Sermon: St. Cyril of Alexandria - 2021

27 June 2021

Text: Luke 12:8-12 (2 Sam 7:17-29, Eph 6:10-17)

In the name of + Jesus.  Amen.

You can often tell a lot about a man by his enemies.  And St. Cyril had a few. 

He lived at a time of great controversy in the church – in the fifth century.  Cyril defended the belief that Jesus is God in the flesh, that when He walked the streets of Jerusalem, God was walking the streets of Jerusalem.  Cyril was very vocal about his belief that Jesus is both God and man – something that we take for granted today.

But in Cyril’s day, the powerful Patriarch of Constantinople was named Nestorius.  And Bishop Nestorius taught some strange ideas about Jesus.  He taught that Jesus essentially had a split personality: one human and one divine.  Nestorius had a lot of followers and was causing a lot of division in the church.  Even the Roman Emperor sided with Nestorius, and called Cyril, the Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, a “monster.”

So Cyril had some very powerful enemies. 

But the bottom line is that Cyril was unafraid.  He did not back down.  He confessed Christ heroically, and he took up his pen and he wrote.  Cyril eventually became known as a “doctor of the church,” and Nestorius was eventually condemned as a heretic.

Some people might look at this history and say, “Who cares?”  Why does this matter?”  Well, dear friends, it matters because if Jesus is not completely God and completely man, then He could not have lived a perfect life, He could not have given His divine righteousness to us, He could not have truly died on the cross as the atoning sacrifice for our sins.  Poor Nestorius did not see our Lord as the Savior who rescues us by grace, but rather as a mere example to follow.

And yes, Jesus is our example.  Yes, we are to strive to be Christ-like.  But what happens when we fall short as we inevitably do?  Nestorius could not preach the Gospel like Cyril.  For Cyril understood that Jesus is the eternal God, and His divinity has the power to save us.

Yes, it really matters who Jesus is.

He is a man, who was capable of dying (to be our sacrifice), and He is God, who is perfect, who has the power to save us (to be our Lord).  And this mystery is what makes Christianity different than any religion in the world, and Jesus different than any great teacher.  For because He is who He is, He is a God who has a mother; He is a God who dies; He is a man who is perfect; He is a man who rises from death.  He is God and He is man, but one God-Man who not only created the world, but took on flesh in the world.  This is the Christ of the Scriptures, the Christ that St. Cyril not only taught and preached and wrote about, but the Christ in whom Cyril placed His trust for salvation!

St. Cyril was unafraid to confess the truth, even to great power – because he was familiar with what Jesus taught us yet again in our Gospel: “Everyone who acknowledges Me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God, but the one who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.”

St. Cyril confessed Christ, the Son of Man, and would not deny Him – not out of fear, not because of logic and reason, and not because his life would have been a lot easier to just go along to get along.  St. Cyril took his stand, and stood his ground – holding firm to the Holy Scriptures.  And it didn’t matter who was on the other side, not even the most powerful bishop Nestorius, not the emperor himself.  Nothing moved the good doctor and bishop from his steadfast confession of Jesus.

For he knew well the words of our Lord: “And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious about how you should defend yourself or what you should say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.”

St. Cyril confessed our God, the only true God, the Holy Trinity, confessing like King David, “For there is none like You, and there is no God bedsides You.”  And Cyril took up “the whole armor of God,” knowing that he would have to fight both the leaders of the church and the leaders of the state. 

St. Cyril is an example to us today, dear friends.  For today, confessing Jesus might get you in trouble with some powerful people: government officials, bosses, and in some heretical churches, confessing rightly about Jesus will get you thrown out.  But don’t worry about what you will say when the time comes, dear friends.  Get to know Jesus – the real Jesus, the Jesus of the Scriptures, the Jesus that was confessed and taught by St. Cyril and by all of the faithful saints and doctors of the church across the span of history. 

And though it might well be the path of least resistance to confess a false Christ, one who never confronts sin, one who is not considered to be God in the flesh, a Jesus who is acceptable to Muslims and Jews and Atheists, a false Christ confessed by  Marxist university professors and haughty pro-abortion politicians who now dare pastors not to commune them, a Jesus that contradicts the Father, a Christ who promotes niceness above all things.  But this is not the true Christ.  This is not the Christ of the Bible, the Savior of the world, the Lord of the Church, the Jesus of actual history.

