Sunday Sermon (Matthew 5:38-42)
Sermon Series on Matthew
Ron Lutjens, senior pastor, preaching.
When Jesus told us to “turn the other cheek” was he wanting to encourage milquetoast Chritianity, in which we just get walked over all the time? No, he was promoting a plan of counter attack that met evil with good, and in so doing made evil cave in on itself.
We finally got our act together enough to provide some dates for Movies@Milligan House in advance — here’s the schedule for the next three months:
(Each is a Friday night, and they all start at 6:30pm.) I’ll announce the movies soon.
Since some people in the world are feeling mighty offended at Pope Benedict’s recent speech (or rather, by a snippet that has been taken out of context and transmitted as though people were using paper cups to communicate), I thought it salutary (Ron’s word) to take a moment to read the actual text of the speech. In response to the response, as it were, SLU professor of medieval history Thomas Madden has a fine article in NRO, and Bret Stephens has one in the WSJ. But those commentaries deal primarily with the speech vis-a-vis the “inflamed Arab street,” whereas as a Protestant, I am also curious about the remarks the pope made that were (supposedly) critical of the Reformers:
De-Hellenization first emerges in connection with the fundamental postulates of the Reformation in the 16th century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system.
The principle of “sola scriptura,” on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this program forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.
Can someone illucidate what the pope is getting at here?
Sunday Sermon (Matthew 5:33-37)
We live in a society that counts on the power of the oath to hold us to our word. Who hasn’t made a promise, “cross my heart and hope to die?” In the sermon series on the Gospel According to Matthew, Ron Lutjens explores Jesus’ injunction against taking up meaningless oaths. He shows us that instead of needing to be held to what we say we are going to do by the formality of an oath, kingdom Christians should be of the character to keep their word, for God’s sake.
Ron Lutjens gets up close and personal with the youth of Old Orchard as he presents his annual “back to school” sermon. This year, he challenges the students to consider what their teachers really want to accomplish, what value there is in learning, and whether they are there simply to take notes or to evaluate and internalize what is being taught.
The WSJ has an interesting, if disturbing, article on the publishing arm of the Presbyterian Church — USA:
Now, however–five years after 9/11–the publishing arm of the Presbyterian Church has decided to heat up the brimstone a notch, releasing its very own 9/11 conspiracy theory: “Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action.” Written by David Griffin and put out by Westminster John Knox Press, a division of the Presbyterian Publishing Corp., the book argues that 9/11 was a highly orchestrated Bush administration sham. The collapse of the World Trade Center–which, the book says, was brought on by controlled demolitions, not Islamic hijackers–was merely a “false flag” operation, designed to spur wars in the Middle East. The goal: an all-powerful American global empire.
Like I said, disturbing. Not surprising, given what the PCUSA has been up to recently, but disturbing all the same. The article begins, however, with this quote:
Presbyterians in America aren’t known for preaching fire and brimstone…
Who says we aren’t — didn’t they hear Pastor Mark’s sermon a couple of Sundays ago!? Just kidding, of course. But the point I wish to make is that the term “Presbyterians in America,” while used in a general, non-specific way here, can also of course refer to the proper title of our denomination, which is relevant in this article, insofar as the content of the article concerns a particular denomination. In the hopes of clarifying the issue, I posted a reply — we’ll see if they publish it.