On Universal Conscription

 

 "I honestly think that every US citizen should serve in the military for at least two years."
~ Comment on Facebook

As we look at the degeneration of our culture, it becomes apparent that younger generations are lacking in things like discipline, self-confidence, and the idea of serving one's fellow man, but are instead increasingly dependent, self-centered, and narcissistic.  It isn't surprising that simplistic solutions are floated - like this common suggestion above, that young people be subject to universal military conscription.

The reasoning would be sound - if we were dealing with animals or machines.  If something doesn't work, you apply outside force to get a different result.  But most of us treat human beings differently than golden retrievers or Wankel rotary engines.  Especially, as members of Western civilization, as being within the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, and as Americans, a solution grounded in empowering the State to solve social problems ought to raise a red flag (perhaps even literally so).

Applying the "military for all" option for human beings rests upon the fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - that because previous generations (such as the generation that went through World War II) were better equipped for life than the current crop of young men and women, and because our grandfathers and grandmothers were shaped by the rigors of military life, both at the battlefront and on the homefront, it follows that widespread military service would inculcate values of discipline, service, thrift, and personal responsibility into the current profligate and rootless generation.  Of course, this presumes that military service and such positive traits are related by causation instead of mere correlation.  

There are indeed a lot of variables in the current cultural soup, too many to presume that adding one ingredient will assure a pleasant stew.

Another problem with the "make everybody serve two years in the military" solution is that it is merely a conservative appropriation of a progressive idea, namely that the military exists for the purpose of social engineering.  The Left believes the military is a means to promoting the agenda of ethnic diversity, pushing quotas and overt race-consciousness - if not outright racial hygiene - within the ranks to achieve its social goals.  The Left also uses the military to promote sexual diversity and the mainstreaming of identities and behaviors that are not within the normal range of the bell curve.  The Left is now also pursuing a political agenda that seeks to cull out soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines whose political ideas may be considered too "extreme" (read: "conservative").

To all of these, the Right rightly cries "foul!" - but the Right likewise sees the military as its own Petri dish to effect social ends, by means of the oft-floated idea of compulsory universal conscription.

The purpose of the military is not to make people more accepting of the woke ideology, nor is it to get your lazy twenty-somethings to learn how to wake up and go to work instead of sleeping in on mom's couch and playing video games all day.  The purpose of the military is to defend the country against invasion, and to provide a deterrent to such attacks.  This is not to say that the United States doesn't use their armed forces to twist foreign arms, to threaten invasion for its own global interests, and to essentially occupy other countries.  But in general, for a country - any country - the military's primary job is to protect the people of that country from invasion.

Turning the military into a social experiment, jobs program, path to college, or a way to instill responsibility in the minds of ne'er-do-wells does not serve the purpose of the military.  And it would likely weaken it.

The suggestion of vastly increasing the size and scope of the military by drafting every 18-year old man and woman presumes that the armed forces are understaffed.  To the contrary, the Unites States taxpayers pay more for "defense" than the next ten countries combined, including all military expenditures of China and Russia.  To add to the numbers of personnel by the millions would be to create jobs that are not needed, and to push an even larger tax burden for the military than we have now at roughly a three-quarter of a trillion dollars per annum.  This influx of recruits would need to be housed, equipped, fed, paid, and trained.  Conservatives used to understand the dictum that money does not grow on trees, though it is printed fraudulently by the Fed. 

And there is also the temptation that having a vastly larger military establishment will result in looking for ways to use it.  When one's only tool is a hammer, one tends to see nails everywhere.  Expanding the military could well result in increased bellicosity on the part of the military and civilian leadership of the country.  After all, what good is a massive standing army if you don't have someone to invade, some "monster to destroy"?

As any serious student of American history knows, the founders were greatly opposed to the idea of a standing federal army, and made no provision for it in the Constitution.  The founders considered standing armies to be a threat to liberty.  

At the time of the founding of the Republic, there was indeed a military obligation of sorts - but not to a standing army.  Able-bodied males of fighting age were considered members of the militia - citizen soldiers - who voluntarily trained with their own families and communities.  They were not taken away from home and perhaps even sent into foreign countries.  Instead, they drilled on the community green periodically with their neighbors. And this was part of genuinely defending the country - even against the federal government itself if need be - hence the Second Amendment.  The militia was not a character-building exercise or scheme to make citizens appreciate racial differences.  Its members  continued to hold their civilian jobs and lives.  

This scheme of artificially increasing the government labor supply in the now-professional standing federal armed forces is the equivalent of FDR's alphabet agencies to pay men to dig holes and fill them as a fallacious way to stimulate the economy - which resulted in prolonging the Great Depression for many years.  For conservatives to suggest such a massive Big Government "solution" demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic market economics.  Were we to suddenly give the military an influx of millions of teenagers - whose services aren't really needed - would create a vast supply with no demand - with the burden of paying for this discrepancy placed on the back of the taxpayer.  And given our progressive tax structure, this would amount to a massive Marxian redistribution of wealth.

And this is coming from the conservative side of things, not the progressive.

Moreover, today's military is not your grandfather's service.  No indeed.  Physical standards have been lowered, the sexes train and serve in close contact, the training received by soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines is today less rigorous than that of the men who prepared for combat in World War II - who would not have imagined the idea of maternity flight suits for female aviators and support crews.  In fact, in recent years, the leadership of the military has become, well, "woke."  Conservatives have been plucked out of the highest levels of leadership, and the military - like other institutions of our society - has become focused on leftist political ideology and goals.

So what conservative in his right mind would think of sending all young people to be brainwashed with the same Critical Theory and Intersectionalism that one finds in the debauched universities?

There is also a constitutional issue.  Were our judiciary honest in submitting the federal government to the strictures of the Constitution, the black-robes would have long ago forbad conscription based on the Thirteenth Amendment.  For under that provision, slavery (or "involuntary servitude") is only permitted for convicts.  In other words, we may enslave jailed criminals and force them into jobs against their will, but to do this to those who are innocent of any crime is not permitted.  That's why slavery is illegal in the United States.  Those who join the military currently do so voluntarily.  They willingly set aside some of their rights (such as criticizing the president) for the time of their enlistment, being told what do to and when to do it, being under the Uniform Code of Military Justice instead of the civil courts, and being subject to orders - even orders that may well assure their deaths.  To conscript people and put them into such situations is simply slavery by a different name.

It is common to refer to military "service," to refer to the military itself as "the service."  It is common for citizens to thank veterans for their "service."  The word "service" is based on the Latin "servus" - which means "slave."  And there are other forms of service in which one is under orders: such as the police and fire services.  But these too are voluntary vocations into which one enters by means of a voluntary contract.

It is curious that conservatives, of all people, should advocate a form of State slavery to achieve an elusive, if not Utopian, social goal.

There is also the practical consideration that armies made up of conscripts are just not as good as those comprised of volunteers.  This is not rocket science.  Whom would you rather have building an addition to your house, a professional contractor who does that kind of work voluntarily?  Or a team of 18-year -old convicts who have been ordered by the State to show up and labor under compulsion?  

Universal conscription is also a manifestation of bad economics.  

