A Response to Bill Maher

Last night I was channel surfing on my television and came across a news interview with talk show host Bill Maher.

In case you don’t know him, Bill Maher is a talk show host/comedian who is a proud atheist and frequent critic of religion and religious people, in particular, Christians.

During the news interview, Mr. Maher issued his standard jokes and derogatory comments about those of us who believe in God:

--we have an imaginary friend, named Jesus.

--we are nuts!

I could feel my initial visceral reaction to Mr. Maher begin to boil to the surface of my consciousness, when I caught myself, and asked myself this, question:

How would Jesus respond to Bill Maher?

It only took a second to know the answer:  with kindness and compassion.

People like Bill Maher will probably never become believers in Jesus Christ by trying to reason with them with historical evidence of Christ’s existence.  They also will probably never believe in Christ by Christians threatening them with scary tales of hellfire and damnation.

But, maybe, just maybe, Mr. Maher and other defiant non-believers like him will one day believe in Christ because they meet and interact with Christians, who instead of responding to their derogatory insults and belittling comments about our faith  with anger and counter-attacks, respond to them with love, kindness and compassion. 

When unbelievers interact with Christians whose lives are true reflections of the self-less love of Jesus Christ, incredible things can happen!

Let us pray every day that each one of us will be one of those Christians!

Are Mormons Christians?

Wow!  What a hot-button topic right now!

Have you seen how some Christian leaders squirm when asked this question on television news interviews?

One pastor had a very creative response:  "I believe that Mormons are the fourth Abrahamic religion." 

If you have ever had a devout Mormon as a friend or co-worker you know how very kind, and generous many Mormon people are.  But are these wonderful people Christians? 

What should you say if this subject is brought up in a conversation with your Mormon friends?  You don't want to be rude or sound like a bigot but you also want to be true to your faith.

So how should a Lutheran respond to this question?

First, what is the definition of who is a Christian?  The Bible is very clear on this.  Read Romans 10:9:

A Christian is someone who ...1.)  Confesses with their mouth (publically declares their faith in) the Lord Jesus.  2.)  believes in their heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead.

So if a Mormon or anyone else answers "Yes, I confess and believe those statements.", then I believe, according to the Bible,  that I must accept him or her as my Christian brother or sister.

What about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon Church)?   Is it a Christian Church?

I would answer that question in this manner:  The fundamental beliefs of the Christian Church were set down in writing in 325 A.D. at the Church Council of Nicea.  That document of Christian beliefs, agreed upon by representatives of all the Christian churches in the known world, is called the Nicene Creed.

Every Christian Church has accepted the Nicene Creed as a true statement of Christian faith since that time; from the liturgical churches such as the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans to the Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists.  (Baptists may not recite the creed in their services but they believe every doctrine stated in the creed).

For almost one thousand, seven hundred years, it has been a universally accepted standard that in order to be considered a Christian Church you must teach and believe ALL the doctrines stated in the Nicene Creed:  the Virgin birth, the Trinity, and that Jesus Christ not only is the Son of God, but he is God, and that he is co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father, etc.

So if someone asks you if, as a Lutheran,  you believe that the Mormon Church is a Christian Church, you can respond, "You will have to ask the Mormon Church if they accept and believe all the doctrines stated in the Nicene Creed.  If they do, then I believe that they are a Christian Church."

This puts the burden of proof on the Mormon Church, not on you.

Bottom line, regardless of whether you believe Mormons are or are not Christians, it is our duty to demonstrate in both our words and deeds, Christ's love and compassion for them, and to share by word and deed the Gospel story.  The rest is in God's hands.

They will know we are Christians by our _________.

Do a google search on the question:  What do you think of Christianity?

The results are not pretty.

Some know we are Christians by our...

---history of persecuting persons of other faiths:  crusades against Muslims; Inquisitions and Pogroms against Jews; Catholics and Protestants killing each other by the thousands.

---hypocrisy:  preaching one thing and living quite another.

---angry, sometimes hateful rhetoric against "sin" and "sinners".

But how should the world know that we are Christians?

...by our love!  Just like the song says.

Wouldn't it be great if when someone does a google search on the above question, the over-whelming theme of the responses would be something like this:

"Christians have some pretty far-out beliefs such as believing that a man who lived 2,000 years ago, died, came back from the dead three days later, and is now God, the ruler of the universe.  However, they are the nicest, kindest, most generous, loving people with incredible personal integrity that I have ever met.  Maybe there really is something to their faith."

We aren't there yet, but each one of us should strive every day to make that statement a reality!

How did you come to Christ?

I recently applied to list my blog on a Christian blog site.  The site has two questions all applicants must answer.