Let us be bold and steadfast in our confession of the true Christ, come what may, whether people believe us or not, whether those in power threaten us or not.  For at the end of the day, the one thing in this life that matters more than anything is your confession of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

And indeed, making the good confession will gain you more than a few enemies, but it will also gain you eternity for the sake of Him who is both God and man – even Jesus Christ our Lord.

Amen.

In the name of the Father and of the + Son and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.

DEI and Sports

A Girls' College Basketball Team

One of the interesting things about hitting the treadmill in the gym is the bank of televisions with closed captioning.  Since I don't watch the boob tube, I'm not only exercising the body, but getting a glimpse into the alien world of the popular culture.  Sometimes the juxtapositions are telling.

On one channel was an international soccer game between Belgium and Finland.  Another channel had a talk show that was addressing the controversy about biological men competing in women's sports - in this case, a male powerlifter who is being permitted into competition in the women's division in the Olympic games.

The token black lady on the panel was yammering on and on about the buzzwords "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion."  For the reader of the future - perhaps landing here by means of a Google search - this is a fad of our present day based on the concept known as Critical Theory - which is basically the denigration of one intersection of demographic traits for the supposed benefit of others.  The au courant acceptable hatred in this, the Year of our Lord 2021, pertains to racially being white, sexually being heterosexual and not inventing a pretend sexual identity for oneself (in other words, just being a normal man, woman, boy, or girl), politically conservative, and religiously Christian.  One is also considered to be akin to the lepers in biblical times if one is not handicapped physically or mentally.  

If one has all of these markers, it is socially and legally acceptable to treat such persons as the Untouchables in the caste system in India.  And the fewer of these characteristics one has, the greater the worth of that individual.  If you read about "apartheid" in 20th century South Africa, it's a similar concept, only with the "bottom rail on top" as the old saying goes.

DEI is a godsend for people who cannot compete in a meritocracy, and who have bleak job prospects.  For getting a cushy job in a big corporation is a piece of cake if one were to be, say, a lesbian black woman in a wheelchair who identifies as two-spirit non-binary Islamo-Buddhist, whose coffee is soy latte, skim milk, light foam, extra shot, and a dusting of cinnamon, and whose pronouns are zig and zag.  It doesn't matter is zig never showed up for class or passed a test, whether zig can read or add two plus two, or has a work ethic.  In fact, it's to one's advantage in many cases not to.

Yes, this insanity was a part of our times, and it may well explain the collapse of our great civilization and why you are today speaking Mandarin and translating this from ancient English.

The juxtaposition with this DEI to sports was interesting.  

Let's take them in order.

Diversity

Celebrating diversity: the first all-black NBA team in 1979

"Diversity" refers to the distribution of racial/ethnic/sexual characteristics.  It does not refer to what you might think the word means, such as having a diverse range of opinions or thoughts.  In fact, it's really the opposite.  The most "diverse" group of people according to DEI orthodoxy will be 100% Leftist in their politics, and will think in lockstep about such things as DEI itself.  The normal sense of the word is also distorted.  For in a population sample where 13% of the people are, say, black - only 13% representation in a smaller sample is not considered diversity.  In other words, if 80% of a sports team were to be black, this would not be considered a distortion, nor would the lack of, say, white players be considered a lack of diversity.  To the contrary, this is actual "diversity" according to the new definition of the word.

The Finnish football team on the tellie had very few - if any - "diversities" playing in this game.  And that is understandable.  Finland is a Nordic country that is overwhelmingly white.  Finland (unlike their opponents: Belgium) had no colonies, no presence in Africa, and not a great deal of immigration until recently.  One could imagine the diversity on the field had the Finns been playing, say, Ethiopia.  

Here is a picture of the current Ethiopian national football team:

Diversity rating: A+

It's not much of a surprise.  According to the classical understanding of diversity, this is not a very diverse team.  And for all of the repetitions of the mantra "diversity is our strength," the lack of whites, Asians, Latinos, American Indians, Aleutian Islanders, or Esperanto speakers from Nepal seems not to impede their ability to be successful on the soccer field.

And of course, this is why Ethiopia must be praised for its "diversity" in the Newspeak sense of the word, while Finland must assuredly be "problematic."

And here is a picture of the Finnish team:

Diversity rating: D- (passing grade thanks to virtue-signaling)

So when it comes to sports, Olympics, international, or even in the NFL and NBA, the idea of diversity is a joke - as it should be.  I live in New Orleans, and plenty of black guys wear Drew Brees jerseys.  Maybe some radicals would call them Avuncular Thomases for doing so, but the average sports fan isn't interested in quotas and affirmative action on the field.  Rather, they want to win games and championships.  In other words, sports fans of all ethnic and sexual configurations really overwhelmingly desire meritocracy over and against racial, ethnic, or sexual considerations.