Most people are not familiar with the term "opportunity cost" or Frederic Bastiat's "broken window fallacy."  The idea is that any action taken is done at the cost of the action not taken.  If a family vacations at the beach, it does so at the expense of vacationing in the mountains - because one cannot do both.  If a young man or woman is serving in the military, he or she is doing so at the expense of some civilian calling.  This could mean that a young person who is brilliant in math or theology or medical research will instead be learning how to march, to field strip an M16, and passing time polishing boots instead of studying nuclear physics, going into labor and nursing a child, or starting one's own business.  The costs of such roads-not-taken are unseen, and thus are not typically factored into the equation.  But those costs are very real.

One might argue that one can be an engineer or chaplain or doctor, or one could be both a mom and a Green Beret, but the reality is that serving in the military, as is every other career option, is at the expense of serving elsewhere, where market forces communicate information about careers and opportunities to those entering the labor market.  The military does not operate based on the market, but rather by bureaucratic government planning.  Thus the Army will have to find something else for an aspiring poet to do, the Navy will be put into the unenviable position of employing the Latin scholar, the Air Force will have to figure out where to slot a dog trainer, and the Marines will be forced to put a nursery school teacher to work somewhere in the Corps.  

Again, the purpose of the military is narrower than the free civilian marketplace.  Conscription would result in "malinvestment" of human capital, and would socialize a good part of the job market, not to mention taking away a resource of human capital from the private sector.  And this central-planning government approach is a conservative idea?

Such a scheme also violates the Christian doctrine of vocation. 

God has created people with different gifts and talents.  Not everyone is called into service vocations, like pastors, teachers, police officers, nuns, those who work in orphanages, EMTs, and yes, soldiers.  Rightfully understood, the military is a godly calling.  We see this all throughout the Scriptures.  Joshua led a famous military campaign into Jericho and other cities in Canaan.  King David had his "mighty men."  St. Paul even famously compares the Christian life to a soldier wearing armor.  The Church on earth is often called the Church Militant.  Traditionally, military life is the place for big men who can fight hand to hand against other big men.  Technology has expanded opportunities for military service, for example, to support the big guys who are in the field with rifles and grenades and bayonets.  But the life of the warrior is just not for everyone.

Moreover, the suggestion that any and all people, even all 18-year-olds, are capable of being soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines is quite the insult to the military vocation.  It suggests that one who is obese, sociopathic, antisocial, of low IQ, a person with authority issues, the uncoordinated, the physically weak, those with demanding physical ailments, etc. can all become warriors is not only ludicrous, but takes a position that the job of soldiering is the lowest common denominator, that there is no reason to cull out anyone from military life.  

Why would a conservative strap the officers and NCOs of the military with millions of new recruits who may well be entirely unfit, and perhaps a detriment to the readiness of the country to defend against attack?  Again, this is the same as the Left insisting that sexual minorities be accommodated in the ranks at any cost - whether it strengthens or weakens the military forces.

No, the solution to our malaise does not lie in State compulsion.  That is the easy and lazy way out, and it won't work.  There are always unintended consequences.  What we need is not conscription, but parenting.  We don't need every man and women to put on fatigues and tactical boots, but rather to put on the Armor of God, procreate, and raise boys and girls of honor.  We need mentors, not drill sergeants.  We need volunteers who will lead for the sake of love, not more taxpayer supported authoritarianism with an end goal that has nothing to to with doing battle.  We need to restore our lost institutions: morality, community, a commitment to liberty, etc. and that is hard work - far harder than just having the president sign a piece of paper and ordering all teenagers to Fort Benning or Parris Island.

Both progressives and conservatives have the propensity to turn to the State to solve social problems.  This is natural to progressives, but is a contradiction to conservatives.  Those who identity with the political and social Right should abandon seeing Big Government as a Savior, and should instead roll up their own sleeves and get to work improving society by means of liberty, sweat, and the power of human cooperation by means of the market.

Magdeburg and Liberty

The Magdeburg Confession is a remarkable document.  

This Lutheran confession lays out a theology of resistance to tyranny based on the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate.  The brave autonomous city of Magdeburg, with its spirit of political independence and theological insistence on adhering to Lutheran theology, come what may, arguably saved the Reformation in the year 1550.  The city stood alone in refusing to surrender the Lutheran confession to Charles V's so-called Augsburg Interim.  Magdeburg paid for its tenacity by being put under military siege for a year, until the imperial forces backed off and negotiated a settlement that allowed the Lutheran confession to coexist with Roman Catholicism in the empire.

The Confession is a theological treatise, but it happens in a very real political context - and thus the narrative has not only ecclesiastical and doctrinal implications, but also serves to teach us political lessons in our world today.

Indeed, the world was very different in 1550.  At the time, there was no Germany.  That would not come until the late 19th century.  Europe was feudal, comprised of a patchwork of small governments.  What we call Germany today was part of the so-called Holy Roman Empire.  As is often said, the HRE was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.  It was a crazy-quilt of kingdoms, principalities, duchies, and free cities in what is today mainly Germany and Italy.  The emperor was actually elected by certain elector princes.  

The HRE was more a loose confederation than an empire, one which offered maximum liberty because of the concept of competition.  There were no passports.  The countries were small.  The German language was spoken across a large swath of the Empire.  And so, if a prince was abusive, raised taxes too high, or impeded free markets - people could vote with their feet and move.  It didn't involve emigrating hundreds of miles away, securing work visas and a path to citizenship, and learning a new language.  

The economist and philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues that Europe's successes in science, exploration, economics, scholarship, and the arts was due to this vast decentralization.  He argues that a Europe today "made up of thousands of Liechtensteins and Swiss cantons, united through free trade, and in competition with one another in the attempt of offering the most attractive conditions for productive people to stay or move" is a far better alternative to the European Union, which he describes as "a gang of power-lusty crooks empowering and enriching themselves at other, productive people’s expense."

This kind of political decentralization existed in the HRE and it made the Reformation possible.  Had Charles V been an actual emperor instead of a figurehead overseeing a loose confederacy, he would have had no problem capturing and executing all religious dissidents.  However, the confederal nature of the Empire made it possible for local German princes to interpose in order to protect Luther and other reformers - to the frustration of both Charles V and the papacy.

The Reformation flourished, at least in human terms, owing to the economics of free competition in the marketplace of ideas.  Not only did churches and universities spread the faith of the Evangelical confession (as Lutherans were known in those days), but also the printing press and merchants who were free to sell printed material - thanks to free markets and capitalism.  A centralized state would have had far better success in banning books and pamphlets and crushing dissenting opinions than a confederation of small sovereignties.

It's no wonder that dictators and tyrants always have imperial dreams.  Managing a single massive bureaucracy is far easier than "thousands of Liechtensteins" when  it comes to exercising authoritarian control.

One can hope that Brexit will lead to other defections away from European centralization and a restoration of the polity that made Europe a great civilization: the envy of the world.

