on the rise, marriage rates are on the decline. Government can encourage marriage. Government has encouraged divorce. This is evil. A candidate continuing these sorts of practices is not a suitable candidate to receive a Christian’s to vote. This is not in keeping with God’s law.

This a spot where we may confuse morality of character with a moral society. Even a scoundrel can legally promote the nuclear family unit and the stability it gives to children. This benefits all children under their governance by adding to the safety and stability of society as a whole. This is in keeping with God’s law.

The 7th commandment: you shall not steal.

Let’s just be simple about this one. Encouraging criminality which allows folks to deprive their neighbor of what they have is a thing that grows out of control when prosecutors will not prosecute crime. Those that do not enforce the law are unfit for office and have abandoned their responsibility according to the 4th commandment. They are not fit for office and ought to be removed. This is not in keeping with God’s law.

The 8th commandment: you shall not bear false witness.

This is most prevalent currently in the increasing flow of an intention to censor information that is determined to be seditious, dangerous, or “untrue.” In a society where free speech is a tenant of the function of life, all citizens must have equal and unfettered access to this right. That means allowing speech we don’t like to occur. In the current state of censorship, that speech which is censored is not censored because it is wrong. It is censored because it opposes the political ideology of the party in power. This is a false witness against those who are silenced. This opposes God’s law.

The 9th and 10th commandments you shall not covet.

Covetousness is a little different from theft. The covetous heart seeks to deprive its neighbor of what they have. The deprivation is the thing that makes the thing different from theft. It doesn’t matter to the covetous heart who receives, or if anyone received the spoils of deprivation. The covetous heart simply wants to see its neighbor lose what they have. This is the heart of the wicked evil of wealth envy.

It is statistically guaranteed that a person who has their wealth taken by way of irrational taxation will be deprived of what they have. It is also irrefutable that government waste, fraud, and corruption will destroy that wealth rather than using it. It is to the detriment of the entire society that that wealth should be taken rather than retained by its owner. The owner in a free society uses their wealth to invest, to purchase, and to acquire, which benefits their fellow man who works to provide services and goods that are desired by a wealthy person, or are employed by the same. When government steals, the wealth is simply destroyed. This is not in keeping with God’s law.

Use the reason God gave you, dear Christians. Speak to your friends and neighbors. Share your views, and kindly try to convince them. Wear the ruling crown, when it is yours, and cast it aside, when it is not.

All are one in Christ,

Rev. Jason M. Kaspar
Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church & Preschool
La Grange, TX

Are We Programmed to Pray Like Buddhists?

A friend recently shared a TikTok-style vertical video of some guy giving an “entirely informal” talk, leaning on the back of a gator, or some such vehicle, with excellent wardrobe and professional lighting. The guy is presenting a concept that folded hands, bowed heads, and closed eyes for prayer are not Christian. His video claims a Buddhist root to the common American prayer practice.

He’s partly right. Folded hands, bowed heads, and closed eyes are very recent Christian traditions. First, let’s consider the ancient traditions concerning prayer.

The head up, hands upturned, and eyes open posture. This position in ancient Christian art usually corresponds to one of two things. One, the presiding minister, leading prayer, has this posture, while others take a different one. Two, the resurrected Christ or the Lord in His triumphant return is right before those praying. This isn’t the common everybody-praying-together posture.

The most common posture for hands together prayer is flat hands with palms together. It’s most famously recreated by Albrecht Dürer’s 1508 “Praying Hands.” Herr Dürer didn’t invent the posture. It was commonly used and heavily represented in Christian art.

It is right and proper to bow our heads and/or our bodies at the name of Jesus. “And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore, God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:8-10) Not just in recognition of the Glory of God, but we ought to recognize how greatly Jesus humbled Himself for us. A little head nod is probably the least we could do in response.

You’ll sometimes see pious folks dipping their heads throughout the divine service. Usually, they are nodding their heads at every mention of Jesus’ name in the service, readings, and prayers. This is a good and laudable practice for Christians. The head nod requires more attention and focus than you might think.

“Oh come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the Lord, our Maker! For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand.” (Psalm 95:6-7) Kneeling is also a good posture to assume. We even used to have kneelers in all of our pews for the Divine Service. It’s a posture at which 20^th Century Christians may recoil with, “that’s too Catholic!” Here’s a shorthand question about those things considered Romanist (Catholic): Is this thing commended or encouraged by the scriptures? Yes? Then this thing might more likely be a catholic (Christian) thing than a Catholic (Romanist) thing.

