Back

The Jesus Family Tomb

     Many have been disturbed by the discovery of the so-called "Jesus Tomb" outside the city of Jerusalem.  Below are some words of explanation by noted Professor of Ancient History Dr. Paul Maier.  I think that Dr. Maier makes it abundantly that this is a fraudulent claim made by those seeking financial profit.  

“The Jesus Family Tomb”

 February 27, 2007

Dear Friends and Readers,

Thanks for the profusion of e-mails I’ve received over the last two days regarding the Talpiot tombs discovery in Jerusalem, a.k.a., “the Jesus Family Tomb” story.  Some of you also suggested that “life seemed to be following art” so far as my A Skeleton in God’s Closet was concerned.  Believe me, this is not the way I wanted my novel to hit the visual media!

 Alas, this whole affair is just the latest in the long-running media attack on the historical Jesus, which I call “More Junk on Jesus.”  We all thought it had culminated in that book of falsehoods, The Da Vinci Code.  But no: The caricatures of Christ continue. 

 Please, lose no sleep over the Talpiot “discoveries” for the following reasons, and here are the facts:

 (1)  Nothing is new here: Scholars have known about the ossuaries ever since March of 1980, so this is old news recycled.  The general public learned about the ossuaries when the BBC filmed a documentary on them in 1996, and the “findings” tanked again.  James Tabor’s book, The Jesus Dynasty, also made a big fuss over the Talpiot tombs more recently, and now James Cameron (“Titanic”) and Simcha Jacobovici have climbed aboard the sensationalist bandwagon as well.  Another book comes out today, equally as worthless as the previous.

 (2) All the names—Yeshua (Joshua, Jesus), Joseph, Maria, Mariamene, Matia, Judah, and Jose—are extremely common Jewish names for that time and place, and thus nearly all scholars consider that these names are merely coincidental, as they did from the start.  Some scholars dispute that “Yeshua” is even one of the names.  One out of four Jewish women at that time, for example, was named Maria.  There are 21Yeshuas cited by Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, who were important enough to be recorded by him, with many thousands of others that never made history.  The wondrous mathematical odds hyped by Jacobovici that these names must refer to Jesus and His family are simply playing by numbers and lying by statistics.   

(3) There is no reason whatever to equate “Mary Magdalene” with “Mariamene,” as Jacobovici claims.  And so what if her DNA is different from that of “Yeshua”?  That particular “Mariamme” (as it is usually spelled today) could indeed have been the wife of that particular “Yeshua,” who certainly was not Jesus.  

 (4) Why in the world would the “Jesus Family” have a burial site in Jerusalem, of all places, the very city that crucified Jesus?  Galilee was their home.  In Galilee they could have had such a family plot, not Judea.  Besides all of which, church tradition and the earliest Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, are unanimous in reporting that Mary, the mother of Jesus, died in Ephesus, where the apostle John, faithful to his commission from Jesus on the cross, had accompanied her.

 (5) The “Jesus Family” simply could not have afforded the large crypt uncovered at Talpiot, which housed, or could have housed, 200 ossuaries.

 6) If this were Jesus’ family burial site, what is Matthew doing there—if indeed “Matia” is thus to be translated?  

 (7) How come there is no tradition whatever— Christian, Jewish, or secular—that any part of the Holy Family was buried at Jerusalem?

 (8) Please note the extreme bias of the director and narrator, Simcha Jacobovici.  The man is an Indiana Jones wannabe who oversensationalizes anything he touches.  You may have caught him on his TV special regarding The Exodus, in which he “explained” just about everything that still needed proving or explaining in the Exodus account in the Old Testament!  It finally became ludicrous, and now he’s doing it again, though in reverse—this time attacking the Scriptural record.   As for James Cameron, how do you follow the success of Titanic?  Well, with an even more “titanic” story.  He should have known better, and the television footage of the two making their drastic statements on Monday, February 26, was disgusting, and their subsequent claim that they respected Jesus nauseating.

(9) Even Israeli authorities, who—were they anti-Christian—might have used this “discovery” to discredit Christianity, did not do so.  Quite the opposite.  Joe Zias, for example, for years the director of the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, holds Jacobovici’s claims up for scorn and his documentary as “nonsense.”  Those involved in the project “have no credibility whatever,” he added.  Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the conclusions in question fail to hold up by archaeological standards “but make for profitable television.”  William Dever, one of America’s most prominent archaeologists, said, “This would be amusing if it didn’t mislead so many people.”  

 (10) Finally, and most importantly, there is no external literary or historical evidence whatever that Jesus’ family was interred together in a common burial place anywhere, let alone Jerusalem.  The evidence, in fact, totally controverts all this in the case of Jesus: All four Gospels, the letters of St. Paul, and the common testimony of the early church state that Jesus rose from the dead, and did not leave His bones behind in any ossuary, as the current sensationalists claim. 

 Bottom line: This is merely naked hype, baseless sensationalism, and nothing less than a media fraud—“more junk on Jesus.”

 With warm regards,

 Paul L. Maier, Ph.D., Litt.D.

Rev. Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University and second vice-president of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, has received numerous questions about the alleged discovery by James Cameron, et al, of the burial remains of Jesus Christ.  Dr. Maier offers these comments to help Christians know the real truth.

Give Me A Break…

    After it became public, based upon the allegations of Mike Jones that the Rev. Ted Haggard had engaged in homosexual activity and drug use, Haggard resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and senior pastor at the 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs.  Subsequently, he went to a Tucson, Arizona religious retreat center where he was to undergo a "restoration plan" for his problems. The counseling team, chosen by Dr. James Dobson, charged with restoring Haggard said that the process could take as long as five years.

Now, behold, a miracle has occurred.  Hallelujah!! After three weeks of therapy and counseling, Haggard has been healed. Rev. Tim Ralph of Larkspur, Colorado, one of four ministers who oversaw Haggard's three weeks of intensive counseling, told The Denver Post that Haggard is convinced he is heterosexual and his behavior wasn't a constant thing. Ralph said their investigation found Haggard was only involved with a former male prostitute, Mike Jones. "He is completely heterosexual," Ralph said. "That is something he discovered. It was the acting-out situations where things took place. It wasn't a constant thing."