If Americans truly value their liberty, they too will look to find ways of decentralizing the country back to its original federalism, instead of the nationalism and consolidation that has taken root instead.  One path toward such a devolution is nullification (sometimes called "interposition") - which is what the Magdeburgers pioneered in 1550.  With our own patchwork of state and local jurisdictions, our spirit of political independence, and our constitutional system of federalism, we could conceivably restore the republic and become, once more, heirs of Magdeburg.

And so we stand at a crossroads. 

Will we move in the direction of centralization, stagnation, and slavery?  Or will be be sons and daughters of Magdeburg?  We should study this history and confession in both its theological and political frameworks.

Here is a link to the Magdeburg Society.  And here is a link to Issues, Etc.'s program: "Lutherans, Political Resistance and the 1550 Magdeburg Confession" with Dr. Ryan MacPherson.

Stupid TV

I quit watching TV a long time ago.  But a lot of people have told me that "The Big Bang Theory" is funny - especially in matters of religion.  So I watched some excerpts on YouTube.  What I watched was actually a sort-of prequel showing the formation of the show's character "Sheldon" as a child.

What I saw was comedically pathetic, and pathetically preachy.  It is nothing more than very bad Atheist Apologetics that depends on the ignorance of the viewer to be effective.  I watched excepts from this episode in which an 8-year old Sheldon takes on Christianity and dismantles it single-handedly, because he believes in "science."  The arguments were not just simplistic, but stereotypical and cartoonish.

The writers don't even know the basics, such as the fact that Baptists don't adorn their churches in colored paraments corresponding with the church year.  I know that there are exceptions to this rule, but so few as to be statistically insignificant - a concept that the writers should seemingly understand and embrace: math and science and all that.  Also, pastors typically do not field questions while preaching in the pulpit.  It makes one wonder if the writers have ever been to an actual church service.  There was also a scene in which the Baptist Sunday school children were reciting and praying the Lord's Prayer together.  This is also not how Baptists teach the Bible to children.  And they don't use the translation of the Lord's Prayer that uses the word "trespasses."  I mean, this stuff is so basic, that it shows that they have no consultant.  And why would they?  They clearly think they know everything.  They have this smug, cocksure attitude that corresponds to a writer insisting on not using a proofreader.  It indicates the haughty ego of the insufferable know-it-all.

After the discussion of the Lord's Prayer (which is in Matthew's Gospel), Sheldon cites "Chapter One Verse One" - while not naming the book (which is incidentally John's Gospel) to show what an idiot the pastor is, based on the translation of the word "Word" ("In the beginning was the Word").  He points out that this is actually the Greek word "Logos" - which "means knowledge."  The reality is that the word Λόγος - like many foreign words - can be translated into English in several different ways depending upon context.  The world's greatest scholars have been translating the Greek of the New Testament into the world's languages for nearly 2,000 years.  

The Latin is rendered Verbum, German: das Wort, French: la Parole, Spanish: la Parabla, Italian: il Verbo, and even Esperanto: la Vorto.  See the pattern?  

When the kid says that "Logos" means "knowledge" - it seems to befuddle the pastor.  In reality, this idea of the Logos - in all of its fullness - is part of Christian christology.  Christ is the Logos - the intelligence behind the universe, behind creation, the Word "by whom all things were made" as we have been confessing in the Nicene Creed for just shy of 1,700 years.  The word "Logos" is part of the etymology of the word "Theology" and all other "-ology" words.  This is a confession of Christian truth, not a refutation of it.  This is not a startling revelation.  

Moreover, the first day that many of us set foot in seminary, we were learning Greek.  And even if Christian pastors don't have to study the New Testament in Greek, they certainly know the main Greek words used in Christian theology.  They don't have to be told this by a smart-aleck eight-year old unbeliever.

Sheldon also uses logic (also based on the Greek word "Logos," by the way) to "refute" the apologetic claims of the pastor.  Of course, this is all "funny" and "lighthearted," but if you were to remove the laugh-track, it would come across for what it is: cheesy, hamfisted, and manipulative Apologetics wielded against a straw man.  

One example is the pastor pointing out that many of the world's greatest scientists actually believed in God - including Charles Darwin.  Sheldon retorts by saying, "So Darwin was wrong about evolution and right about God?"  "Hahaha" screams the laugh-track as the doltish pastor looks bewildered at being checkmated.  But how is this an argument?  Couldn't one equally point out that Atheists also argue that Darwin was wrong about God, but right about evolution?  

In another scene regarding creation according to Genesis, Sheldon "trumps" the pastor by pointing out that light was created on Day One while the sun wasn't created until Day Four.  My gosh, how did we miss that?  We have been reading, thinking about, and commenting upon the Genesis text for some three and a half millennia - but it took a Hollywood screenwriter to refute the whole thing to a laugh-track.  "Hahaha!" and on to the next scene.

And of course, Sheldon's Christian parents speak with a Southern accent, while he speaks like he comes from the North.  Subtle, isn't it?  I would be willing to bet that many Americans get their view of Christianity and Christian Apologetics from the likes of this sloppy and intellectually dishonest TV show and their ignorant writers.

Finally, isn't it interesting that the writers target Christianity as their representative of "irrational religion" in opposition to "science" - while adopting a hands-off view of Judaism and Islam?  

So I've seen enough.  This confirms my premise that nearly all TV is junk food for the mind and rat poison for the soul.  Television seems to retard the intelligence of the viewer, who typically laughs on cue like a drooling Pavlovian dog (but convinced that he is now the smarter for it) and moves along to the next scene without asking too many questions.  

The Intention of the Mass

Note: This article was published in the Trinity 2017 edition of Gottesdienst.

The intention of the Mass was to uplift and honor black culture.
~ College Student Natavia Mitchell

On February 12, 2017, Loyola University of New Orleans, a Roman Catholic institution run
by the Jesuit order, held what they call their Black History Mass. The planned celebrant, as
well as two alternative celebrants – the three of whom are black – were unable to attend. It
was a kind of perfect storm. The only available celebrant for this Divine Service was a soft-
spoken Jesuit priest from the faculty named the Rev. Ed Vacek, SJ, who is white.

The old adage “Nullum beneficium impunitum” won the day, as indeed, no good deed goes
unpunished.

The article in the student newspaper, The Maroon, never once mentions Jesus, the
forgiveness of sins, the miracle of Christ’s presence with us, nor the eternal blessings of the
mystical communion the Church has with the Most Holy Trinity in this Holy Sacrament.
Indeed, the title of the February 16, 2017 piece is: “Black History Mass sparks controversy”

The priest’s homily, in his own words, sought to convey the fact that “the Gospel [text] is
about having a heart that is not good, a heart that is full of anger, needless anger, and a
heart that is full of needless lust. And our hearts are not good.” This is certainly a laudable
proclamation of Law, accounting of our need for a Savior. Father Vacek, however, seems to
have misfired when it came to proclaiming the Gospel that Jesus has come to bear our sins,
to atone for us by the blood of His cross, is coming again to recreate the world anew, and
that He comes to us in His body and blood for the forgiveness of sins and to deliver to us
the gift of eternal life.

That is the intention of the Mass as established by the First Celebrant, who has not come to
uplift this culture or that ethnic group, but to uplift universally sinful men to sainthood
and everlasting life through the forgiveness of sins that He won for us upon the cross.