The first question is, "Are you a Christian?"

The second question is , "How did you come to Christ?"

The second question uses terminology that is very familiar to me having grown up as an evangelical.  But as a Lutheran it is an odd question.  In fact, it is a "backward" question.  I'm not implying that it is an ignorant question.  What I am saying is that the pronoun and the noun of the sentence are in the incorrect order!

I did not come to Christ...Christ came to me!

There is nowhere in the Bible that states that the sinner comes to Christ.

According to the Bible the sinner hates God and everything to do with God.  The sinner is spiritually dead.  Sinners don't come to God.

The Bible says that it is God who has predestined his redeemed before the world even existed. The Bible states that at some point in human time, God quickens those he has predestined.  And when God quickens them, they believe.

That is how salvation happens.  God comes to us, not the other way around.

So when does God choose to quicken us, to make us spiritually alive?  Is God limited to quickening us when WE make a decision for Him?  Where does the Bible say that?  Remember, spiritually dead men can't make spiritual decisions.

No, God quickens us at his choosing.

That is why Lutherans believe that when God quickens an adult sinner, he or she believes, and is saved.  Waiting to be baptized or having to say the Sinner's Prayer or any other prayer is not necessary.  Why?  Because the sinner's belief occurred because of God's quickening, not by some action on the sinner's part.

Lutheran's believe that the same is true for the babies and little children of Christians.  If God wants to spiritually quicken them, he can.  Again, salvation is not dependent on the action of the sinner.  The action is initiated and completed by God.

God promises salvation to the children of Christians in the second chapter of Acts.  It is God who saves babies and children in baptism.  It is not their decision or lack thereof, that determines their ability to be saved.

How did I come to Christ?  I didn't .  He came to me!

Why does God care about Sex?

When I was single, I had a very liberal attitude towards sex:  whatever consenting adults choose to do in private is nobody else's business.

Why should God care who I was having sex with as long as I was honest with my sexual partners about my intentions?

I  tried to always make sure, upfront, that my sexual partners knew whether or not I was looking for a potential relationship or if I was just looking for some physical intimacy and fun.  

I was following the Golden Rule, so no harm done, right!  How could two consenting adults enjoying each other physically be wrong?  How could God consider that a sin??

It made no sense to me.

However, my views on sex changed after I became a father.

Children need stability. 

I believe that one of the biggest reasons that we have so many messed up people in this country is that there are so many broken homes:  homes in which children do not have the opportunity to grow up in a stable, loving, supportive environment with good, healthy, adult male and female role models.

Nowdays, every one follows his or her own moral code!

If I'm bored with my current sex partner, who happens to be the mother of my young children, I should have the right to leave her, and find my happiness elsewhere, right!  That is true personal freedom...true sexual freedom!  Why should I have to abide by someone else's moral standards?  No one has the right to tell me I'm making a moral error or, God forbid, tell me that I'm sinning!

So, everybody is having sex with everybody, and that's ok because that is what individual liberty is all about! 

Mom has her lover on the side and Dad has his.  Grandpa and Grandma are in a swinger's group and seem to always have really nice new "friends" at the house when the grandkids come to visit.

The pastor at the local Lutheran church is single.  He preaches a great sermon on Sunday morning, but Saturday night, you will find him at the local bar looking for his next sex partner of the week.  But, he is a good Christian, he follows the Golden Rule:  he tells all his sex partners that he is only looking for some one-night fun, so no one gets their feelings hurt.

There is also an adult swinger's club at the church.  Each couple from the group takes turns hosting a "Lutheran love fest" party at their house on the weekends.  A babysitter watches all the kids downstairs in the basement.  It's a great time for all!

Teenagers in the church are advised to follow the Golden Rule, and are then handed some condoms and contraceptives, and told to go and enjoy themselves.

What an environment in which to raise children!

My scenarios seem ridiculous, right? 

But here is my point.  Should Christians have ANY moral standards other than following the Golden Rule?

If we don't follow the literal interpretation of the Bible on what is moral and what is not, then where do we set the limits on morality?  Or is it "Anything goes!" or "Everyone set your own standards!"

There are churches who have gay pastors where the church requires the pastor to be celibate unless he or she is in a committed relationship.

Where did that rule come from?

If the gay pastor has to be celibate if he or she is not in a committed relationship then shouldn't the same standard hold true for the church members?  So to make it consistent, "To be a good, moral Christian, no sex outside of committed relationships for everyone, gays and straights".

I'd like to see them sell that idea to the LGBT community!