    "Give me a break," Mike Jones told The Gazette of Colorado Springs; claiming that Haggard engaged in homosexual activities with him for over three years.  Jones proceeded to offer his own counseling advice; "Until he's honest with himself, he'll never be happy," Jones said.

      So what is the future for this reclaimed “three-week wonder?”  He told friends he planned to leave his home in Colorado Springs and move somewhere "affordable," either Missouri or Iowa. He said that he and his wife planned to pursue psychology degrees.  Psychology degrees?  Obviously, since his theology didn’t work he might as well pursue psychology.

    I contend that bad theology is at the root of the fall of many of these sanctified, perfect holiness, evangelical gurus.  They mistakenly think that God intends to change the sinner's sinful nature so that the former sinner doesn't sin anymore because he has been changed.  In order to be an evangelical guru you must demonstrate that you are a rather holy, non-sinning, sanctified dude.  Before his fall, Haggard stated that there were no sins in his life over which he did not have the victory since his life had been “transformed.”  He was no longer obligated to sin.  He claimed that there were days in which he did not need forgiveness because he hadn’t sinned.

    Of course, within evangelical circles, if God doesn't do it one can always rely upon Freud, Jung, Skinner and today's high priests of modern so-called "Christian" psychology to do the job.  Obviously, for Haggard, God didn't do the job through His Son Jesus, so Haggard and his faithful long-suffering partner will become "psychologists," following in the footsteps of his mentor Dr. James Dobson.

    The Biblical truth is, God does not change the sinner's sinful nature.  Everyday we should confess, "Almighty God, merciful Father, I a poor, miserable sinner" because it is the truth!  Through the redeeming and atoning work of our Lord Jesus, God forgives the sinner and provides an alternative life - living and walking in Christ Jesus.  So we are at the same time, in and of ourselves a sinner with a sinful nature and in and of Christ Jesus a righteous person.  We are called upon to daily put to death the desires of our human sinful nature and live and walk in the new life found in Christ Jesus.  This is a daily if not hour by hour or even moment by moment process whereby we turn away from the desires of the sinful nature and turn in the direction of our Lord Jesus, rehearsing the truths of His Gospel, confessing Him as our Savior, stirring up hymns of praise, overflowing with thankfulness, and receiving from his gracious hand the forgiveness of our sins.  While confessing that we are poor, miserable sinners is neither helpful to our self-esteem nor a means for bolstering our poor whining inner child, nevertheless, it is the truth.  

    I believe some of the most effective words ever penned (apart from the Word of God) defining the nature of the Christian life are the catechism words of Dr. Martin Luther where he defines the significance of Baptism.  Luther writes: 

What does such baptizing with water signify?

It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.  St. Paul says Romans, chapter 6: We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

    The only difference between Christians and the unbelieving, immoral people of this world is not that we are in and of ourselves holier than they are but that we have Jesus!  

Is it True?

     I do not mean to be obtuse or exceptionally critical of people who have good intentions, but I must say that very little “ticks me off” more than receiving email from a well intentioned fellow Christian informing me of some incredible act of Christian bravery on the part of one of the saints (such as Billy Graham leading a victory march through the streets of New Orleans) or some despicable behavior on the part of this world toward poor Christians (such as the government of Iran requiring Christians and Jew to wear identification badges), telling me to pass this story on to all of my brothers and sisters - only to discover that it is not true.  It is an urban legend.  It is pure fiction.

The world often considers Christians to be highly gullible.  After all, we are gullible enough to believe that God created this world rather than embracing the incredibly intelligent notion that it all happened by some profound accident.  We believe that Jesus healed the sick, walked on water, stilled storms, was raised from the dead, and that he is coming again to judge the living and the dead.  We believe that these events are true - and the world responds, “Boy, are you gullible.”  Of course, if we are gullible enough to believe the “fairy tales” of Scripture we should also be gullible enough to believe that soviet scientists drilled into hell, that the crocodile hunter converted to Christianity just before his death, that the chief executive of Proctor and Gamble is a satanist and of course, the classic for all times, the followers of Madelyn Murray O’Hair are seeking to remove all religious broadcasting from radio and television.

Somebody is responsible for concocting these outlandish stories and I would not be at all surprised if the culprits were people dedicated to the task of making Christians look dumb – and, in many ways, they are succeeding.

It is not difficult to discover whether or not emails you receive from well-intentioned fellow Christians are true or false.  All you have to do is “Google” (or use any other search engine) the key thoughts that are in the story.  For example, put “soviet scientists hell” or “Billy Graham New Orleans walk” into Google and see what you come up with.  Websites such as snopes.com and truthorfiction.com are dedicated to debunking urban legends.  If you discover that someone sent you an urban legend urging you to pass it on to others as truth, kindly inform them that they are propagating false information and should be certain to check-out the truth of any report before sending it to others.

Christians should be dedicated to truth and this is reflected in what we believe, teach and confess as the truth of God’s Word.  It is also reflected in our unwillingness to put up with the practice of passing on false information in the name of truth.

The Bad Theology of Ted Haggard:

     The downfall of noted evangelical pastor and President of the National Association of Evangelicals Ted Haggard has been well documented.  According to a  CNN report, in a letter read to the members of his New Life Church in Colorado Springs on Sunday November 5, Haggard confessed to a “lifelong” sexual problem, stating, “There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I’ve been warring against it all of my adult life.”  He defined himself as “a deceiver and liar.”

    I neither judge nor condemn the actions of Ted Haggard.  We all sin and fall short of God's glory.  Of course, the public sin of Ted Haggard rightly disqualifies him for the Office of the Public Ministry.  The decision to relieve him of his pastoral duties was proper, but his sin, in the eyes of God, is no worse than the sins of any of us.  We pray, "Lord Jesus, restore Brother Haggard.  May he not be so overtaken by shame and disgrace that he despair.  By your Holy Spirit, lead him to the Cross to again behold the blood shed for his forgiveness." 