On a side note, international football is perhaps the last bastion of nationalism.  One can only surmise that there are plans afoot to rearrange the teams into non-national teams to get rid of the flag-waving and patriotism - one of the last impediments to our lords' and masters' dream of a Great Reset.  The future reader will know whether this happened or not.  I don't see how it can be avoided.  But then again, perhaps by that time, the evil and disturbing Klaus Schwab's brain in a vat will be the human owner of a professional team of robots - and maybe that will be the sports of the future.

Equity

The concept of equity sounds nice.  It sounds like "equality."  But it means something different.  Equality means everyone has the same opportunity.  No-one is penalized for his race, station in life, or any other immutable characteristic.  Equality is a meritocracy.  There are no second-class citizens, and no caste system.

Equity is the opposite.

Equity penalizes some people and redistributes advantages, real or perceived, (and perhaps even directly as money) to others based on the above-mentioned hierarchy of values. 

This redistribution can be based on historical reality.  For example, a person from Tunisia may well point to his ancestors in Carthage who were defeated by Roman imperial legions in the Punic Wars in 146 BC, and so the descendants of the conquering Romans are on the hook.  Thus the 21st century Italian government should indeed tax its citizens and wire the proceeds to Tunisia, where hopefully one will see modern-day Carthaginians driving Lexuses, and modern-day Italians posing for pictures with signs of apology and saying "no" to racism.  

Or it may be based on fads.  In other words, if a famous Hollywood actor reveals that he identifies as a hen and has a sexual fetish regarding eating corn kernels off the floor, this new lifestyle may be named (Poultryamory?) and picked up by young people, incorporating a new color on the LGBT flag, securing a place in the Pride parade, and receiving a new sense of entitlement.  Perhaps the national soccer team should have a minimum of two players who pretend to lay eggs whenever their team scores a goal.  Universities should provide special "coops" for such people.  This would be an example of equity.

It may also be based on fantasy.  Perhaps a young woman became enamored with a comic book about a race of aliens on another planet.  These creatures have three heads and are asexual.  And so this is how our sci-fi fan identifies.  And in the story, earthlings came to her planet and wiped it out.  Therefore, equity demands redistributive justice for our asexual three-headed identifyee.  Maybe she should get a check every week for life to help overcome her oppression.  This would be an example of equity.

As far as sports goes, as it stands now, there is no equity.  What we see instead is meritocracy.  Usain Bolt is not required to start the race a half-mile behind everyone else.  LeBron James doesn't have to wear a ball-and-chain on the basketball field.  The NFL Super Bowl Champions are not required to spot opposing teams a touchdown or play with two less players during the next season.  World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen isn't required to give up a pawn to his opponents in competitions.  Things don't currently work like that, though perhaps they will by 2081. In fact, nobody would want to see it.  Sports fans love that Usain Bolt and LeBron James and Magnus Carlsen can do things that nobody else can.

There is a meritocracy and a hierarchy in sports - both of which are anathema to the idea of equity (which seeks not equality at the starting line, but rather at the finish line).  Fans want to see their hero on the highest platform brandishing a gold medal.  Equity would rather that all players receive a participation trophy and there should be no champions.  Or at very least, if there are champions, they should get there by means of various handicaps and imposed advantages, changes to the rules, and other manipulations.  But again, fans would probably not want to watch such a thing.

Inclusion

Inclusion is the opposite of exclusion.  And this is clearly at odds with sports.  The motto of the Olympics is Citius, Altius, Fortius (Faster, Higher, Stronger).  This is by definition exclusive, not inclusive.  It is elitist.  The whole world will not watch breathlessly as a bunch of guys my age chuck javelins.  They want to see competitors in the prime of life, the elite of the elite, strive to set a new world record.  And yes, there are the Senior Olympics, Special Olympics, and the Paralympics as specialty niches for fans who enjoy such competition.  And yet, even there, participants strive to win medals and to perform to the best of their abilities.  There is still competition - even if the competition is against oneself.  