Don’t stop there. prostration (lying face-down flat on the floor) is also an option. “Thus says the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One, to one deeply despised, abhorred by the nation, the servant of rulers: ‘Kings shall see and arise; princes, and they shall prostrate themselves; because of the Lord, who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.’” (Isaiah 49:7)

This one you’re most likely to see at an ordination. The rubrics indicate the candidate may lie prostrate on the floor before the altar. Yes, for quite a while. All of these revolve around us, the faithful, lowering our posture beneath the Lord, or indicating Him above us.

So, what about the “entirely informal” vertical video? The Buddhist source is highly unlikely given that the modern posture appears in the early 17^th century, gathering steam, East to West across the U.S. into the 20^th century.

Charles Grandison Finney, Upstate NY, 1830s

Too often things fall back to Finney’s tent revivalist new measures. During the altar call, the preacher would encourage everyone to pray silently for the Spirit to work among us, “…with every head bowed, every eye closed, and every hand folded.” He would speak while the band played quietly, manipulating emotions. “I’m looking for a sign, just a hand in the air, just a finger, indicating a desire to dedicate yourself to Jesus. Sir! You there on the right!” Whether the pressure of the crowd, a push from a crowd worker, or even just a plant, someone would begin.

Eric Enstrom’s famous photo “Grace” succinctly demonstrates the 90-year shift to a hands folded, head bowed, eyes closed prayer posture. The picture of Charles Wilden, a peddler and vagabond, was taken between 1918-20. Over the years, various tales have developed about its origin. A second official version of the photo added an ethereal light source from a non-existent window opposite Wilden. Countless color paintings and lithographs have been made and sold. In most cases these illustrations sharpen the details, the lighting contrast, and … oh, yes turn the dictionary on the table into a Bible.

The new revivalist prayer posture changed our perception of the room. “The Spirit’s at work!” Probably not. It’s more likely a manufactured situation or entire event to cause us to feel a thing. There’s no particular harm in praying that way. But, it’s not good to ignore the other postures in favor of Finney’s favorite either.

Come, let us fix our eyes upon Jesus,

Rev. Jason M. Kaspar
Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church & Preschool
La Grange, TX

Rep. James Talarico’s Marxist Theocratic Utopia

Political discourse usually only makes it into our discussion circles when politicians ham-fistedly offer a theological soliloquy. This is one of those times. The politician is James Talarico, a Texas State House Representative of District 52: the Round Rock, Taylor, Hutto. And Georgetown areas of Williamson County.

James is a sitting representative since 2018 and an aspiring pastor, attending Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. He expects to graduate with a MDiv in 2025. He’s active and preaches at St. Andrew Presbyterian Church, Austin (Politico). Considering that, his theological claims, which come from a mingled existence in the left and righthand kingdoms, are fair game for us to address.

Rep. Talarico recently gave a sermon at his home church, including this clip. (You can also listen here).

“Look around us. If this was truly a Christian nation, we would forgive student debt. If this was truly a Christian nation, we would guarantee health care to every single person. If this was truly a Christian nation, we would love all of our LGBTQ neighbors. If this was truly a Christian nation, we would make sure every child in the state and in this country was housed, fed, clothed, educated, and insured. If this was truly a Christian nation, we would never make it a Christian nation because we know the table of fellowship is open to everybody including our Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, and atheist neighbors. Jesus could have started a Christian theocracy. But, love would never do that. The closest thing we have to the Kingdom of heaven is a multiracial, multicultural democracy; where power is truly shared among all people; something that’s yet to exist in human history.”

There’s a lot to unpack here. Much of it is delivered in a shorthand of sorts. So, let’s examine the bits individually. These are predominantly strawman arguments. In the strawman logical fallacy, the arguer creates a position you do not hold and assigns the position to you. Then they proceed to attack you for a position you don’t hold. It’s an error. But, it’s best done and can be effective when the false position is near to or can easily be confused with your own actual position.

“If this was truly a Christian nation…”

It is well established that the Christianness of the US is diminishing rapidly. Have a look at the Pew Research article “Nones on the Rise” here. Both the percentage of self-described regular churchgoers and the number of attendances currently considered regular are falling. Most recently, self-described “regularly attending” church goers consider once a month or more regular attendance. Thirty years ago, people would not identify themselves as “regularly attending” at fewer than three times a month.