    While I do not judge nor condemn his sin, I do judge and strongly condemn his bad theology that causes him to be identified as a "liar and deceiver."  It is his bad theology, not his sinful action, that is harmful to the people of God.  For example, in a September 2005 interview with Pastor Todd Wilken, host of the radio program Issues, etc., Haggard stated that there were no sins in his life over which he did not have the victory since, according to Haggard, his life had been “transformed” by Jesus Christ. (Listen to a brief segment...)  He was no longer obligated to sin.  He claimed that there were days in which he did not need forgiveness because he hadn’t sinned.

    How is it possible to reconcile these statements with his latest confession?  He says he was struggling with a “lifelong” repulsive sexual problem that he has been “warring against” all of his adult life.  I can understand his failure to confess his past sins prior to being "outed" by a gay prostitute.  Why would the pastor of a 14,000 member congregation publicly volunteer such information?  What I cannot understand is how that pastor can boast of his personal holiness and level of sanctification when he clearly knew the depth of his sin.  Shouldn't his focus have been on the Cross of Jesus Christ where he found his daily forgiveness?  I find it amazing that in his letter to his congregation there is no mention of the Cross of Jesus, His shed blood, or the forgiveness of sins.   

    The primary weakness with modern Evangelicalism is that the movement and mentality produces these so-called “mighty men of God” who pastor their so called mega-churches and set themselves up as super-sanctified role models for their flock to follow.  They occupy a precarious pedestal.  When one of these Evangelical super-heroes falls, their people are easily disillusioned.  In addition, if these "holy ones" condemn the sins of others, when they fall the world laughs.    

    God intends for pastors to lift up Jesus Christ as being the basis and source of their righteousness.  By confessing their own sinful condition and their daily need for the cleansing forgiveness found in Jesus Christ, pastors set an example for the flock to follow – an example of a humble dependence upon God’s forgiving grace in Christ Jesus.  In Roman 7, the Apostle Paul stated that the good he wanted to do, he didn’t do and the evil he wanted to stop doing, he found himself doing.  According to sound Reformation theology, the Apostle was defining the daily experience of every Christian.  I’m quite certain that according to the “bad” Evangelical theology of Ted Haggard, Roman 7 defined Paul’s condition before the Apostle became a transformed Christian, in the same way Ted Haggard, by his own confession, was a transformed Christian no longer under the power of the sinful nature.

    In the Issues, etc. interview, Pastor Todd Wilken confessed that he needed forgiveness everyday because he daily sinned, specifically stating that he harbored thoughts of animosity toward other people.  Haggard flippantly responded, “Stop doing it!”

    Well, Ted Haggard, your words come back to haunt you – “Why didn’t you just - stop doing it??”

The Death of Innocence

    The shootings in the Amish schoolhouse in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania merely confirmed a reality that is at the heart and core of Amish conviction.  They believe that the  world is in the control of the devil and is therefore very evil.  For this reason, they refuse to be "yoked with unbelievers" (2 Cor. 6:14).  They come out from among the world and remain separate, touching nothing that is unclean (2 Cor. 6:17) and living in their own communities.  Yet, the very world they have sought to escape invaded their little community taking the lives of their innocent children.  This is tragic!

The DaVinci Code or Mary had a Little Lamb?

On May 17^th, the movie The Da Vinci Code will be released into the theaters.  The movie is directed by Ron Howard and stars Tom Hanks.  The movie is based upon the book of the same title by Dan Brown.  I’m sure that all of you have heard something about this book and perhaps have even discussed it among family members.

    The premise of the book is that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and they had a daughter named Sarah.  Therefore, the bloodline of Jesus Christ still exists today.  The Roman Catholic Church is aware of this “fact” but wants to keep it a secret.  The Catholic renewal organization known as Opus Dei will go to any length, even murder, to keep this “fact” from being revealed.  The cult group known as the Priory of Zion has accepted the task of preserving this piece of knowledge through the ages.  Leonardo Da Vinci, a member of the Priory, depicted this secret information in his paintings of the Last Supper and the Mona Lisa.  The story begins with the murder of the renowned curator Jacques Saunière of the Louvre Museum in Paris leading to the investigation and the uncovering of all these incredible “facts”about Jesus.

    While most people assume that the book is simply fiction, others have suggested that it depicts truth.  Brown himself, in the opening of the book, states that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate" leading to the suggestion that there is a possibility that what Brown has fictionalized is indeed true.

     How did Brown come up with this stuff?

     It is not difficult to understand the methodology of Dan Brown.  It is the same methodology used by liberal theologians who attempt to find evidence to support their own unbelief.  Brown obviously began with a premise and set out to write a novel lending credibility to his premise.  To do so, he connected a series of dots – disconnected tidbits of information, some true and some merely deduced from his imagination, which, when strung together underneath the premise, seemed to provide supporting evidence that the premise was true.

    Anyone can do this.  If one invents a premise and by way of research is able to string enough dots together, he or she can claim to prove just about anything including ghosts, UFO abductions, or spiritual experiences and dynamics that tickle the imagination.  Let me illustrate.

          (When I told my wife Dianne what I was doing, she said, “You have too much time on your hands.”)

          The result is an eight page, single-spaced essay I wrote (just for kicks) with 22 footnotes titled (click to read) “The Alexandrian Roots of the Maria Habuit Parvum Agnum Motet as a Mystical Expression of Marian Ascendency and Polemic contra Arianism.”  Sounds rather profound, doesn’t it?  The words Maria habuit agnum parvum is Latin for “Mary had a little lamb.”  I am suggesting that the ditty arose in Alexandria, Egypt in order to promote the theology of the Virgin Mary and combat the error of Arianism.  Huh?

          Please understand, as Dan Brown put it regarding his work, every quotation and footnote in my essay is accurate.  The fiction and fancy arises when you string the facts together to prove the point.  This is exactly what Brown did in The Da Vinci Code.

            So, what do you believe?  Do you believe that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, had a daughter and his bloodline exists today, or do you believe that Mary Had a Little Lamb was written in the fourth century to combat heresy.  Both premises are downright ignorant, dumb and stupid, but I am biased.  I believe that the Mary Had a Little Lamb “thing” is based on better research and is far more believable.

Dobson Does it Again...