I would bet that the majority of people in the LGBT community along with liberal straights would respond to that church in this manner:  How dare you try to impose on everyone your own moral code!  How dare you tell us or insinuate to us that we are wrong or morally inferior, or worse, sinning, by not following YOUR moral code. 

Individual churches can invent their own moral code, but unless it is founded upon what God says, they are always going to be open to the criticism that the moral code that they have chosen is in someway unfair or discriminatory.

So, in my opinion, Christians really have only two good options when it comes to setting moral standards for their churches:  follow the literal interpretation of the Bible or allow each individual to set his or her own moral standards.

And if each person in a church is allowed to set his or her own moral standards, the final result is going to be conflict and chaos.

For example, If John's moral standard is that he and his wife should be monogamous, but my moral standard is that sex between consenting adults, single or married, is fine, and I convince John's wife of my point of view, and seduce her into bed with me, I have done nothing wrong!  John is just too old fashioned and needs to liberalize his morality.  I and his wife were consenting adults, so no foul, no sin!

What a mess!


If I were God and could make the rules for Christian morality, I would make them as follows:

All sexual relations must be within a committed relationship (sexual orientation would be irrelevant).  Divorce/separation would not be allowed, if children are involved, except in the case of physical abuse or repeated infidelity.

But I'm not God.

The foundation of the conservative Lutheran faith is the literal interpretation of the Bible.  We can't believe the literal interpretation on some issues and not on others just because they seem unfair.  So to be consistent to our core beliefs we follow the literal interpretation of the Bible on the subject of Sexuality:  all sexual relations outside of traditional marriage is sin.

It may not seem fair in today's liberal society, but then it probably didn't seem fair in the sexually liberal society of the Roman Empire 2,000 years ago when the New Testament was writtten.  But by holding to this 2,000 year old standard, the only person one can blame for it's unfairness is God and his Word.  We follow God's literal Word because "My ways are not your ways".  God says it, so we obey it.

In our view, once you let go of what the Bible says, then it is "everyone choose your own morality " (just follow the Golden Rule while you are doing it).  It's moral chaos!

However, I believe conservative Lutherans must follow the Golden Rule when interacting with our fellow human beings and our fellow Christians who disagree with us on this issue.  We must first and foremost love them and respect them.

But, that doesn't mean that we have to change our standards on this issue.

Let us, both conservative and liberal Lutherans, agree to disagree on this issue without demonizing the other side.  We are all God's children.  We can worship Him in our separate Lutheran Churches, keeping our differing moral standards, but still love and respect one another.

And one last point:  no Lutheran should EVER be seen holding a sign that says, "God hates gays!"

That's not Lutheranism.  That's not Christianity!

Christian unity. Is it realistic?

There are approximately 2 billion Christians in the world.  One billion Roman Catholics, with the other billion divided up between Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and non-denominational/independents.

Christians have been praying for the restoration of unity in the Christian Church ever since 1054 AD when the Pope in Rome and the Patriarch in Constantinople excommunicated each other.  Five hundred years later, Luther and Calvin's Reformation further divided the Church.

Is it realistic to think that re-unification could ever happen?

I have my doubts, but here are my thoughts on the matter, for whatever they are worth:

The biggest gripes of the Orthodox with the "Latin" church seems to be the filioque and the claim of supremacy by the Roman Pope.

The filioque was added by the "Latins" to the Nicene Creed years after the entire Christian Church had voted and approved the wording of the creed in the fourth century.  Instead of stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, the "Latins" changed it to state that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son."

The Orthodox also don't like the Roman Pope's claim to supremacy.  In the early centuries of the church, he was just one of the five patriarchs.  The other four were in Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. 

On the first issue, the Nicene Creed is extremely important, but it is not inspired scripture.  It's
not worth dividing the Church over.  The Western Church should take out the filioque and return the Nicene Creed to its original wording.

The second issue is more tricky.  Would the popes of Rome ever relinquish their supremacy?  Doubtful, but if Roman Catholics want re-unification they are going to have to give on this issue.

What about a compromise?  The pope could be referred to as the "First among equals".  He, along with the Ecumenical Patriarch and maybe four or five newly elected Patriarchs from other Christian areas of the world, would govern the church "by committee", as in the early Church. 

As an example, elections by the new bishops of a unified Church could elect new Patriarchs of Northern Europe, North America, South America, Asia, and Africa, with a representative mixture of Protestants, Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox.  The pope would be the spokesman and figurehead of the Church but would not have authority over the other patriarchs but an equal voice.