The Christian nature of the founding of the US is debatable. We are certainly the product of a Christian moral and ethical culture, as well as a Christian influenced legal system. While morality and legal fairness are fruits of Christianity, they are not the Christianity which produces them.

Look at Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, Christian Scientists, and a host of other Christian adjacent heresies. These folks often make excellent neighbors. They are predominantly law-abiding patriots. But, their proximity to Christianity and the values thereby influenced don’t make them Christian. Only faith given by the Holy Spirit causes Christianity.

“We would forgive student debt.”

First, all debts are paid; either by the borrower or the lender. (James Grant) The concept of “debt forgiveness” is a misappropriation of the Christian doctrine of forgiveness. The forgiveness of sins is a free gift for us, received by grace through faith. Our debt was paid by Jesus’s suffering and death. Without His taking on the punishment, there is no forgiveness.

Forgiving a financial debt simply and only transfers the debt to the other party. Consider the commandments. “The Seventh Commandment—You shall not steal. What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we do not take our neighbor’s money or possessions, or get them in any dishonest way, but help him to improve and protect his possessions and income” (Small Catechism 1.7).

Externally removing a debt from the borrower, without a court’s adjudication, is theft. The money borrowed has been spent; the school received and spent it. The lender here pays the debt. In the case of federally secured student debt, you are paying the debt. There is no such thing as government money. There are only taxes, collected and spent.

“We would guarantee health care to every single person.”

The discussion of debt forgiveness above applies here too. But, there is another issue at play. There are only three things that can affect the distribution of a limited supply, outstripped by demand. Price control, supply & demand valuation, or rationing. The claim about guaranteed health care also ignores the undeniable access everyone has to emergency medicine.

In the case of price controls, we run afoul of the commandments again. “The Fifth Commandment—You shall not murder. What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we do not hurt or harm our neighbor in his body, but help and support him in every physical need” (SC 1.5). This is where we understand the evil of slavery. We may not take the life of our neighbor expended in labor without just compensation. The justness of pay is determined by negotiation of the laborer and employer. When that fails, the laborer is free to leave, seeking better opportunities.

When price restrictions are placed universally on medicine, our government seeks to compel labor from medical professionals without just compensation. Without lateral options outside of the employer/laborer dynamic, this takes a form of slavery.

Rationing creates a need for an executioner. Someone has to decide who does or doesn’t receive the limited supply of care. Or, someone has to schedule the limited supply of care so far in the future as to be useless. This is a fifth commandment problem again.

“We would love all of our LGBTQ neighbors.”

Rep. Talarico speaks from a true antinomian* viewpoint. He is speaking in the shorthand of his tradition to demand acceptance and glorification of the LGBTQ lifestyle. Antinomianism isn’t actually against the Law in function. It rejects God’s law and replaces it with a new law. The law of acceptance takes the place of the ten commandments. This new law doesn’t have an atoning savior. You must atone for your sins against “acceptance” for yourself.

(*Antinomianism–a teaching that rejects the Law of God entirely from the lives of Christians. Antinomian, the term is derived from the Latin prefix: “anti-” meaning against and the Greek word: “nomos” meaning the Law. The error pops-up often in Christianity. Antinomians must also reject the concepts of sin and guilt. “What shall we say, then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?” (Romans 6:1-2). St. Paul was speaking against this sort of thing.)

As we’ve heard many other times, that isn’t love. In love, we can never encourage our neighbor in sin. True godly love seeks to warn our neighbor of the danger of their sin. Love is kind, but love doesn’t leave our neighbor to perish in transgression.

“We would make sure every child in the state and in this country was housed, fed, clothed, educated, and insured.”

James Talarico is covering over the state’s wicked role in harming children by ignoring the decalogue. “The Sixth Commandment—You shall not commit adultery. What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we lead a sexually pure and decent life in what we say and do, and husband and wife love and honor each other.

Our rulers have and continue to build a society that encourages divorce and single parenthood. This causes great harm. Children in fatherless homes are four times more likely to end up in poverty (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Children’s Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March 2011, Table C8. Washington D.C.: 2011). The situation of poverty among children would be mitigated best by encouraging and rewarding marriage and child rearing within that estate. Discouraging divorce would follow behind as a close second.

“We would never make it a Christian nation because we know the table of fellowship is open to everybody, including our Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, and atheist neighbors. Jesus could have started a Christian theocracy. But love would never do that.”

James is erroneously attributing Christian Nationalism to a non-specified group, intended to include all Christians. There simply aren’t these people in the US, or at least not in sufficient number to change anything. A Christian morality isn’t the same as Christianity. But, we spook at the accusation of Christian Nationalism. This isn’t an accident.