     Focus on the Family founder James Dobson said on his radio program that new Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito sent him a letter thanking him and his radio listeners for their support during his Senate confirmation hearings.  Alito wrote that "the prayers of so many people from around the country were a palpable and powerful force. As long as I serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me," Dobson said.   Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said Alito's note was in response to a letter Dobson sent congratulating him on his confirmation. She said his pledge to "keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me" was included in many replies he wrote to congratulatory letters. Americans United for Separation of Church and State called the letter "grossly inappropriate."  "This note strongly suggests that Alito is carrying out a right-wing agenda instead of being a justice for all," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of the group.  Focus on the Family declined to release a copy of the letter but confirmed the wording read by Dobson.

    As I read the media account, I believe that Justice Alito sent James Dobson a basic letter which he sent to others who had congratulated him on the confirmation of his appointment to the Supreme Court.  It was no big deal.  Of course, Dobson read the letter on the air as if he had been singled out by Justice Alito for "special thanks" for his effort at getting Alito confirmed.  I happen to believe that James Dobson often misleads his listeners and exaggerates to impress them with his own self-importance.

    Perhaps some of you "Pittsburghers" remember the problem that took place in August of 1999 between Dr. James Dobson and Mellon Bank.  Focus on the Family (FOF) desired to invest monies in a specific annuity offered by Mellon.  Mellon refused to do business with Dobson, suggesting that the anti-gay agenda of FOF would compromise their policy of non-discrimination.

    This was a local Pittsburgh issue and since I was doing a daily talk show on WORD FM and Focus on the Family was aired on our station, we went to bat in behalf of Dobson against Mellon Bank.  On two occasions I interviewed Tom Mason, one of Dobson's lieutenants.   He assured me that if Mellon changed their mind, FOF would be happy to make the investment.  The story made page 3 of the Post Gazette and was given about 30 seconds of airtime on the 11 o'clock news.  Eventually, with the publicity, Mellon did change their mind. 

    Shortly thereafter, on his radio program, Dobson stated that Mellon had changed their mind but that he was refusing to give them his business.  He also incredibly stated, "This was the top news story in all of Pennsylvania."  I said, "Huh?"

    I wrote a very brief private letter to Tom Mason expressing disappointment that FOF had refused to do business with Mellon since he had assured me and my listeners that, if Mellon changed their mind, they would.  I also mentioned in passing that Dr. Dobson had grossly exaggerated the significance of this incident by saying it had been the top news story in all of Pennsylvania.  I suggested that those around him should "rein him in" lest his credibility is called into question.  I was shocked by what soon followed...

    I received a two page very angry letter from James Dobson, accusing me of attacking him.  Obviously, Mason had shared my private correspondence with Dobson.  Dobson also got in touch with the "big wigs" at Salem Communication, the parent company of WORD FM, and complained about me.  Since Focus on the Family revenue fueled a major portion of the Salem budget, his complaints were taken seriously.

    James Dobson has been a major force for morality and religious values in America, yet I believe that where the Gospel of Jesus Christ is concerned, James Dobson has done far more harm than good.  Dobson is Nazarene, a denomination promoting the heresy of "perfect sanctification."  He must believe that he can do no wrong and appears unwilling to accept any suggestion of improper behavior.  Perhaps he no longer needs the forgiveness of sins offered in the Cross of Jesus Christ.  There is no doubt that Dobson "sinfully" exaggerated his own self-importance in regard to the Mellon Bank issue.  I believe he has done the same thing in reading on the air his "form letter" from Justice Alito.     

Page Up

How to Find God

              You may find this hard to believe, but this practice of Eastern meditation has found its way into the Christian Church, even within our own denomination.

            Some years ago, I spoke at an inter-denominational conference near Chicago.  One of the other speakers on the program made a presentation on the practice of contemplative prayer or “centering” prayer.  The purpose was to help the participants hear the voice of God speaking to their hearts.  He instructed the group to sit back in their chairs, to close their eyes, empty their minds, and take deep breathes – focusing attention on their breathing.  As they inhaled, they were told to quietly speak the words “Be still,” and as they exhaled, “my soul.”  The instructor referred to this practice as “centering.”

            The practice seemed strange.  My primary question was, “Where did this stuff come from?  What is the source?”  It was obvious that these techniques of so-called contemplative prayer or centering prayer were not unique to the instructor.  He had to get it from somewhere.  I could recall nothing in the Bible that remotely taught this kind of empty-headed meditation.

            I discovered that this practice of “contemplative prayer” has a long and checkered history.  In our day, it is generally agreed that Roman Catholic Trappist Monk Fr. Thomas Keating is primarily responsible for popularizing the practice. The website “Catholic Answers” (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711fea1.asp) explains the roots of centering prayer.  “Centering prayer originated in St. Joseph’s Abbey, a Trappist monastery in Spencer, Massachusetts. During the twenty years (1961–1981) when Keating was abbot, St. Joseph’s held dialogues with Buddhist and Hindu representatives, and a Zen master gave a week-long retreat to the monks. A former Trappist monk who had become a Transcendental Meditation teacher also gave a session to the monks.”  Out of curiosity, put the word “centering prayer” into an Internet search engine and see what you discover.

            The practice of quieting the mind and altering consciousness is defined as self-hypnosis.  Occultists seek a centered mind in order to contact the dead or experience psychic phenomena.  Jose Silva, the founder of Mind Control, teaches the practice as a prelude for contacting a “spirit guide.”

            It is somewhat amazing that even within our Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod we find this deceptive practice of “centering” prayer.  Some years ago, an article in our Lutheran women’s quarterly journal titled “Quiet Time with God” taught the practice.  Aid Association for Lutherans (now Thrivent) published a book titled Harmony: A Guide to Emotional Well-Being.  One chapter provided instructions for “centering.”  Occasionally, the topic will be offered as an elective at a church conference.  Those who offer this deceptive practice define it as “an ancient prayer technique” rather than honestly explaining the roots in Eastern religions, occultism, and mysticism.