Instead of such a proclamation of the Gospel, it seems that Father Vacek opted to confess
his own sins of racism, and to use himself as a sermon illustration, while claiming that, in
his own words, “Over time, I have developed and, I think, gotten better, and I think better,
but I still find some racism in me.” His mea culpa and claim of improvement was not well
received by his hearers.

“The intention of the Mass was to uplift and honor black culture, and Fr. Vacek’s message
did not meet the intended expectation to encourage our black community. I personally left
the Mass feeling disappointed that a member of the Loyola community would degrade my
culture in such a public setting,” said Natavia Mitchell. She also stated that Father Vacek,
“degraded the black community.”

As of the article’s writing, Father Vacek was in the process of planning a meeting between
himself and the offended students.

The real lesson of this incident – one that has very little chance of being learned – is that
in Holy Communion, Christ transcends all of our worldly tribalism by offering us
something eternal and transcendent. As the baptized gather around Word and Sacrament,
there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. In Christ, there is no black
community or white community. Instead, there is the community of the Church, the
gathering of all nations: every tribe and tongue, race and culture. To reduce the Mass to a
celebration of this culture or that ethnic group is to degrade our Lord Himself by missing
the entire point of His coming.

Sadly, this is common among Lutherans as well, as our own sinful flesh is often distracted
by special occasions, so that we are quick to downgrade or even forget that the Mass is not
about us and stroking our egos about who we are. It is not about racial pride or national
patriotism. It is not about commemorating civic holidays. It’s not about family and church
organizations. It is about Christ and His presence among us.

The faculty and students of Loyola would do well to abolish the Black History Mass and any
other celebrations of special Divine Services of ethnic pride. There should be no White
History Mass, no Black History Mass, and no Mass that serves any other purpose than to
serve Christ to forgiven sinners: holy things for holy people.

The Divine Service is a celebration of Jesus: gratefully receiving the gifts that He freely
offers in the proclamation of the Gospel and in the celebration of Holy Communion.

That is the true Intention of the Mass.

Progressivism Quid Est

Progressivism is just repackaged Satanism: the lie that mankind is perfectible, and that denying the Word of God is the first step to that ‘perfection.’  Progressivism refuses to submit to reality and insists on a divine ability to create reality by means of words and thoughts, wishes and desires, fantasies and longings.  Progressivism is the deification of the Self, the grand delusion that mankind, by his own means, can create his own reality ex nihilo and from thence evolve himself unto perfection.

Progressivism is a mythology of Paradise, a roadmap without roads, a goal without a destination, a promise without a guarantor.

Progressivism is a logos without the Logos, an Easter without a Good Friday, a Christianity without a Christ.

The world's first expression of Progressivism was, "Did God actually say...?"

A Bishop Then Must Be... Apt to Teach

Bishop Vsevolod Lytkin of the Siberian Evangelical Lutheran Church which is in altar and pulpit fellowship with the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, recently responded to mockery of his episcopal vestments:


"Dear *****, thank you for your remark. I would recommend you to read the Holy Scriptures. You will be surprised to see detailed descriptions of how priests dressed in the Old Testament. This is because God takes the holy ministry very seriously. Everything connected with the liturgy, the altar, the priesthood is very serious for God. It is only modern post-Protestant invented, as one theologian beautifully called it, "plastic Christianity" (such a simplistic religion, devoid of liturgy, priesthood and grace).

And the Church (I'm talking about the historical Church, and not about something that you may call as "Church") always takes seriously the Divine service. Her priests always wore special clothing that distinguished them from others.
You are not against the fact that doctors in hospitals wear special clothes? Or do you laugh at them also? ("Oh, what a ridiculous robe you have, doctor! Oh, what a funny cap you have!")

Or maybe you are laughing at the cops? Or at the judges? Each of them has a uniform corresponding to their profession.

And bishop always has a miter and a crosier (bishop's staff). They are a sign that he has been given authority from God.

And so please treat the bishops with respect, if only because, as the ancients said, where there is no bishop, there is no Сhurch there."

The more things change...

Charles Porterfield Krauth (1823-1883)

When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages of its progress are always three.  It begins by asking toleration.  Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few, and weak; only let us alone; we shall not disturb the faith of others.  The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions.  Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal rights.  Truth and error are two balancing forces.  The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality.  It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth.  We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is the truth, is partisanship.  What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental.  Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential.  Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the church.  Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them.  From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy.  Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated, and that only for a time.  Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points.  It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church's faith, but in consequence of it.  Their recommendation is that they repudiate the faith, and position is given to them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skillful in combating it.

     ~ Charles Porterfield Krauth, (1871)

        The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology, pp 195-6

Who was the better scholar, Luther or Erasmus?

Dr. E. Christian Kopff's paper, presented here at the CCLE's 17th annual conference (Summer 2017) might surprise you!  Dr. Kopff analyzes the great knock-down-drag-out scholarly clash between Desiderius Erasmus (Freedom of the Will) and Martin Luther (Bondage of the Will) in their citation and use of classical writers in their famous works on free will and its limits.

Dr. Kopff (University of Colorado - Boulder and the American Academy in Rome) is the author of the remarkable book The Devil Knows Latin: Why America Needs the Classical Tradition (2000).

I had the privilege of being right up front for this presentation (held as a wonderful restaurant in Cheyanne, Wyoming), and it is always  great pleasure to hear Dr. Kopff speak!

Correcting the Record on Luther

In response to opinions expressed by Renzo Puccetti in this piece published in American Conservative: "The Dangers of Theosentimentalism" by Rod Dreyer, my friend Dr. William Tighe, a Roman Catholic history professor and scholar at Muhlenberg College, corrects some mistaken information regarding Martin Luther and modern Lutherans:

It is unfortunate, to say the least, that such a cri de coeur as that of Renzo Puccetti, should contain such a statement (thus rendering it liable, sadly, to casual dismissal) as this:

“Please someone tell me, how a simple Catholic could keep his sensus fidelium, infallibilis in credendo, when the founder of the Lutherans, who approve of abortion, contraception, IVF, euthanasia and gay marriage, who don’t believe into the virginity of Our Lady, or in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist in body, blood and divinity, not to mention a number of other truths of faith, is celebrated as a renovator rather than a destroyer.” 

I’m hardly an admirer of Luther (and Richard Rex’s book has reenforced my distaste for him), but fair is fair, after all.

Modern “liberal Lutherans,” like many other “liberal ‘Christians,'” may “approve of approve of abortion, contraception, IVF, euthanasia and gay marriage” and may not “believe into ( sic ) the virginity of Our Lady, or in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist in body, blood and divinity,” but “the founder of the Lutherans” (by which he can only mean Martin Luther) would almost certainly have opposed “abortion, contraception, IVF, euthanasia and gay marriage” had they entered his imagination as imaginable things, or things which any Christians might accept or practice; and, in fact, Luther did believe into “the virginity of Our Lady” (both as regards the conception of Our Lord, and also her “perpetual virginity,” in which Zwingli and Calvin also believed) and also “the presence of Christ in the Eucharist in body, blood and divinity” (and furiously attacked other Reformers who denied it, considering their views on the “Lord’s Supper” far worse in this respect than those of the “papists”).