He is also speaking theologically from his Presbyterian position on fellowship in the Lord’s Supper. On the contrary, the table of fellowship is closed in the growing orthodox Christian traditions. We want folks to join fellowship and be catechized. But, the Lord tells us of the harm to unbelievers and those not instructed.

“You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” (1 Corinthians 10:21-22). “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11:27).

“The closest thing we have to the Kingdom of heaven is a multiracial, multicultural democracy; where power is truly shared among all people; something that’s yet to exist in human history.”

This side of the resurrection, we will never see that perfection. That perfection can only be perfect and perfected in Christ Jesus. Humorously, Ronald Reagan said, “Communism [Socialism/Marxism/Progressivism] only works in two places: Heaven where they don’t need it and hell where they already have it.” The Lord promised us a share in this salvation. “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:27-29).

In the resurrection, we have a promise so much greater than the false flag of divisive multiculturalism. We have a promise of no nation, race, language, or culture. “After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, ‘Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!’” (Revelation 7:9-10). In the resurrection, all the divisions caused by sin’s corruption will be wiped away. We will be one again, praising with one voice, tireless and free from the corruption of sin.

All are one in Christ,

Rev. Jason M. Kaspar – Sole Pastor
Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church & Preschool
La Grange, TX

Lamenting with Glynis Tietjen

In a recent edition of my local paper, a letter to the editor bemoaned the current state of affairs. Many mainline Christian church bodies are embracing CRT, DEI, and LGBTQAI+ ideologies. She rightly observes, in part:

“Through a recent church letter, I have learned that plans have been in the making for a while now … to restructure some of the oldest, most established religions slash churches as diverse, equitable, and inclusive, plans are to allow homosexual marriages, officiated by their clergy, and to also now accept these beliefs into their religions. The clergy themselves may even be LGBQTIA+. In other words, making homosexuality compatible with Christian teachings.”

“[T]he UMC … with the backing of the ELCA, has decided to ratify the plan … to basically align with DEI … I would wager my last dollar that Martin Luther would “not” have been behind this blasphemy.”

“I was instructed as a young child to believe the words of the Bible. … Countless Christians will not support the very churches who chose to go this route of DEI, when previously, these very churches taught them to live by the words in the Bible.”

“When will people start standing up? When will people have had enough? When will God have had enough?” Glynis Tietjen — La Grange

(“Church and Pride,” The Fayette County Record, La Grange, TX, June 14, 2024, Volume 102, Number 64, page D2)

(In response to “Church and Pride,” June 14, 2024) Miss Glynis, I can understand your frustration and disappointment. Christianity used to be more serious about those things forbidden and commanded. You’re right to suggest that DEI and LGBTQAI+ ideologies are opposed to Christianity. The accepted culture of the first quarter of the 21^st century doesn’t just encourage DEI and LGBTQAI+, it demands submission. Acceptance, the terminology of my youth, isn’t enough. The new order requires us to glorify sinfulness as a morally superior lifestyle. Movies, gaming, comics, books, music, and other products of the current mainstream culture attest to this.

I pray you’re right that a minority of folks in national church organizations, including the UMC, the UCC, The PCUSA, the Episcopal Church, and ELCA are behind the shift in official positions and activities. Regardless of who it is, the people of whom we speak are in power. They are driving the bus away from the Bible. Without the only certain witness of God’s Word, the Christian faith has no mooring. We’re certain to be lost apart from the Word of God, which entirely testifies to Jesus’s death and resurrection for sinners like us.

There’s been a bit of linguistic trickery for many years. It is as if Jesus’s love undoes the condemnation of the Law of God. It does not. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17-18) That’s the last day, the judgement, and the resurrection of all flesh.

Jesus forgave and forgives sin even today. The message remains the same. “But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” (Romans 5:8-10)

We are constantly being saved, reconciled by Jesus’s forgiveness. This is where the accepted culture falls down. “Jesus stood up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ She said, ‘No one, Lord.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.’” (John 8:10-11) The Gospel of forgiveness doesn’t grant permission to continue in sin. It also doesn’t bless those things that the Law of God condemns: adultery, homosexuality, idolatry, theft, covetousness, and the like.