            At the time of the Reformation and the years that followed, Lutheran theologians confronted mysticism and had much to say about the practice.  Martin Luther taught meditation, but not the “empty headed” variety.  The mind was not to be emptied but rather filled with the Word of God.  While Luther agreed with some of the German mystics that there should be a renunciation of “the self,” it was for Luther a judgment upon the content of the self and a prelude to receiving by faith the righteousness of Christ offered in the Word, not to find God in some mental gymnastics.  In fact, Luther wrote in the Smalcald Articles, “All this is the old devil and the old serpent who made enthusiasts of Adam and Eve.  He led them from the external Word of God to spiritualizing and to their own imaginations... Accordingly, we should and must constantly maintain that God will not deal with us except through His external Word and sacrament.  Whatever is attributed to the Spirit apart from the Word and sacrament is of the devil.” 

            David Hollaz, one of the leading Lutheran theologians at the latter half of the 17^th century, confronted the same type of contemplative prayer that is popularly promoted today.  He wrote, “So far from expecting in silence a supernatural divine light, the external Word of God, which is a most clear light, is on the contrary to be earnestly preached, carefully heard, frequently read, attentively pondered, and, in addition, devout prayers, mingled with sacred hymns, are to be raised to heaven, that the light of saving knowledge may arise in our hearts and continually increase.”

            God is to be found where God has promised to be found – in His Word and Sacraments not in some mental gymnastics.  We are living in a “spiritual age.”  There is much deception and many false teachers.  We need to be in the Word of God – to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest God’s Word so that we know what we believe and are equipped to deal with deceptive “spiritual practices.”

Page Up

Does God Accept Us as We Are?

           A member of my congregation recently overheard a conversation on National Public Radio discussing the issue of the ordination of openly gay ministers as it relates to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.  As the result of hearing this program, he asked me this question: “Does God accept us as we are”

          Yes – God ultimately accepts us as we are.  That being the case, the logical conclusion for some is to suggest that we should also accept people as they are and not pass judgment upon them, particularly those openly gay individuals who desire to serve in the public ministry.

          Before we reach that conclusion, let us consider a few facts.

          First, God accepts us as we are “in Christ Jesus,” not apart from Christ Jesus.  We sing, “Just as I am without one plea but that Thy blood was shed for me.”  Jesus receives sinners.  Through His death on the cross, sinners are forgiven.  Apart from the forgiveness of sins, God does not accept sinners.  Hell is the eternal separation of man and God.  We dare not fall into the so-called “Fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man” deception and think that God winks at human sin and accepts all people regardless of their sin, failure or perversion.  This is not true.  If it were true, why did God send His Son into this world?  Why the cross?  We have been reconciled to God through Christ Jesus, not apart from Christ Jesus.

          Secondly, there is a major difference between being accepted and forgiven, and being qualified to hold an office.  For example, Chuck Colson, a former White House aide in the Nixon administration, is a highly intelligent Christian teacher, author and evangelist, but he is not qualified to be the President of the United States, even though he has great administrative and political skills.  Mr. Colson, as the result of his involvement in the Watergate scandal, has a prison record and therefore is not qualified to be President.  Does this mean he has not fully paid his debt to society?  Of course not!  He simply is not qualified to be President because the framers of the Constitution held the Office of the President in high esteem and established qualifications beyond mere citizenship.

          When it comes to the qualifications for holding the Office of the Pastoral Ministry, the Word of God is clear.  The qualifications are set down in First Timothy chapter three and the first chapter of Titus.  The Church must also hold the Office of the Pastoral Ministry in very high esteem, acknowledging and abiding by those qualifications set down in the Word of God.  In James chapter three verse one, we read, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”

          I know of a situation where a man, a Christian who knew and believed the Good News of the forgiveness of sins in Christ Jesus, desired, as a second career, to enter the pastoral ministry.  The seminary did not accept him since he had been divorced.  He became angry over this rejection, demonstrating his lack of commitment to the Word of God.  One of the qualifications for holding the Office of the Public Ministry is that a man is to be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2).  This does not mean that God refuses to forgive this man’s sin and rejects him.  It simply means he is not qualified to hold the Office of the Public Ministry.

          We must make it very clear that the qualifications for holding the Office of the Public Ministry have nothing whatsoever to do with a person’s standing before God.  We are all equally forgiven though Jesus Christ and all equally righteous in the sight of God since we bear the very righteousness of Christ Himself.  Pastors are not a higher class of Christians since in Christ Jesus there are no class distinctions.  The issue is not the person’s standing before God but rather his standing within the community.  The Apostle writes in 1 Timothy 3:7 concerning the pastor: “He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.”  Any disgrace caused by the behavior of one who holds the Pastoral Office does not merely reflect upon him, but brings disgrace to the Church and ultimately to the Christian enterprise – the cause for which our Lord Jesus gave His life.

          Considering what the Word of God says about homosexuality (Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) and how the gay lifestyle is viewed by the great majority, how can anyone possibly suggest that those living an openly gay lifestyle are qualified to hold the Office of the Public Ministry?

Page Up

Hey Rick, what are you doing?

    Most of you are familiar with the popular book "The Purpose Driven Life."  Rick Warren, the author of the book is also the Pastor at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California.  The book has sold over 16 million copies and is regarded as one of the more influential books of the 20th century.  I do believe there are numerous examples in "The Purpose Driven Life" where Warren misinterprets the Word of God.  He uses numerous loose translations of Scripture that say what he wants the Bible to say.  For this reason, I would not use the book to teach the people in my congregation how to live.  But, be that as it may.  I would apply this to any book that claims to teach the Christian life according to Scripture but in the process misinterprets the Word of God, but this is not my primary issue with Pastor Warren.

    There is a zeal on the part of pastors of mega-churches, influenced by some of the principles of the "church growth movement," to train their people to be leaders.  In so doing they use material that is questionable.  For example, I knew of a Lutheran pastor who was using the book "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by Stephen Covey to train his people to be highly effective.  The problem is, Stephen Covey is a Mormon.  Why do this?  Why mix light with darkness?  Why promote a book written by a Mormon?  Why give the impression that truth is unimportant?  If using Buddhist meditation techniques would cause people to be better and more relaxed leaders, is this fair game?  I don't get it.