The government structure of the new Church could be as follows:  Protestants would accept apostolic succession by having their bishops/presidents receive a laying on of hands from Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican bishops.  Roman Catholics would have to accept a "committee" form of government with all the patriarchs making procedural decisions by majority vote, but major doctrinal issues could only be settled by a super majority (80% a good number?) of a world wide church council of bishops, just as was done in the early Church.

What about the doctrinal and social issues that divide Roman Catholics/Orthodox from Protestants?

First of all, in my opinion, the biggest problem would not be the social issues.  Both liberals and conservatives could agree to hold their respective noses and accept and tolerate their differences as followers of Christ.

However, I don't think that there is any realistic hope of conservative (orthodox) Christians maintaining unity with liberal Christians for much more than just a few more years.  Why?

I will bet that within another generation (20-25 years) liberal Christians will no longer label themselves as Christians.  "Christian" is an exclusionary term.  It excludes alot of people in the world.  Liberals like to be inclusive.

I predict that in 20 to 25 years, liberals will consider it politically incorrect, obnoxious and ignorant to state that Jesus is the "only way".  And if Jesus is not the only way, why not abandon the exclusionary label of "Christian" for something more inclusive such as "humanist"?

So, I do not believe there is hope for orthodox (conservative) Christians to hold on to our liberal Protestant brothers and sisters.  In time they will pull too far away from us to have any common Christian bond.

So who does that leave?  It leaves conservative Lutherans, conservative Reformed, Anglo-Catholics, and believe it or not, evangelicals, to attempt some form of orthodox Christian unity with  Roman Catholics and  Eastern Orthodox.

Thirty years ago the idea of evangelicals united with Protestants, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics would have seemed absolutely ridiculous.  But have you noticed the dramatic thawing of relations between evangelicals and Roman Catholics over the last few decades?

When I was a teenager 30 or so years ago, there were gospel tracts in my Baptist church on why we as Baptists should not vote for a Catholic president.  Now, evangelical groups are endorsing Roman Catholic presidential candidates!  Evangelicals have found alot of common ground with the Catholic Church on social issues, private schools, solidarity against government interference in religious institutions, etc..

So what would a union between Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox look like?

First, Catholics would have to accept Luther's doctrine of Justification by Faith alone.  Protestants would then agree to a doctrine that states that both faith and works are absolutely necessary for Sanctification, appeasing Catholics.

Both Catholics and Protestants would agree that salvation is an act of God, not an act of man.  Therefore exactly when in human time salvation actually occurs for each individual Christian would be left as a mystery, getting around the issue of baptism or an adult "born again" experience as the "when" of salvation.

The more important point of knowing IF you are saved would be based on the two requirements mentioned in Romans 10:9, with no additional stipulations or clarifications.

Membership in the church would include only those who have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.   Infant or adult baptism would be optional.  Immersion (being placed three times under the water) in living water would be the preferred method as it was in the early centuries (see the Didache).  But it would not be mandatory; each parish church could decide it's own practice among the options of immersion, pouring, or sprinkling.

Holy Communion would be observed in the following terms:  the real presence of Christ is present in the Holy Supper. Do you believe that God is omni-present?  If you do then you believe that He is really present in the bread and wine of Holy Communion.  Leave it at that.   Any definition beyond that is left as a mystery so as not to re-open battles over transubstantiation, spiritual presence only or a symbolic memorial only.

Praying to saints would be an individual choice; neither encouraged nor discouraged by church authorities.

If I can ask my Christian brother, Bob, to pray for me while he is alive, where in the Bible does it say that he can't pray for me when he is in heaven?  It doesn't, so leave it as an individual choice.  The line must be drawn here, though:  The Roman Catholic Church must agree that Mary, the Mother of God, will never be elevated to co-redeemer, as that action would be completely unacceptable to Protestants.

The last subject to resolve is actually the first subject that provoked the Reformation:  Purgatory.

Without purgatory there would not have been a need for indulgences. Without indulgences, many of the abuses that so outraged Luther would probably not have occurred in the sixteenth century, and without an outraged Luther, there probably would not have been a Reformation.

Protestants will never accept the concept of purgatory and Catholics will probably never give it up.

Purgatory may be the deal-breaker for any re-unification of the Christian Church.

In conclusion, during the first few centuries of the Christian Church there was unity (for the mosr part) as all Christians were fighting against the persecution of an intolerant, secular world.  Beginning in the fourth century and continuing into the twentieth century the "Christian world" has held sway.

The "Christian world" where Christian values dominate politics, morals and everyday life is fading.  Intolerance to our faith may re-emerge.  Maybe a new "persecution" of our faith and values will be the impetus for Christians to re-unify their Church.