The battle for the Bible started over 60 years ago. In those early days, the lines were fairly simple: is the Bible the inerrant Word of God or does it only contain the inerrant Word of God? The error we’re seeing on full display is this: if some of the bible isn’t true or isn’t normative to me, who decides that, and where does it end? Each one of us becomes the arbiter of God’s Word for ourselves. It ends when my pet sin becomes permissible. The temptation has never changed from the serpent in the garden. “… Did God actually say … you will be like God.” (Genesis 3)

All of God’s Word actually matters and He did actually say it. He has preserved His Word for us since ancient times in the original languages and in far better density and reliability than any other ancient texts. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Even those bits I don’t like, those are still God’s Word. Especially the bits that accuse me in my sin, those are still God’s Word.

In the LCMS and other orthodox Christian traditions, we have held to the Bible as the rule and norm of the Christian faith. “We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and norm according to which all teachings, together with all teachers, should be evaluated and judged (2 Timothy 3:15-17) are the prophetic and Apostolic scriptures of the Old and New Testament alone.” (Formula of Concord, Epitome, 1576) It’s been a long and lonely road, cleaving to the Word of God. But, it’s worth it.

You’re always welcome back over on the other side of the fence, where we hold fast to the Word of God. We’d love to have you and your friends among us.

Rev. Jason M. Kaspar
Sole Pastor
Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church & Preschool
La Grange, TX

Why Can’t We Just Go Back to TLH?

Some people do share your opinion. I understand the motivation to a certain degree. There are many wonderful things about The Lutheran Hymnal, 1941 (TLH). Unlike the scriptures, the canon of the hymnody can never be closed. Like preaching, there is always something new and useful to say regarding God’s Word to His people. Like preaching, the older things should not be thrown away. And they’re not. 340 of TLH hymns are preserved in the Lutheran Service Book (LSB). That’s greater than 50% of its hymnody (h/t Rev. Dr. Paul Grime). TLH is still in print today. There are also congregations that retain the use of both TLH & LSB, and even TLH exclusively.

There are some historical failures of the church, leading to the notion that TLH is the only right hymnal. Emotions, which are a poor standard of decision making in most contexts, notwithstanding, poor timing is among the chief concerns.

There were theological errors in the Lutheran Book of Worship, 1978 (LBW), causing a stir at a time when a new hymnal was needed and desired. Our (LCMS) participation with the other Lutheran groups produced a hymnal, whose use we could not encourage. We had to back out of the project, but retained copyright usage authority over the materials produced.

This led to a hasty publication of the Lutheran Worship, 1982 (LW). That was a bad move. Simply stripping-out and correcting theological errors didn’t produce a good hymnal. In fact, it produced a fairly poor hymnal. It was not well received. At LW’s peak, it was in use in just over half of LCMS congregations. As evidence of that, the old LWs are even difficult to give away.

Among the complaints about LW are these: the defaced common service, organ arrangements, and altered text. By “Common Service,” I mean TLH p. 5/15, LW Divine Service I, and LSB Divine Service, Setting Three. The TLH and LSB settings are quite similar. The LW setting updated the Jacobean English and stripped the chorale harmonies from the pew edition. Further, LW has also removed and/or rewritten common chorale harmonies to several hymns. These were not well received.

All of this failure has encouraged the notion that TLH might be the only good hymnal. Even the great TLH contains some noticeable weaknesses. Some translations of the German hymns are theologically sketchy, leading to some of the revised wording more recently. A more subtle, but more significant, error comes from the sequencing of the services. The Order of Morning Service without communion on page 5 for use on Sunday is followed by The Order of the Holy Communion on page 15 are a two-fold failure. Prior to TLH there was no printed chief service for Sunday without the Lord’s Supper. TLH not only introduced an innovation but also gave it priority by placing it first in the book. This may have been an editorial oversight. However, it leaves the impression that not only is Sunday without communion normal, it may be preferable.

At a time when the frequency of the celebration of the Lord’s supper may have been at an historic low, TLH inadvertently or deliberately reinforced the same. For LCMS congregations that celebrated as infrequently as once a month, once a quarter, twice a year, or once a year, TLH gave at least a nod to encourage the practice. Ask some of your own elderly members. You’ll likely hear about how infrequent it was. You may even hear like I have, “Well, p. 5 comes first. That’s the one we used most.”