    In order to train his people to be better leaders, Rick Warren has formed an association with Ken Blanchard, author of the "One Minute Manager."  Blanchard has all kinds of strange connections and associations.  Why is Warren using material by the man who wrote the foreword to the book, "What Would Buddha Do At Work?"  I don't understand!  Those who support "The Purpose Driven Life" claim that the book has brought many people to believe in the Lord Jesus and receive their salvation.  This is great, but now that these people are Christians, what are they being taught by the witness of the author - Rick Warren who is a pastor?  A pastor is a shepherd.  By example, he leads his sheep, protecting and preserving them by keeping them away from harm and danger.  What is Pastor Warren telling the millions of people who read his book?  Is he saying that truth is unimportant and discernment in spiritual matters is not necessary?

    This is a very sad commentary on the state of the Christian Church today.  We are so driven by success that truth has become unimportant.  "Rick, shame on you!"              

Page Up

    Forty years ago, the membership in our denomination was significantly larger than it is today. Even at that, the offices of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod were located in a small building on South Broadway in St. Louis.  In addition, those elected President of the various Districts in Synod remained parish pastors.  District offices featuring a paid staff did not exist.

    Even though the membership in the Synod has declined, the bureaucracy has mushroomed.  Today, the Synod’s office building in St. Louis County, lovingly referred to by some as “the purple palace,” is a four-storied structure housing many boards and commissions with a multitude of cubicles with hundreds of people busy about doing something (whatever it is).  Most Districts within the Synod have their own staffed office facility.  Our Eastern District, for example, one of the smaller Districts in Synod, has a facility with a paid staff of 12 people.  All of this costs a great deal of money.

     The rapid rise of bureaucracy in our Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has created a potentially dangerous situation.  The structure is being turned upside-down.  Forty years ago, the focus in our Synod was upon the local congregation where the Word of God was preached and the Sacraments administered.  The Synod, as represented in the various Districts, existed to support the ministry of the local parish.  According to the by-laws of Synod, the District President was required to visit each congregation in the District every three years to encourage and support their ministry.  In most cases, this does not happen.  Instead, the bureaucracy, seeking to justify its own existence, develops its own little ministries and programs, expecting the congregations to support them.  Where is all this heading?    

     If you ask, for example, a Roman Catholics to define “the Church,” they would answer by saying, “the Church is the hierarchy – the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops and Priests.”  For a Roman Catholic to support the Church, is to support Rome.  Bureaucracy in the Roman Catholic Church is to be expected.

     If you ask the same question of a member of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, you should get the answer, “the Church is the local congregation where the Word of God is preached and the Sacraments are administered.”  To support the Church is to support the local congregation, but it appears that in an increasing measure the Church is becoming identified with the Synod and District bureaucracy, which we, the local congregation, are now asked to support.

     In addition, the bureaucracy in our Synod has become the source of much contention and is a distraction for the pastors who serve the various congregations.  Rather than furthering the ministry of the local congregations, the bureaucracy of the Synod distracts from the work of the Church.  While most of our members of Zion know very little about what is going on in the Synod and probably care less, pastors are tempted to get all caught up in the Synodical issues.  Very often, deep disagreements arise between pastors over the practice of the various elected leaders and in some cases, pastors have refused to attend the Lord’s Supper with other pastors with whom they disagree, even though they are a part of the same Synod.   

     Since elections are held every three years at the Synodical Convention, one of the goals of those who hold elected offices is to retain that office.  If the President of the Synod is voted out of office, what should he do?  Go back to being the pastor of a congregation?  Of course, each candidate for office has a band of disciples, pastors of congregation in the Synod, who want to see their “favorite” elected or returned to his position.  In order to accomplish that goal, politicking is necessary.  The politicking that occurred before the last Synodical Convention was incredible, and it still goes on.

     I received two newsletters in the mail this week.  One was titled Jesus First and the other Consensus.  These two “mailings” represent divergent viewpoints in our church, each having its own proverbial axe to grind.  At present, we have a strange situation in our Church.  The President of the Synod and the Board of Directors don’t get along with each other.  (Perhaps we should expect a higher level of Christian maturity from our leaders.)  Some pastors in the church support the President while others support the Board of Directors.  They publish their “little newsletters” presenting their astute evaluations of the situation, seeking others to share their viewpoints.

     The folks at Jesus First support the President of Synod.  According to their masthead, they claim to be about “Gospel-Centered, Mission-Driver, Future-Oriented Leadership.”   That’s nice. I’m all in favor of that, but I did find it strange that in the Jesus First newsletter there was absolutely nothing about Jesus.  The primary article criticized both the Board of Directors for firing Synod’s attorney and hiring a new one and the Board of Communication Services for firing the editor of the Lutheran Witness.  I wondered how that had anything to do with putting Jesus first.

     The other group, represented by Consensus, opposes the President of Synod.  According to their masthead, they are “concerned about the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod” and strive to promote unity in the Church.  I am also all in favor of striving for unity in the Church, but the lead article in Consensus voiced a criticism of the President of Synod, accusing him of sinning by allowing his wife to address our Synod’s youth convention during the closing service in Orlando last August.  Huh?  Talk about beating a dead horse.  How does this promote unity? 

     I do believe that some battles within the Church are necessary.  If the leadership in our Synod is obviously, by stated intention, moving the organization contrary to the Word of God and the Lutheran doctrinal position, the battle must be fought, but does this characterize the present situation in our Synod?  As far as I am concerned, no - it does not!  While these groups may adorn themselves in fine sounding descriptions, pious platitudes, and express fears over the direction of Synod, they are really about “church politics.”

     Sometimes I am of the opinion that we should shutdown the bureaucracy in our Synod, send all the pastors out into the field, and start all over again, but that won’t happen. Whether the leadership of the Synod is in the hands of those backing Jesus First or Consensus, makes no difference.  The bureaucracy, which is the problem, will remain producing hassles, politicking, and embarrassing contentions, hindering the mission of the Church.  The tale is wagging the dog in the wrong direction.

 Page Up                                                      

Habemus Papam - "We have a Pope!"

   After only 24 hours, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger emerged as the new spiritual leader of the 1.1 billion Romans Catholics.  The 265th Pope in the history of the Roman Church, Ratzinger has taken the name of Benedict XVI.  Benedict XV was an Italian nobleman who canonized Joan of Arc and spent much of his papacy trying unsuccessfully to end World War I.  He was Pope from 1914-1922.