Conservative Lutheran Christian and a Moderate-Liberal American

As a physician, I am 100% in favor of easier access to contraception for American women.  Increased contraceptive use leads to fewer unwanted pregnancies and therefore fewer abortions--a goal that all Americans, pro-choice and pro-life, can agree on as a good goal.

But, that said,  I don't like the Obama administration's recent foray into the murky waters of government interference in the religious convictions of certain Christian denominations regarding this issue.

I don't think I or others are being paranoid to see this issue as the beginning of a slippery slope.  Is it ok for government to overrule Christian moral beliefs for the "common good".

I attend a conservative Lutheran Church (LCMS) but my political views as an American citizen and voter are markedly more progressive.  My personal interpretation of the Lutheran doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, correct or incorrect, is this:

       I won't try to impose my Christian moral beliefs on secular society.

       In return, I request that government keep it's heavy hand out of my church's faith and practices.

I think that's a fair deal! 

I hope our President will re-think his tactics.

I am proof that it isn't just conservatives that he is alienating on this issue.  Many of us in the middle/middle-left, don't like his incursion into religious liberty either!

Do Lutherans need to "accept" Christ?

As a fundamentalist Baptist and evangelical I was taught that the unbelieving sinner must "accept" Christ to be his or her personal Lord and Savior. 

This action on the part of the sinner would occur either as an adult or as a child who is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong (the Age of Accountability).  The sinner would make a free-will decision to accept Christ into his or her heart. This was a "born-again" experience.

According to fundamentalist Baptists and many evangelicals, this is the only way in which a sinner can become a Christian.

Since Lutherans do not believe that it is possible for a sinner (who is spiritually dead) to make a free-will decision for Christ in a "born-again" (as defined by these groups) experience, I was taught that it is impossible for Lutherans to be Christians. 

Lutherans are just as "unsaved" as Muslims and Hindus.

Lutherans need not feel picked on, however.   Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopalians, Methodists, and Presbyterians are all considered "lost and bound for hell" also.

Where do fundamentalists and some evangelicals get this idea?  They are so adamant about basing all Christian doctrine on Scripture.  Are there passages in the Bible that use this language?

Where does the Bible say, "Make a decison to accept Christ and thou shalt be saved?"

Nowhere!  This language is not scriptural!

Romans 10:9 makes it very clear who is "saved" and who is not:

'If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Regardless of which Christian denomination you belong to, according to the Bible, if you confess (declare your faith in) the Lord Jesus, and believe that God has raised him from the dead, you ARE saved.  There are no qualifiers to those two requirements.

When exactly God saves you may be a matter of contentious theological debate, but who is and who is not saved is not.  Just read Romans 10:9.

Fundamentalists and evangelicals are going to be in for a real shock when they show up in heaven and see so many Lutherans and other orthodox Christians walking around!

Salvation is not a free-will act of man.  Salvation is completely an act of God. 

How literally do you literally read the Bible?

Growing up fundamentalist Baptist and later as an evangelical, it was ingrained into my soul that the Bible must be read literally.

However, it wan't until I became a conservative (LCMS) Lutheran, that I REALLY read the Bible literally.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." 

Lutherans believe that verse literally.  If an unbeliever believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, he or she will be saved.  They don't need to wait to be baptized to be saved.  They don't have to pray the Rosary, the evangelical "Sinner's Prayer", or any other prayer to be saved.  Believe and you are saved!  Period.

"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Lutherans believe this verse literally too.  We don't question the translator's accuracy in translating the word "for"; we don't try to re-interpret this verse to make it square with the preceding verse discussed; we just believe it literally.  Repent and be baptized, and your sins will be forgiven and you will receive the Holy Ghost.  Period.

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

You guessed it!  We Lutherans believe that verse literally too.  Call on the Lord and you are saved.  Period.  If after calling on the name of the Lord, you are run over by a truck before you are able to be baptized, before you are able to say any sort of prayer, you will be saved.  You are a Christian.  You are a child of God.  You will be in heaven.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;"

Yes, that verse too!  We Lutherans believe that verse literally also.

"But, they are contradictory if you read them ALL literally," says the evangelical.  "You need to re-interpret some of them so that they all agree.  You can't say that you are saved just by believing or just by calling on the Lord AND say that you are saved by believing and being baptized!"

"If you really believe in reading the Bible literally, you can!" says Martin Luther, the Lutheran Church and 70 million Lutherans worldwide.

Evangelicals!  My dear Christian brothers and sisters!  Get out your Bibles and really and truly read the Bible literally for the first time in your lives!

If you do, I believe that you will have no other choice, than to come to the conclusion that Martin Luther was right and that the Lutheran Church holds the true doctrines of Holy Scripture!