Different divisions for weight and sex and level of competition in sports are by definition exclusive.  A heavyweight may not compete in the lightweight division.  He is excluded for the sake of fair competition - regardless of how he "identifies."  Because a freshman football team lacks the physical size and experience of the varsity team, unless a freshman player is able to compete at the higher level, he will hone his skills with other freshman - excluding upperclassmen from the team.  And until recently, women have enjoyed competition against other women, as their lack of testosterone, their disadvantage in upper body strength vs. men, and even their skeletal structure puts them at a dramatic disadvantage were they forced to compete with biological males.  Real life isn't like comic books or Marvel movies.  No amount of Girl Power posters in grade school can prevent the vaunted American women's national soccer team from being soundly defeated by a team comprised of fourteen-year old boys who towered over them, or the Australian women's team being shut-out 7-0 by a team of fifteen-year old boys who weren't even of championship caliber, or a world class champion female fighter having her skull broken by a crushing blow from a man in the ring in a "fight" lasting two minutes.

And this last plank of DEI is the camel's nose in the tent of the sports meritocracy.  It is at the present time a raging controversy, as high school girls are presently being denied scholarships and opportunity in the name of "inclusion" as boys are being permitted to compete against them in high school sports events.  In professional and Olympic competition, there is the potential of seeing women virtually eliminated from competition - and to many advocates of DEI, this is an acceptable price to pay for their vision of a more "just and sustainable world."

A Brave New World

So female competitors will just have to sacrifice their own opportunities and abilities to compete, and fans of women's sports are just going to have to get used to seeing muscular men dominate these events in the name of inclusion.  In time, we can expect champions to be handicapped and the lower-performing to receive affirmative action to boost their representation in the world of sports in the name of equity.  We will also see new variations on the "paper-bag test" to assure even fewer white athletes than there are already in high level sports - and probably a busting up of international leagues to prevent even a small minority of nations being represented that are insufficiently melanized (not to mention to get rid of that nasty "nationalism') - all in the name of diversity.

Sports fans are just going to have to accept the changes, give up on their meritocracy, and perhaps even some day be content to watch professionals and Olympians play "just for fun" without keeping score, as fans all wave the same flag in inclusivity and social justice instead of the diversity of banners of their own nations in pursuit of being the best.

Again, time will tell how far the insanity will go, and when - if ever - the pendulum works its way back to normalcy and the true meaning of sports, without regard to racial quotas, unconcerned with the guaranteed equality of results, and once more admiring the best of the best in fair and free meritocracy of competition.

Sermon: Trinity 3 - 2021

20 June 2021

Text: Luke 15:1-10 (Mic 7:18-20, 1 Pet 5:6-11)

In the name of + Jesus.  Amen.

Our Gospel consists of two parables of our Lord that are actually part of a three-part series with the theme of being lost and found.  The first parable is the Lost Sheep.  The second is the Lost Coin.  And the third – which is not part of our reading, is the Lost Son, which we know by its more common title, the Prodigal Son. 

And the Lord gave these remarkable teachings in response to a, what else, a grumbling Pharisee.  This man was offended by Jesus because He “receives sinners and eats with them.”  This was a scandal, for to eat with such people as “tax collectors and sinners” was just not done – especially by a rabbi.

And it sounds like there may have been a little jealousy as well, as the Pharisee observed a group of such outcasts “drawing near to hear Jesus.”

The two stories in our reading are essentially the same story just using different things to make the point.

In the first story, Jesus speaks about a shepherd.  He has a hundred sheep.  But, as sheep tend to do, one of them wanders from the flock.  So what does a shepherd do in such a situation?  He certainly doesn’t just write off the lost sheep and leave it to the wolves.  No, he goes out looking for the lost one.  The shepherd herds the ninety-nine into a group, and he actually leaves them to seek and save the lost one.

It’s not that he doesn’t also feel a responsibility to the ninety-nine, but the one that is really in danger is the one that is isolated.  And so the shepherd goes out searching.  It is a race against time, for a lost sheep is prey to a predator.  He has to hunt while it is still daytime.

And when the shepherd has located the errant sheep, “he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing.”  The shepherd rejoices because the sheep could well have been lost forever, or he might have been eaten.  But no, in this case, he has found his lost sheep, and “comes home” with it.  The shepherd is overjoyed, as this was the best possible outcome – to save the lost one.

And so the shepherd doesn’t grumble about the extra work.  He doesn’t complain to his friends about it.  He doesn’t punish the sheep.  Instead, he is happy.  And in fact, he “calls together his friends” and says, “Rejoice with me.”

And Jesus then says that this natural rejoicing over a lost sheep is like the “joy in heaven over one sinner who repents” – even more joy than “over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.”

And in case the grumbling Pharisee missed the meaning of the story, in case he didn’t figure out that our Lord is criticizing him for grumbling instead of rejoicing, Jesus sets up a similar scenario.  This time, the parable is not about a lost sheep, but a lost coin.