    During the reign of John Paul II, Ratzinger was known as the second most powerful man in the Vatican.  As president of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the modern successor to the Inquisition and the church's theological "enforcer," Ratzinger devoted much of his long Vatican career to condemning the "dictatorship of relativism" - the modernist notion that there are no absolute truths or standards of right and wrong.  In other words, Benedict XVI will be a very conservative Pope, especially when it comes to both moral issues such as homosexuality and same-sex marriages, and traditional Vatican positions such as a male priesthood, celibacy and birth-control.  This will not please the more liberal Roman Catholics in the United States. 

    As a native of Germany, cradle of the Protestant Reformation, Ratzinger is intimately familiar with Lutheranism.  He is an expert on St. Augustine, whose theology greatly influenced the thinking of Martin Luther, a former Augustinian monk.  In fact, it was Ratzinger who "saved" the controversial Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification,  a document seeking to find agreement between Lutherans and Roman Catholics on this key issue of the faith.  While "agreement" was proclaimed, many differences still remain.  Concerning Ratzinger's appreciation for Luther, Br. Jeffrey Gros, ecumenical affairs specialist for the U.S. Bishops stated: "Ratzinger has been involved in dialogue with Lutherans from way back. In the 1980s he was even interested in declaring the Augsburg Confession [the first Lutheran declaration of faith] a Catholic document." 

    It was good to note the Christ-centered focus of Cardinal Ratzinger's sermon at the funeral of Pope John Paul II.  There was minimal emphasis on Marian theology.  At the very end of his sermon, he explained John Paul's devotion to Mary by saying, " the Holy Father found the purest reflection of God's mercy in the Mother of God.  He, who at an early age had lost his own mother, loved his divine mother all the more. He heard the words of the crucified Lord as addressed personally to him: 'Behold your Mother.'"  Perhaps the devotion to Mary that motivated John Paul II will be replaced by Benedict's devotion to the grace of God as manifested in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus.

    We can join with the 1.1 billion Roman Catholics the world over in praying for the new Pope, Benedict XVI.  Let us pray that under his leadership the glorious Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ will be pre-eminent.  In the dialogue that took place between Lutheran and Roman Catholic theologians leading to the alleged Joint Declaration, Ratzinger agreed that while Christians are obliged to do good works, justification and final judgment remain God’s gracious acts.  Not a bad statement...

Page Up

The ELCA and the Gay Issue...

    The 2001 Church wide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America mandated a study on homosexuality, specifically dealing with the subjects of the blessing of same-gender unions and the ordination of persons in committed gay or lesbian relationships.  The study has now been completed.  The taskforce concludes, "Rather than attempting to resolve our differences through legislative action, we have sought to place matters in the realm of pastoral care and to encourage continued engagement as we minister to one another...It is important to recognize that a pastoral approach regarding these issues prevailed even though various task force members would have preferred other options...     Though our recommendations do not establish new policy or change existing policy, they do appeal for respect for one another's bound consciences as a matter of pastoral concern."

    Putting it simply, the taskforce did nothing.  They made no decision one way or the other about these important issues but left the policy up to the individual conscience, claiming it was a pastoral matter.  Everyone can do that which is right in their own eyes.

    While it very clear that the Word of God defines homosexual behavior as sinful (Romans 1:24-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11), those who lobbied in favor of blessing same sex marriages and ordaining gay and lesbian candidates into the Holy Ministry claimed that these verses do not speak of "committed, loving relationships."  (See the response of President Kieschick of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod to the ELCA report.)

    The primary "conscience binding" issue dealt with the relationship between Law and Gospel.  The proponents of same sex marriages and the ordination of gays and lesbians claimed that regardless of what the Bible said about homosexuality, we do not live under the law but in the freedom of the Gospel.  This seems to be nothing more than the error of  antinomianism.  Certainly we live in the Gospel, but the Law remains to drive us to that Gospel where we discover the full forgiveness of our sins.

     I have two observations:

    First, it is obvious that the positions taken by the more "liberal" denominations pertaining to the gay and lesbian issue are driven by the culture.  The previous generation would have simply accepted the truth of Scripture without discussion.  Now, with the advent of the gay and lesbian movement within the culture, many churches permit those movements to set their agenda and even interpret the Word of God.  It seems to me that once the Church of Jesus Christ merely accepts the agenda of the world it ceases to be salt and light.  The Church is a living expression of the truth of God's Word.  If the Church ceases to be that expression is it still the Church or merely an extension of the culture?

    Secondly, the claim that we should be living in the Gospel without the Law removes the relevancy of the Gospel.  We are driven to the Cross of Jesus Christ by our recognition of sin.  The Law shows us that sin.  By removing homosexuality from the "list of sins," those struggling with these temptations are deprived of the Good News of forgiveness.  Pronouncements from theologians regarding what is and what is not a sin does not change the law that is inscribed in the heart (Romans 2:15).  Those who engage in homosexual activity know inherently that their behavior is wrong regardless of what is preached from the pulpit or proclaimed in official church policy.  For some homosexuals within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America there will be no place to turn to hear the Good News of the forgiveness of sins.  Is this love? 

Page Up             

Pope John Paul II Dies...

    Over one billion Roman Catholics the world over mourn today the death of Pope John Paul II.  The man who was known as the "most-traveled Pope" and reigned in the Vatican for over a quarter of a century, died Saturday night in his Vatican apartment after a long struggle against debilitating illness. He was 84.    

    As a Lutheran, committed to the tenets of the Reformation of 1517, I must conclude that not a great deal has changed since the sixteenth century.  Perhaps we would do well to read Martin Luther's excellent Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.  We reject the notion that the Bishop of Rome is the Head of the entire Christian Church.  Perhaps in the minds of many Roman Catholics, the visible presence of Christ in this world has now been removed by the death of the Pope.  While his influence for peace was great and his death is a loss to the world, John Paul II was a man like any other man, and he died the death of every other man.  May those who mourn his loss find comfort, not in his deeds, but in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Now the process will begin for electing a new Pope.  The name of the next Pope will neither descend into the Sistine Chapel on the wings of angels nor be delivered directly to the ears of the awaiting College of Cardinals by the Holy Spirit.  The liberal/conservative politics of Rome is as great as that which exists within every other denomination.  Coalitions will be formed and deals will be made among the participants leading to the election of the next Bishop of Rome.