A believing Catholic might perhaps stigmatize Luther as “the original Protestant,” but he was neither (in his own day or subsequently) “the typical Protestant” (as regards denial of central Catholic beliefs and practices) or “a Liberal Protestant.” Rather, Lutherans who embrace “abortion, contraception, IVF, euthanasia and gay marriage” and who deny “the virginity of Our Lady, or … the presence of Christ in the Eucharist in body, blood and divinity” demonstrate by those very facts how far they have forsaken the “faith of their founder.”

Thank you, Dr. Tighe, for your commitment to truth and accuracy!

Feminization of the Church

The following talk was given by the Rev. Dr. Steve Hein at the 2017 Consortium for Classical Lutheran Education's 17th annual conference in Cheyanne, Wyoming (#CCLEXVII).

Dr. Hein takes up the thorny topic of gender in the church.  But this isn't what you think.  This has nothing to do with "gender identity" and transgenderism.

Rather, he addresses the symptom of modern western churches largely being unrepresented by male parishioners, and the effects which flow from this disparity.  Dr. Hein traces this phenomenon historically - and surprisingly, it isn't rooted in the modern feminist movement, but dates back to the Middle Ages.  This is not only an intriguing topic in terms of history and theology, it is a pastoral issue as well - especially considering the role of fathers in the propagation of the faith to their children and the future of Christianity in the West.

Here are links to the audio:

• Part One 
• Part Two
• Part Three

Other audio and video from the many outstanding presentations can be found here.

A couple of books that Dr. Hein refers to in his presentation are:

• Why Men Hate Going to Church by David Murrow, and 
• The Church Impotent by Leon Podles

A couple of works by Dr. Hein that you might find of interest:

"Fathers, Don't Let Them Die" (blog post)

The Christian Life: Cross or Glory? (book)

Thank you, Dr. Hein, for tackling this controversial and crucial issue to the life and faith of not only ourselves, but our descendants as they battle the world, the devil, and the sinful flesh.  I encourage everyone to listen to his presentation and think about what can be done in your own family and parish for the sake of the Gospel.

What father tells the oncologist of their cancer-stricken child that they will not make their next appointment because it conflicts with her soccer game?  And yet, recent statistics suggest that many of our children baptized as infants joined many a soccer league, but never made it to their confirmation as adolescents.

~ Rev. Dr. Steve Hein

Restoring the Sacred!

St. John Cantius, Chicago

Here is a remarkable 30 minute, exquisitely beautiful video about restoring the sacred in Chicago's St. John Cantius Church.

In a decaying culture that celebrates death, embraces mediocrity, and revels in the perverse and ugly, this is a refreshing and inspiring respite.

Gloria in excelsis Deo!

Again, click here!  You will be inspired.

Awaiting the Joy of Man's Desiring

The Holy Easter Vigil is occurring now in the Eastern Hemisphere, as the good news that the tomb was unable to contain our Lord Jesus Christ is yet again repeated, as the Good News resounds around the globe yet again.

The risen Christ is indeed the Joy of man's desiring, as confessed and sung for centuries in the magnificent strains of Johann Sebastian Bach's Cantata Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben.

The Christian faith is nothing other than sanctified defiance: a defiant refusal to bow down to the gods of this world, be they Caesars or secularism; a defiant refusal to accept the finality of death; a defiant refusal to capitulate to hatred and evil; a defiant confession of the need for forgiveness; a defiant acceptance of the reality that we are rescued by grace alone; a defiant reliance upon Christ's Word and sacraments for life's ultimate meaning and joy; a defiant faith in the sure and certain hope of everlasting life - just as sure as He walked out of His own tomb.

So, we in the Western Hemisphere wait, but we know it is coming, and we cannot contain our expectant joy, even as we await His final return in glory.

Our Lord said (John 16:22): "So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you."

Our Christian brother J.S. Bach understood this joyful reality in his transcendent and ebullient confession that we continue to sing with him, with angels, archangels, and all the company of heaven, here in time, and even unto eternity!  Amen.

Jesu, joy of man's desiring,

Holy wisdom, love most bright;

Drawn by Thee, our souls aspiring

Soar to uncreated light.

Word of God, our flesh that fashioned,

With the fire of life impassioned,

Striving still to truth unknown,

Soaring, dying round Thy throne.

Through the way where hope is guiding,

Hark, what peaceful music rings;

Where the flock, in Thee confiding,

Drink of joy from deathless springs.

Theirs is beauty's fairest pleasure;

Theirs is wisdom's holiest treasure.

Thou dost ever lead Thine own

In the love of joys unknown.

Dear Parishioners...

"Dear Parishioners:

I have some good news for you.  An eccentric billionaire has given our congregation a large monetary gift, along with the following instructions: the first hundred people to show up for this Sunday's Divine Service will each leave with a check for a million dollars.  

I look forward to seeing you this Sunday.

Pastor"


Assuming that you are not travelling or working, and are physically healthy enough, what you do this Sunday morning is going to be determined by what you believe about this good news.  Indeed, it is an offer that sounds too good to be true.  There is reason to disbelieve this message.  There are several links along the chain that must individually be true for there to be reason to come to this church's services in expectation of receiving riches.  First, the "eccentric" must actually be a "billionaire" and not some random guy off the street who believes he's a tycoon.  He must not be a con-man.   Second, he must actually have the money to back up the claim.  Third, he must keep his promise.  Fourth, the pastor and congregation entrusted with this treasure must be able to carry out the charge given them by the eccentric billionaire.  Fifth, the hearer of this message must believe he is capable of receiving such a gift.

If any of the above cannot be believed, the story is indeed too good to be true, and the hearer will go about his business on Sunday morning, sleeping in, drinking coffee, golfing, hunting, fishing, reading, watching TV, or any number of other things that don't require faith in an extraordinary claim.  There is also the consideration that the message may actually be true over and against what logic and reason would favor.  For don't illogical and unreasonable things happen every day?  So even though one's confidence in the announcement may be weak, it may be there nonetheless.  Even a small amount of faith could incite one to take the risk and make one's way to the church building at the given time.  And in fact, one might make sure the entire family is there.  One might invite one's friends as well.

But of course, Christian churches aren't in the business of handing out money.  Churches are not involved in such trivial matters.

Instead of an eccentric billionaire instructing churches and pastors to confess and proclaim good news about free money, rather they are commanded by God Himself (Matt 28:19-20) to proclaim the good news of salvation through the death of Jesus, God Incarnate, on the cross: His blood atoning for the sins of the world, freely by grace (Eph 2:8-9).  The good news is the forgiveness of sin, the abolition of death itself, and the eternal participation in a restored paradise: a heaven and earth that will be devoid of sin, suffering, and death.  And we, the Church, present this good news every Sunday in the Divine Service.  We hand out the instrument of the blessed exchange, signed in blood, and drawn upon the infinite store of divine promise.  We preach the good news of Jesus in the assembly gathered in His name.  We participate in the Holy Supper of His true body and blood, which is received physically and in faith bearing the promise of the Word: "for the forgiveness of sins" (Matt 26:28).  We administer Holy Absolution according to the instructions (John 20:21-23) of the God of unlimited riches (Ps 24:1) whose ways seem eccentric in the eyes of the world (Isa 55:8-9).  We mark poor miserable sinners with the seal of water and the Spirit (John 3:5) in Holy Baptism, making them heirs of the kingdom (Gal 3:26-29).  And all of these gifts are offered to the entire world (John 3:16) - not limited to a hundred or even a billion people - although we have not, nor ever could, deserve it.