So a lady has ten silver coins.  Somehow, she loses one.  And again, no normal person is going to just shrug and accept that the coin is missing for some reason.  We don’t like things to be lost, especially our money.  That coin represents her labor, and it is the means by which she will eat and buy needed supplies.  So what does she do?  She lights a lamp and sweeps the house.  She looks under the bed, in the cracks of the floor, under the table – anywhere that her coin might possibly be. 

And after seeking diligently for her lost coin, she finds it!  And like the shepherd, her attitude is not one of grumbling.  She doesn’t grouse that she had to sweep the floor and waste oil in the lamp.  She doesn’t complain about the lost time.  No indeed!  She “calls together her friends” and says, “Rejoice with me.”

And once again, our Lord reiterates that “there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

For when something is lost, it means that it is not where it should be.  There has been a deviation from the plan.  There is chaos where there should be order.  Lost items can cause a chain reaction of bad events, like dominos tipping one another over.  Lost keys could mean sleeping outside, being too tired to perform well on a job interview, and missing out on an opportunity.  A lost check can result in not having money to buy food, resulting in the humiliation of begging, and perhaps scandalizing one’s family when word gets out.  Losing a precious item entrusted to a person by a friend could result in a destroyed relationship that may never be healed.

Spiritually, being lost means to be outside of God’s divine protection – like a sheep that has wandered away from the safety of the flock of the church to be isolated and hunted by the devil, who “prowls around like a roaring lion.”  Being lost spiritually is to take oneself outside of God’s grace, for He is “pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression.”  But putting oneself outside of His mercy is to be lost, and in need of a shepherd to come and bring you back to the flock.

For God has a will and a plan for everyone and everything.  His plan is perfect, and nobody and nothing is lost according to His merciful will.  But in our sinfulness, we wander like a sheep going astray, falling into the danger of being prey, or in danger like a coin that slips through the cracks of the floor and is never recovered – thus being useless to the owner.

God’s merciful and loving plan even includes knowing the number and placement of each hair of your head, and looking out for the welfare of even every sparrow and every flower, every molecule and every atom.  And it is only our foolishness and sin that separates us from the glorious sense of belonging and fulfilling what it is that God calls us to do.

When we rebel, when we are like the greedy tax collectors, like the sinners that everyone in the community knows, and yes, when we are like the grumbling Pharisee who is self-righteous – we are lost.  And we cannot “find ourselves” – no matter how many self-help gurus tell us to do just that. 

We can’t rescue ourselves any more than a little lamb, who is far away from his shepherd and flock, can save himself.  We can’t help ourselves any more than a silver coin wedged in the crack of the floor can leap into its owner’s purse.

We need a shepherd willing to leave the ninety-nine, a Savior willing to risk offending the Pharisees, who will come and rescue us.  We need a Savior who is willing to sweep the floor and shine light on us until we turn up out of the dirt and darkness. 

And what happens, dear friends, when we are lost, but we are found?  When we fall into sin, but when we repent?  When we have wandered away, but our Savior throws us over His shoulders and carries us back to where we belong?

There is rejoicing – even in the heavens.  And so should we also rejoice – even when someone we cannot stand repents, even when someone that we think has no business in the church repents and is kneeling next to us receiving the body and the blood.  We should never think that we deserve more than anyone else, nor should we begrudge our work in the church, whatever that work is, for it is all centered on the reality of forgiveness of sins and the rejoicing that all creation joins in over “one sinner who repents.”

And most of all, we should repent, and we should rejoice when we go from being lost to found.  We should take comfort in being where God wants us to be, when we experience His love and care that is even greater than that shown to flowers and birds.  For Jesus has searched for you, has found you, and has brought you home.  So let us rejoice!  For we were lost, but now are found.

Amen.

In the name of the Father and of the + Son and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.

The US Doesn't Interfere in Elections 😂

Video that Facebook would probably not allow to be posted directly. 

In related news, Glenn Greenwald writes:

"CNN has more FBI agents and federal prosecutors working for it than anyone outside of the J. Edgar Hoover FBI headquarters in Washington."

The Dangerous Language

I just read a two-volume work on the history of the Esperanto language in the 20th century: A Dangerous Language by Ulrich Lins.  It is in English translation from the original Esperanto.  The work, published in English in separate volumes Under Hitler and Stalin and the Decline of Stalinism is so scholarly and thorough that it reads like a well-written doctoral dissertation.