LSB is also not a perfect hymnal. It is a good hymnal. A harsh reality at its publication was division in hymnal usage throughout the LCMS. In 1999, 35% of LCMS congregations retained TLH only, 60% had adopted LW, and scant number had even adopted LBW (h/t Rev. Dr. Paul Grime). There was no hope of returning to TLH more broadly. LW had demonstrated the peak of its acceptance. LSB achieved its goal of unifying a greater number of LCMS congregations under a single, common service book. By returning to the TLH, page 15 liturgy (LSB DS 3), as well as the LW Divine Service II: settings one & two (LSB DS 1 & 2), LSB struck a balance. LSB also restored the original settings and text of many of the TLH hymns with a few translation corrections.

LSB enjoys greater than 70% adoption among LCMS congregations. It’s not perfect by any means. It does, however, improve the likelihood of lifelong Lutherans like us and new converts finding a familiar hymnal in use, when they travel or move their families.

That’s good for the synod as a whole.

Rev. Jason M. Kaspar
Sole Pastor
Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church & Preschool
La Grange, TX

Rule #8: Avoid Anachronism (or don’t make Jesus time traveler)

Encore Post: Anachronism is taking any historical custom, person, object, or event into a time period other than its own. The Biblical narratives exist in time. (Narratives are those passages that relay specific events as a narrated story). They are to be heard and read from within their contextual window.

There was a common refrain around twenty years ago: What Would Jesus Do? The notion was that Jesus, as revealed in the scriptures, could be used as a moral guide to aid your decision-making process. If you would just imagine Jesus in your situation, the correct answer would become clear.

The anachronistic fallacy here is that Jesus does not walk the earth in my time. By trying to drag Him here into my situation, I’m ignoring the teachings in their context. And, I’m about to put my words into Jesus’ mouth somehow to sanctify my choices into biblical truth.

Let’s try another fitment. “Jesus was a socialist, distributist, capitalist, or anarchist.” Jesus lived 1800 years before most of the codified economic systems we know developed. His experience with taxes, market forces, production, and consumption looked far different from our own. The application we should pull from “render unto Caesar” is simply: be a faithful Christian first and the best citizen, resident, or alien you can be second. Anything further pulls Jesus into our temporal context.

For a more timely application that will likely age poorly, would Jesus wear a mask? He came healing the sick. So, surely, that means that he would wear a mask. Again, our specific time and concerns applied to Jesus. We couldn’t discern the answer to that question.

This one dials in more tightly upon the problem with that question. It’s not a good question. Jesus came healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, casting out demons, and forgiving sin as signs of what was to come. These signs demonstrate the fullness of God in human flesh subsisting. Jesus healed, recreated, forgave, and even raised dead to life again to teach what His death meant. Jesus died to forgive the sins of the world. All the brokenness and other evidence of the corruption of sin will fade away in the blinking of an eye at the resurrection of all flesh. His life and ministry testify to that. Who cares what political system, hand sanitizer, or chicken sandwich he may or may not have preferred?

Dear Baptized, let us abandon anachronism and bless the Lord of time and eternity!
Thanks be to God!

Rev. Jason M. Kaspar
Sole Pastor
Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church & Preschool

Rule #4 | Rule #5| Rule #6| Rule #7 | Blog Post Series

Doesn’t God Love Me Just the Way I Am?

Christianity is often a system of maintaining polar opposites without compromise. The law accuses us of sin (even in its instructive sense), and the Gospel forgives sin with no merit or worthiness in us. We receive salvation through God’s gifts of repentance and faith by Sacrament and Word. Damnation comes to unbelievers solely because of their stubborn unbelief and hatred of God.

These aren’t systems we built for ourselves. They are truths taught by God’s Word that leave us with concepts that defy our human logic. The tension makes us uncomfortable, leading us into accidental error. Arminian decision theology and Calvinist double predestination are two notable examples.

Jacob Arminius harmonized the clear teaching that damnation is our own doing and our own choosing in unbelief, by teaching that we choose salvation as well. “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.” (John 3:18-19 ESV) He was and is half right. Damnation is entirely on us and because of our sinful unbelief.

John Calvin harmonized the clear teaching that God chooses some for salvation, by teaching that salvation and damnation were solely by God’s choosing. “In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.” (Ephesians 1:4b-6 ESV) In Calvin’s desire to uphold God’s sovereignty, Calvin made God a capricious ruler, separating without discernible reason.

The biblical position, which we Lutherans hold, is that damnation is our doing and salvation is God’s doing. We sometimes call this single predestination.

The same sort of harmony confusion is at play here. We should much more correctly say that God loves us despite the way we are. Poorly hidden behind the God-loves-me-just-the-way-I-am view of myself is a desire to overwrite God’s Law. I don’t want to leave my former sins behind. I want God to bless my sin and call it good. I want Jesus to Jesus me in the way that I would have Him Jesus me, rather than the way that he does.