And how you respond to this good news is a measure of your faith.  God doesn't force anyone to believe or to accept His gifts.  You can refuse them.  Maybe you think they are too good to be true.  Maybe your treasure is elsewhere.  Maybe you don't believe yourself worthy.  It truly boils down to faith, to belief.

If you don't believe, then you will not come to the Divine Service.  You will make excuses.  You will find other things to do.  If you lack faith, then indeed, you will go about your business on Sunday morning, sleeping in, drinking coffee, golfing, hunting, fishing, reading, watching TV, or any number of other things that don't require faith in an extraordinary claim.

But if you actually believe that the Church's good news originates with the true God, that God has the resources to back up His promises, that God will keep His Word, that the preacher and parish are trustworthy and are accurately conveying the good news, and that this good news is offered collectively to the whole world through His only begotten Son, and in fact this offer is made and given "for you" (1 Cor 11:24), then you will show up to claim your treasure on Sunday, receiving gifts far more lavish than mere money.  And even a small amount of faith (Matt 17:20) could incite one to take the risk and make one's way to the open doors of the church building for the Divine Service. And in fact, one might make sure the entire family is there.  One might invite one's friends as well.

But what if one lacks faith, how does he receive it?

"How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?' So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom 10:15-17).


I look forward to seeing you this Sunday.

Pastor

Capitalism is the Only Divinely-Sanctioned Economic System

“You shall not steal.”

~ Ex 20:15

Methodist minister and blogger Morgan Guyton wrote an April 22, 2014 post in his blog Mercy Not Sacrifice called “Six Ways that Capitalism Fails the Church.”  He takes a common tack among modern Christian writers, from the pope to popular evangelicals of both the right and the left, that capitalism is bad for Christianity, if not inimical to our faith. 

He could not be more wrong.  In fact, capitalism is the only biblical economic system.

The seventh commandment is: “You shall not steal” (Ex 20:15).  This is the basis for capitalism.  Without the seventh commandment, there is no civilization, but only barbarism, the law of the jungle, and the ethical principle of “might makes right.”  By contrast, God’s Law recognizes private property as not only a nice thing, but a commandment to be obeyed.  Respect for private property lays down the capitalist economic system.  No other system respects the seventh commandment.

By divine revelation, private property is a given, and it follows that non-aggression against that private property is God’s Law.  And by definition, property can be freely used by the owner in whatever way he does not aggress against his neighbor.  As we would like to maintain our own property, so we should do unto others (Luke 6:31).  The seventh commandment is the basis of the rule of law at home and of treaties abroad, of respected borders and is manifested in Scripture by stone markers laying out property lines (e.g. Prov 22:28).  It is the foundation of trade, in which property-owners barter with one another, or use a common medium of exchange (money) to affect mutually-beneficial transactions.

This is capitalism.  Nothing more, nothing less.

But there are rules in capitalism.  “You shall not steal” precludes fraud.  For selling something under false pretenses is not only theft, it is also a breaking of the eighth commandment prohibiting “false witness” against one’s neighbor (Ex 20:16).  Compelling the buying or selling of something at bayonet point is a violation of the fifth commandment against murder (Ex  20:13), that is, aggression against one’s neighbor in his body.  Scripture is replete with trade and price negotiations (e.g. Gen 23:4-16).  In capitalism, a transaction only happens voluntarily when both buyer and seller reach a mutually acceptable deal.  Scripture is also laden with prohibitions against fraud in the marketplace (e.g. Prov 11:1, prohibiting rigged scales – a tool for unscrupulous merchants to cheat customers based on false weights and measures).

Capitalism, like every other form of economics, is a result of the Fall.  In the Garden of Eden, there was no scarcity.  All resources were available in abundance.  Some argue that land was scarce, as two people could not occupy the same ground at the same time, but I argue that the same could be said of the air we breathe.  And even though two people cannot share the same breath of air at the same time, this does not make air economically scarce, a commodity to be bought and sold or rationed by a state or a tribal leader.  In the Garden of Eden, there was no competition for scarce resources, including productive land, as all creation was declared by God to be “very good” (Gen 1:31).  All was perfect and in abundance. 

After the Fall, we see the economic problem emerge (Gen 3:17-19).  Adam is told that the ground is cursed, getting food was to be painful, thorns would interfere with his labor, and that he would work to make bread “by the sweat of [his] face,” that is, he would have to live by his labor mixed with the resources of the soil.  Here we see the classic economic transition from a “Robinson Crusoe” scenario to an economic community of people owning property, discovering the division of labor, and engaging in productive free trade so as to enrich everyone.

So in a nutshell, capitalism is simply living in a world of scarce resources by obeying the seventh commandment.

Articles like the Rev. Guyton’s piece perform a shell-game sleight-of-hand by properly criticizing human sin, dishonestly, and fraud, but falsely labeling those things “capitalism.”  But once again, capitalism is simply private property and its voluntary trade.  Capitalism is simply the seventh commandment in action.

In each of his six citations of “capitalism” and its “failures”, it isn’t capitalism that is failing, but rather sinful man.  For there are God-pleasing ways to use one’s property, and God does not compel, but rather entreats.  God loves us, but He also allows that love to be unrequited.  God is not a rapist.  Human beings are not robots.  God allows men to have property, and to make choices regarding that property.  The ethics of the decisions we make concerning our property are not an indictment against property itself any more than the fact that there is violence in the world is proof that the fifth commandment, the ethical assertion that life is sacred, has failed the church.  The problem is not God’s Word, the problem is us.  The problem is sin.

Moreover, if capitalism “fails the church,” this implies that a non-capitalist economic system might be a more attractive alternative.  This was Marx’s view.  He believed that private property and free trade is exploitive, and that by abolishing private property and free exchange, and by reconditioning mankind to no longer be motivated by profit, then a return to Edenic life was not only possible, but inevitable.  And as a transition to this Paradise Restored, Marx believed that a period of state socialism was necessary.  In socialism, the state takes property from the one who has, and redistributes it to the one who has not.

But the seventh commandment remains: “You shall not steal.”  The fact that the stealing is done by an elected or appointed henchman, the fact that violating the God-given paradigm of private property is being carried out officially for some pie-in-the-sky hope for something good down the road, not only doesn’t excuse it, but turns the state into a false god.  And this is exactly what we have seen in communist countries that accept this Marxist dogma of a restoration of Eden without Christ and the cross, seeing an alternative pathway to redemption instead by a hammer and sickle.  According to Marxist (communist and socialist) ideology, the problem is not sin, but capitalism.