A statement of President Kieschnick of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod:

Pope John Paul II's strong voice in confronting issues crucial for our age with courage and conviction for more than a quarter of a century will be missed. He provided inspiration and leadership, not only to Roman Catholics but also to the greater Christian world and beyond with his uncompromising stances in favor of life and against the culture of death.

Though historic differences between our churches remain, Pope John Paul II will also be remembered for his call for Christian churches to seek to work out their differences in faithfulness to their convictions and to their doctrinal heritage.

We join together with all those from around the world who mourn the loss of Pope John Paul II, and we pray that all those who grieve his death may find comfort and peace in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in whose name alone there is life and salvation.

--The Rev. Dr. Gerald B. Kieschnick, President
The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod

Page Up

Terri Shiavo Case

     While there are many who would not choose to have their life prolonged by artificial life-support, the case of Terri Schiavo raises the question of whether a feeding tube is artificial life support?  Terri Schiavo's heart was beating, and she was breathing on her own.  How is a feeding tube any different than providing intravenous nourishment?  Her feeding tube was removed for the third time on March 18th, she died on Thursday March 31st.  If you were refused food and water for this same period of time, you also would die.  In addition, Terri Schiavo was not in a persistent vegetative state.  She was diagnosed by leading neurologists as being in a "minimally conscious state."   

    There is no doubt that Terri Schiavo was a victim of "judicial murder."  She did not die.  Her life was taken from her by the courts issuing their legal pronouncements depriving her of food and water.  When you think about it, this is incredible!  Even though President Bush, the Congress, and the Governor of Florida opposed this inhumane act, in the end, the courts had their way.  Who are these men and women who put on their robes and sit at their benches determining who should be allowed to eat and drink - live or die?     

Below are some comments from others on this case:

President George W. Bush: 

The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak," Bush said. "In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in favor of life.  I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life, where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others.

President Gerald Kieschnick of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod:

The long, tortured saga of Terri Schiavo finally has ended. Our prayers continue to be lifted to our gracious God for her family members, friends, and supporters from around the world, many of whom had never personally known Terri, yet offered prayer and support during her life and now express grief at her death.

It took two weeks for Terri to die following the removal of her feeding tube. This would seem to indicate that depriving her of food and water did not permit her to die but rather caused her to die. As Christians, our aim should be always to care, never to kill. This is particularly critical when significant doubt exists regarding the actual irreversible nature of the patient's illness and his or her ongoing desire to live.

Cardinal calls those who helped Schiavo die 'accomplices to murder'

By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- "Whoever stands idly by without trying to prevent the death of Terri Schindler Schiavo becomes an accomplice to murder", said Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.  The death of the severely brain-damaged woman "would represent a homicide in which it is impossible to idly stand by without becoming accomplices," he said in a March 31 interview with Vatican Radio.
Schiavo died March 31, nearly two weeks after her feeding tube was removed.  The Italian cardinal made his comments the day after the U.S. Supreme Court and a federal appeals court refused to intervene and order doctors in Florida to resume feeding Schiavo.  The 41-year-old woman's feeding tube was removed March 18 after a decision by a Florida state judge allowed the husband, Michael Schiavo, to order doctors to take out the tube.  Prior to the announcement of Schiavo's death, Cardinal Martino said that even though she was "incapable of communicating" she "probably, as some medical experts say, is suffering."  Not allowing for the reinsertion of a feeding tube represents "an unjust death sentence of an innocent person," he said.  The cardinal said having Schiavo die of starvation and thirst was "one of the most inhumane and cruel" ways to die.  "Beyond the possible political exploitation" of the Schiavo case, her "painful, heartbreaking agony" should be enough to force humanity to prevent what will be an otherwise tragic end to her life, said the cardinal.

Colorado Springs, Colo. — Focus on the Family Chairman Dr. James C. Dobson issued the following statement today after learning of the death of Terri Schiavo:

"Today is a tragic day for the Schindler family -- and, indeed, for the entire human family. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Schindlers, who have been made to watch their beloved daughter and sister waste away for the last two weeks -- under not only the approval of the courts, but under their direct order.  "Every Florida and federal judge who failed to act to spare this precious woman from the torment she was forced to endure is guilty not only of judicial malfeasance -- but of the cold-blooded, cold-hearted extermination of an innocent human life. Terri Schiavo has been executed, under the guise of law and 'mercy,' for being guilty of nothing more than the inability to speak for herself.  "I grieve for the Schindlers today, and I fear for the future of our nation.

An Interview with Ralph Nader:

 What's the most troubling aspect of this case as it relates to Americans besides the Schindlers and the Schiavos?

It's just another step down the slippery slope toward furthering the euthanasia drive in this country — that now has an economic ally called the HMOs, who operate under capitation budgets, (and who have developed) an economic incentive to pull the plug.  It's one thing to have consent when the patient is overwhelmed with ventilators and dialysis and heart pumps, but it's quite another when there are non-heroic ministrations — in this case, simply a feeding and water tube — and not having explicit consent or even credible consent in ending her life.  I don't know what possible interest the government has in ending Terri Schiavo's life. What possible benefit to the government's interest is there to enforce an order that is going to, in a few hours or few days, end her life? There is no answer that I've received that is at all persuasive.  The family is willing to take care of their child. There is a huge potential for private charities (to become involved) — and trust funds could be created for it; and it would say to the forces of corporatism and ideology that people's lives must be valued not on the basis of their quality of life — unless they themselves consent to ending it.

Do you think it stretches things to say that this is an instance of court-imposed murder?

Murder is what the law says it is, and the law doesn't say this is murder. It is court-imposed death; it is court-imposed homicide. I mean, that's clear.

Page Up

Home| What We Believe | Our Worship| Christian Education | Pastor's Page | Early Childhood | Parish Activities | Directions