Jesus doesn’t bless our sin. He forgives it AND sends us off without sin. To the adulteress spared from stoning, He says, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” (John 8:11b ESV) The forgiveness we receive delivers a clear conscience, which will flee from sin.

St. Paul describes our sinful situation as a state of death. Only God can bring life into dead things. “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” (Ephesians 2:4-7 ESV)

God loved us despite our deadness in sin. His love revives us and sets us free from that sin. He has delivered us out from the “way we are” into the way He would have us be.

Go forth and sin no more,

Rev. Jason M. Kaspar
Sole Pastor
Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church & Preschool
La Grange, TX

Athanasian Creed: the Conclusion – Works and Faith, Sheep and Goats

Encore Post: The legacy of Saint Athanasius is one of standing firm in the face of opposition to the word of God. Throughout his 45 years as Bishop including 17 years in exile, he stood unwaveringly against the errors surrounding him. The Arian heresy, denying the divinity of Jesus, and all of the derived and adjacent heresies are still with us. But, we have a firm confession from the Word of God to fall back on in defense of the faith. That is the continuing gift given to us by Athanasius and those of his theological tradition. “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:25-30)

Alexandria in Egypt, the bishopric of Athanasius, is no longer a center of Christendom. Augustine of Hippo who owes much to Athanasius, and is a father for us in the western church, presided over a region of North Africa that is no longer a center of Christianity. It’s wise for us to remember but the centers of Christianity Today may not be the centers of Christianity tomorrow.

The concluding remarks of the Athanasian Creed are one that can give us pause. While reinforcing the bodily resurrection, there seems to be an assertion of works righteousness in the creed.

“He will come to judge the living and the dead. At His coming all people will rise again with their bodies and give an account concerning their own deeds. And those who have done good will enter into eternal life, and those who have done evil into eternal fire.”

We should always hear these words of judgement within the context of Jesus work of Salvation for us. The accounting of our deeds is not done according to human reason. Just as Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. So, by faith we receive eternal salvation. Let’s consider the sheep and the goats.

The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, chapter 25: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. ³²Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats … Then the righteous [sheep] will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? … Then [the unrighteous goats] also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’”

Neither the sheep nor the goats can make any sense out of this accounting. Those who are righteous by faith are ever more aware of their sin and their need for salvation day-by-day. Those who condemn themselves by their sin and persistent unbelief are ever self-justifying and judging themselves to be “good” by their own standard apart from faith. And, Saint Paul gives us this useful nugget.

The epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 2: ”But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved — and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

The good works are credited to us, sheep. These works themselves are produced by faith, which is a from God, alien to our nature. And, those works are prepared for us beforehand. The works we set out to do may not even be among them. Dear Christians, live in the Word and in the Christian faith. The Spirit produces faith and good works from the Gospel of salvation in Christ Jesus.

Dear Baptized, let us celebrate the faith credited to us as righteousness!

Thanks be to God!

Rev. Jason M. Kaspar
Sole Pastor
Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church & Preschool
La Grange, TX

Blog Post Series

Athanasian Creed Section Three – Unity in the Person of Christ

The errors faced by the early church in Alexandria were not just about the Trinity. There were also Christological confusions. Saint Athanasius was present and attentive for the decisions of the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD). Concerning the person and nature of Jesus Christ, the term, ὁμοούσιος (homoousios — of the same substance), was used to sort out the heresies. But, the wisdom of man thinks itself wiser than the wisdom of God.

The third section could almost be its own creed. It deals with Jesus’ incarnation. The two natures in the one person of Christ are on full display here.

In the Athanasian Creed we reject Eutychianism, that Jesus’ human and divine natures merged into a new, different nature. We also reject Nestorianism, that the two natures of Christ are not unified in His person. And, we reject the Gnostic notion that we will be free from matter and our bodies, specifically in the next life. These heresies or errors generally arise from an attempt to fill in the blanks of the mysteries of God with our human reason. That is not a good practice in which we should engage. Some things are known to us. And some are not yet revealed.

The Eutychians held that Jesus’ human and divine natures merged into a new, different nature. In their intent to firmly state the unity of God and man in Christ, they created a different thing. The Eutychian Jesus must be separate from the Trinity because he is of a different substance. His human and divine natures make him a new unique thing that is neither God nor man. Since it is not either, it cannot be truly God.