Guyton repeats the error of Marx and recapitulates the communist and socialist critique of private property, which is itself a critique and repudiation of God’s Law.

Another economic alternative to capitalism is fascism, which is not the complete abnegation of private property, not state ownership of the means of production as in Marxism, but rather it is state control of these means.  It attempts to split the baby of private property between the owner and the state.  It tries to reap the vast human benefits of voluntary trade and the innovations and incentives provided by the price system and the profit motive, while holding onto state central economic planning and skimming the profits for the benefit of the state (and its “cronies,” hence the term “crony capitalism”), in wealth and power.

But this is just more of the same.  Under fascism, there is no real respect for the seventh commandment.

Modern western states function under a “mixed” economy – which is sometimes portrayed as capitalism (with “reasonable” state regulation), when in fact, it is actually more of a mix between socialism and fascism.  Some economic sectors are completely socialized, such as government roads, “public” schools, parks, military, police, judges, Social Security, welfare, etc.  Other sectors are private, but subject to government regulation and central economic planning, such as health care, insurance, transportation, utilities, etc.  Even one’s private home and income are subject to ever-increasing taxation and regulation as to how they can be used.  Very few parts of the economy are truly privatized.  Even labor is subject to federal and state regulation and multiple price controls.

Guyton acknowledges that in addressing the question, “Has capitalism failed?” one must define the term.  And while he does acknowledge that capitalism may well be defined as “the free market system itself,” he goes on to criticize the “worship of the market.”  And here is where he begins a series of self-contradictions, wrongly labeling what he calls “worship of the market” as “capitalism” and then knocking down this straw man that he has created.  He criticizes many things by calling them “capitalism” when they are not capitalism at all.

He writes: “It’s possible to navigate the free market system without worshiping the market.  The problem is that passive participants in the capitalist market do end up making it their god insofar as they allow the market to determine the value of the created objects in our world in place of God.”

But in no place in Scripture does God assign “the value of the created objects.”  Value is a subjective and temporal matter, not an objective and eternal matter.  Oranges cost more after a freeze because the supply is less than the demand.  Computers are more powerful and cheaper today because of innovation and changing technologies.  The costs of slide rules and oil lamps have changed radically because our world has changed radically.  Prices adjust organically to these changes.  To the ancient Israelites, yokes and swords and potter’s wheels were high-demand objects, whereas in our day, the vast majority of people will never own any of these things.  The same variation exists for labor.  The demand for blacksmiths and telegraph operators isn’t what it used to be.

So what determines something’s value – be it material or labor?  It’s a matter of supply and demand and how badly an individual wants something.  To a coffee drinker, it may be entirely reasonable to pay $4.95 for a latte, but he might not be willing to pay ten cents for a cup of tea.  Others would not be willing to pay a penny for a cup of coffee, because they don’t drink it.  A coffee shop owner takes all of this into account, and sets a price that will enable him to stay in business and hopefully prosper, and at the same time, he serves his neighbor by providing beverages for customers who voluntarily make purchases.  If his product or service is not worth the price, he will adjust his prices accordingly, or may go out of business.  Competing businesses provide feedback, and incentivize the shop owners to work hard to please their customers based on value and desire to do business.  And customers can opt to buy coffee or tea, or may opt to save their money for something else.

None of this is evil.  None of this “fails the church.”  This is the biblical and civilized way for human beings to live together peacefully in society.  Anything else is aggression.  A bank robber enriches himself by fear and intimidation.  A government-granted monopoly has no concern for pleasing customers.  A fascist system sets the price of coffee regardless of what is best for buyer and seller – and being necessarily authoritarian and bureaucratic, is also unable to flex efficiently between shifts in supply and demand (e.g. a fad for drinking tea instead of coffee, a freeze in the areas where coffee is grown, a sudden glut in dairy products, rising costs of heating and air conditioning, etc.).  It is doomed to fail even under the best of intentions with the brightest minds calling the shots.

The six “failures” cited by Guyton have nothing to do with capitalism.

His first critique is: “Capitalism fails the church when discipleship becomes an industrial complex.”  He cites “a monster Christian publishing industry” that “desperately needs to sell its books and videos in order to grow.”  He cites a shift in Christian culture from true discipleship to a desire for “results” and an emphasis on “stewardship campaigns.” 

But this has nothing to do with capitalism.  The problem is not the freedom to trade.  The problem is not that the state doesn’t own the means of production.  The problem is not that there isn’t enough government regulation or central planning.  He is actually complaining about the way people use their God-given freedom.  The problem is not the God-given freedom (which manifests itself economically by the free market), but rather with human sin.

If people believe the Holy Spirit isn’t “good enough,” this is a sin problem, not an economics problem.  If people don’t understand discipleship in a capitalist-leaning economy, the problem would not be fixed by changing to a communist economy.

In fact, godly stewardship presumes capitalism.  It depends on “cheerful” givers (2 Cor 9:7) voluntarily sharing their time, talent, and treasure with the church and in giving alms (Matt 6:2).  In a non-capitalist system, there isn’t the freedom to support a church or a chosen charity – and it may even be considered “criminal” to do so.  Such matters are planned by the state and overseen by bureaucrats for the supposed common good, precisely to avoid “misuses” of freedom and resources of the type complained about by the Rev. Guyton.  In a non-capitalist system, Christian book publishers are simply shut down.  I don’t think this is a good alternative, and I don’t believe this would fix the discipleship issue complained about by the author. 

In fact, some have tried to argue that Christianity and Marxism are compatible, that the “social gospel” is a way to gainsay capitalism while looking after the poor as we are commissioned to do by our Lord.  Some critics of capitalism point to the sharing of resources in the early church (Acts 4:32) and even Marx’s maxim: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is biblical (Acts 4:34).  The crucial difference is that Christian sharing with each other and with the poor is voluntary.  There is no state mechanism to compel “gifts” to the poor.  They are freely given.  And as is the case with Adam and Eve, freedom can be used properly or improperly.  And yet, God does not remove their freedom.  They must live with the consequence of their choices, but God never removes their ability and free will to disobey Him.  All attempts to create Utopia at the point of a gun have ended in abysmal failure, in gluts and shortages and poverty and concentration camps for dissidents.

Guyton’s critique of capitalism implies that Christians ought not support economic freedom and should examine the alternatives.  The twentieth century is a hard lesson and a bitter warning as to where such restrictions against freedom lead.

His second thesis is: “Capitalism fails the church when consumerism becomes a moralistic obligation.”

He decries people using their money not to support the kingdom of God (seen as grudgingly throwing “a bunch of money at God”) but instead spending the money on sports, entertainment, education, etc. “as part of a middle-class existence that is defined by a guilt-ridden moralistic consumerism” such as buying food that doesn’t have high fructose corn syrup or certain kinds of milk that might be healthier.