“But pastor, why does that matter?” That’s a perfectly fair question. Only God can atone for all the sin of all of mankind. We know that Jesus died for our sins, each and every one, and all together. So, our understanding of the nature of Christ has to allow for that truth to remain constant. Instead we confess, “our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is at the same time both God and man.”

The Nestorians found the other ditch. Like the brilliant Vizzini from the movie: The Princess bride, “clearly I cannot choose the cup in front of you.” If the complete unity of the two natures into a new nature is wrong, then the two natures of Christ must not be unified in His person. This creates a host of new potential misunderstandings. Does Jesus retain his humanity? Did Jesus remain human throughout His ministry, life, death, and resurrection? Did God depart from the man, Jesus, at any point? The answers to those questions in many cases are their own unique error, which we may discuss at another time.

The rubber meets the road here. On the cross God turned his back on Jesus, who is also God. On the cross God, the Son, died for our sins. And, God the Son was raised to life again. All of the hows, whys, and wherefores are not for us to know. We’re given exactly what we need to understand and trust completely that our sin was atoned for on Calvary.

“He is God and man, He is not two, but one Christ: one, however, not by the conversion of the divinity into flesh, but by the assumption of the humanity into God; one altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.”

The Gnostics had a notion that we will be free from matter and our bodies one day. Specifically, we will be only spiritual in the next life. The taking up of Enoch and Elijah bodily into heaven speaks against this. Job’s confession that he will see God face-to-face with his own eyes does too. Mary Magdalene confesses the resurrection to Jesus just before he restores Lazarus to life. In the resurrection, Jesus eats and drinks with His disciples and invites them to touch Him. He is with them bodily, not spiritually.

In the Christian faith, we live in the certainty of knowing that the resurrection is a promise for us that will be whole and complete. This is a challenge especially at the time of death of our own loved ones. We want to know that everything is complete for them. We want to know that they are “in a better place.” Yet, the Bible teaches us that it isn’t quite done yet. The promise of Salvation isn’t full and complete until we are resurrected in our bodies to eternal life. We confess the resurrection of our bodies! “At His coming all people will rise again with their bodies.”

Instead of intellectualizing the complex into a way that makes sense, we are better served by acknowledging the witness given by scripture. Some things are clear and known to us. Other mysteries are not revealed to us in this life. But, we can know with certainty that all of the things pertinent to our Salvation are clear and known.

Dear Baptized, let us praise the one Christ, truly God and truly man for our salvation!

Thanks be to God!

Read the conclusion to the Athanasian Creed next.

Rev. Jason M. Kaspar
Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church & Preschool
La Grange, TX

Athanasian Creed Section Two – Three Distinct Persons

Encore Post: The exact date and author of the Athanasian Creed are unknown. It derives its name from the theological tradition of Saint Athanasius. It is typically dated to the late 4^th or early 5^th century AD. Augustine’s On the Trinity (415 AD) has very similar language to the creed. Athanasius’ lifelong battle against the heresies prevalent in the early Christian church of North Africa built a theological tradition, which heavily influenced the Western church.

“Just as we are compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so also are we prohibited by the catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords.”

In the second section of the creed, we confess personhood of the Trinity, each distinct from the other. This rejects Modalism, that God changes masks, appearance, or function, but is the same in person in each case. Rather, we confess that the individual persons of the Triune God possess unique attributes to the exclusion of the others.

This distinctness of person also describes the divine economy. That is economy in the sense of interrelationship, not of money. Within the Trinity there is an economy of relationship between the persons. The Father is eternally neither made nor begotten. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son, neither created nor begotten.

These expressions of the Christian understanding of the Trinity push against modalism by establishing a concurrence of personhood. It is impossible for the Father to put on a Son mask. He is eternally the Father, and His personhood is unique from the Son. The Son cannot put on a Holy Spirit mask because His attributes in His person are distinct from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot wear the attributes of the Father because they are unique from His own attributes. All of these attributes are eternally the attributes of the persons of God.

But, these immutable characteristics do not a hierarchy make. All persons of the Trinity are equally God. And, none is before or after another.

The Father is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Son. The Son is not the Father. The Holy Spirit is God. The Son is God. The Father is God, coeternal and coequal.

Dear Baptized, the Trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity is to be worshipped!

Thanks be to God!

Rev. Jason M. Kaspar
Sole Pastor
Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church & Preschool
La Grange, TX
and
Mission planting pastoral team:
Epiphany Lutheran Church
Bastrop, TX

Blog Post Series