I agree that younger generations of people have a greatly reduced sense of stewardship and responsibility for their church and for taking care of the less fortunate.  But again, the problem isn’t capitalism – the freedom to make choices.  The problem is making choices based on a reduced priority of God in our lives (the first commandment, “you shall have no other gods” Ex 20:3).  The problem is not the economic system, but sin.  The problem isn’t the market, but idolatry.  This cannot be fixed by taking away economic freedom and having state compulsion any more than Marx’s Utopia can come about through forced redistribution of wealth.  The problem of a godless society can’t be fixed by godless communism.  The problem of a lack of respect for God’s Law can’t be fixed by we ourselves dishonoring the seventh commandment.  The solution is not in the abolition of capitalism, but in repentance.  Our freedom to make decisions is not to blame for our sin any more than the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was to blame for Adam and Eve’s sin.

His third critique is: “Capitalism fails the church when churches with bling build their membership on transfer growth from churches without bling.”

I agree that the “sheep-stealing” – especially by wealthy mega-churches with all the bells and whistles – over and against modest or even poor churches where God’s Word is proclaimed in truth and purity – is a great and vexing problem.  But again, the problem is not the money, but the love of money (1 Tim 6:10).  The problem is not in the freedom to attend any church, but in the human sin of selecting a church based on the color of its screens and cup-holders rather than on the content of its doctrine and practice.  In economies that lean more in the direction of capitalism, there is more relative freedom of religion and freedom to worship.  In societies with less economic freedom, there is more state restriction on churches and on the freedom of individuals to worship as they please.

If people are taken in by “bling” and by entertainment style (self-)worship, by phony faith healing and false teachings about “name it and claim it” theology, if people are allured by false prophets (Matt 7:15) and by what their own itching ears long for (2 Tim 4:3), the problem is not economic freedom, but faithlessness.  And heresy can and does happen in any economic system.  When Esau sold his birthright (Gen 25:29-34), the problem wasn’t that God allowed him to do it through private property and economic freedom, the problem is that he did it because he was faithless and foolish in that he “despised his birthright” (v. 34).  Esau’s sin was the problem, not the mechanism of the free market.

Fourth, the author writes: “Capitalism fails the church when people who don’t tithe say the church should take care of the poor.”

Here the author criticizes those who believe the role of government should diminish, and he implies that government should, in fact, be in the business of helping the poor.  He suggests that churches “could take some of the load off of the government’s hands.”

Here he has the problem entirely in reverse.  Before the Progressive Era, before the Federal Reserve Act (1913), before the alphabet soup agencies of the federal government created in the twentieth century, private agencies – including churches – founded hospitals, universities, orphanages, relief societies, and myriads of institutions to care for the poor and needy.  Today, the average American is taxed at the rate of more than 50% of his wealth in income taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, etc. at every level of government.  We live in a non-capitalistic system of mandatory Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and ObamaCare.  There are differing opinions about the value and efficiency of these institutions, but what we have today is certainly not free-market capitalism.  The average churchgoer is not in a financial position to tithe a full ten percent, and most churches can barely pay their bills and clergy salaries – let alone run soup kitchens and start schools as used to be the norm.

The problem is not the capitalist paradigm, but the non-capitalist paradigm.  All charitable giving suffers when taxes rise, when government assumes an increasingly greater role in taking care of the poor.  And unlike churches and private charity, government gets its money through force. 

Here, Guyton has it entirely backward: Socialism and fascism have failed the church, failed society, failed the poor, and has crushed the ability of churches to care for the poor to virtually nil. 

Fifth, he writes: “Capitalism fails the church when ‘helping’ becomes a consumer product.”

He criticizes church-based charities that are subject to market forces, such as their stance on homosexuality.  But this is the nature of freedom.  If I start a charitable organization and I announce that I am in favor of practices explicitly condemned in Scripture, I can’t compel Christians to take part in it.  By contrast, government can, and does.  For instance, the federal government now compels Christians to pay for birth control and abortion contrary to their consciences.   While a specific agency that sponsors needy children may lose money by adopting one stance or the other regarding homosexuality, the free market ensures that any vacuum that happens as a result will be filled.  This is the flexible and adaptive nature of the market.  Entrepreneurs, motivated by the profit motive, find niche markets and ways to be more efficient and to please their customers and clients.  In the case of non-profit organizations, the “profit” is not monetary, but is what is termed by economists as “psychic capital.” 

For example, as a pastor, I am motivated to bring the Good News of Jesus Christ to the people in my parish and to evangelize those outside of my parish.  I economize my time and resources so as to seek “profit” – not monetary, but spiritual.  In other words, if the kingdom of God will “profit” more by my spending time writing or visiting shut-ins, over and against spending the church’s money on signs or in spending my time doing door-to-door “cold calls” to try to teach people the faith, it stands to reason that I will invest my time and money accordingly in a way that increases the “profit” that I’m seeking.  This is economics 101. 

The solution is to let people make choices according to the rewards they will reap for the kingdom.  Charities will have to decide what is more important, having a stand one way or the other on homosexuality or global warming or endorsing a particular political party or controversial doctrinal stance – and they will have to live with the results.  The best way for an organization to serve the church and to serve man is to be in harmony with God’s Word and to leave the trendy political stuff to others.  Again, the problem is not with freedom of choice, but the reality is that some choices are not as wise as other choices.  The solution isn’t to take away choice.

Finally, the Rev. Guyton argues: “Capitalism fails the church when God is defined as a banker instead of a shepherd.”

Here, the author criticizes the idea of sin as “debt” – although this is precisely how our Lord describes it in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:12) and elsewhere (e.g. Matt 18:21-35).  Our Lord uses capitalistic illustrations in His parables explaining the kingdom of God, such as in the parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30) and the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matt 20:1-16).  Such teachings are not opposed to the “shepherd” imagery of our Lord, as the author claims.

I think his point would be better made by recounting what actually happened in the church, when grace became seen as a scarce product that could be earned, bought, sold, and brokered by church bureaucrats as a commodity.  This manifested itself in the medieval sale of indulgences and the treating of salvation as a physical good to be obtained by labor and/or purchase.  This failure was not because of capitalism, but because Christians lost their rightful monergistic understanding of grace.

Grace is not a substance, like gold or silver.  Grace is not scarce.  Economically, it is like the air we breathe.  It is not for sale.  It is limitless and boundless.  It is not a commodity, but rather the disposition of our Lord toward us in forgiving our sins and restoring us to life through faith and delivered to us in Word and Sacrament – in a true Paradise Restored, without money and without price (Rev 22:17).  And He does this by virtue of a transaction, the ransom payment of the debt of our sins on the cross by our Benefactor, Jesus Christ, “not with… silver or gold” (1 Pet 1:18) but “with His holy, precious blood and with His innocent suffering and death” as confessed in Luther’s Small Catechism.

I think Guyton’s criticisms are not only misguided, but harmful.  If people buy into the myth that capitalism is not in harmony with Scripture, or to take it further, that capitalism fails the church, this may encourage more people to view aggression as a godly way for the church to exist in the world through embracing unbiblical economic systems, like socialism and fascism, that have proven themselves antithetical to the Lord Jesus Christ and His kingdom, the church.

Capitalism has not failed the church, sin has.  And the Rev. Guyton’s “cure” is more of the disease itself.  The only godly and biblical economic system, benefiting Christians and non-Christians alike, is capitalism. 

“You shall not steal.”