The two hardcover volumes sell for about $100.  I would never spring that kind of money for such a work, but it was in a catalog of books for which I had a credit for writing a peer review.  It was the only book that looked interesting to me at all.

And it was quite a ride!

The book isn't so much about the Esperanto language as it is about the reaction of the Nazis and Communists to its existence and use by people under their jurisdictions.  It is a window into the mind of the Socialist - whether National Socialists like Hitler and other Fascists, or International Socialists like Stalin and other Communists.  While the Fascists and Communists are often pitted against one another as though they are ideologically opposite, they are really both authoritarian systems that oppose personal and economic liberty.  Both are variants of Marxist Socialism that operate by economic central planning.  And given that Economics is really just the science of human action, to centrally plan "the economy" is really nothing more than planning the lives of people.  

And given that the nature of the human being is to be free and to act on his own personal values, tastes, aspirations, and goals, for a bureaucratic authority to take charge of these most intimate choices of individuals requires a draconian state and a society run by fear.

And this is exactly what happened to the speakers of Esperanto under both of these regimes.

Esperanto is a constructed or planned language.  It was intended to be a second or auxiliary language for everyone, thus eliminating the need for translators between every possible pair of languages.  It was designed from the ground up to be simple (there are only 16 grammatical rules), easily mastered (about a hundred hours of study is needed to become relatively fluent) consistent (there are no exceptions to the rules, and words are pronounced just as they are written), and neutral (it is not a world language based on conquest or colonial rule, but can be spoken by all as equals).  

The author of the language, L.L. Zamenhof, was a Jewish idealist living in a multilingual city in what is today part of Poland.  He went from being a Zionist to denouncing Zionism in favor of a form of universal humanism.  Zamenhof believed in a universal brotherhood of mankind, and even championed a universal religion.  Lins's thoroughly documented narrative regarding Zamenhof's life included details that I had not seen elsewhere regarding his political and spiritual journey.  Of course, though his asperations may have been noble, his thinking was deeply flawed.

Zamenhof invented the language in 1877, translated many great works into Esperanto - including the Old Testament - and he renounced all ownership and control, releasing Esperanto into what is essentially "open source" - allowing the language to grow and evolve while staying true to its rules and basic vocabulary.

As the political situation roiled Europe, a divide broke out between Esperantists: those who believed in political neutrality and the use of the language for practical reasons, vs. those with a Utopian, often Socialist idealism that could not separate the language from Zamenhof's almost cultish vision of humanism and world peace.

This divide often took shape in the form of competing Esperanto associations, even within the same country: the "neutralists" and the "workers" groups.

Lins covers the history of Esperanto's meteoric rise in the early 20th century, and the devastation caused to the language by World War I.  He also covers the interesting period between the two world wars, including in Germany's Weimar Republic, living under the punitive realities of the Treaty of Versailles.  

As Fascism grew in Europe, especially in Germany, Communism continued to take its shape in the newly-founded USSR.  Both the Nazis and the Commies initially saw Esperanto as a tool for spreading ideological propaganda around the world.  And both quickly spoiled on it.  Hitler mentions Esperanto in Mein Kampf, disparaging it as tool for Jewish world domination.  Esperanto was persecuted in Germany and in all of the German-occupied areas.  All three of Zamenhof's children were executed in 1942 in Treblinka.

While Esperantists in the USSR were likewise initially hopeful (the word "Esperanto" means "one who hopes"), the Soviets quickly soured on them as well.  The chapter on Esperanto and Stalin's Great Purge of 1937-38 is depressing reading, as Esperanto speakers across the Soviet Union were rounded up and sent to Gulags or executed.  They were, along with stamp collectors, feared as spies.  

For in spite of the rhetoric about communicating unhampered with "workers" around the world, this is the last thing authoritarian regimes ever want to happen.  Esperanto and its various organizations for speakers were virtually wiped out in Russia and the Eastern bloc.  

The most amazing thing to me is how many Esperantists are today Socialists and Communists.  They continue to hold onto the fantasy of Karl Marx, that following a period of massive state empowerment, control, and re-education, there would come a new Man living in a new Garden of Eden.  How many tens or hundreds of millions of corpses have to be piled up by world Marxism before this Utopia is discredited is beyond me. It is as unthinkable as modern Jews adopting Nazism.  

The only places where Esperanto was actually permitted to flourish into a rich spoken and literary culture, learned, taught, spoken, and published without fear of censorship, repression, or even punishment in death camps - were in the capitalist west.  In time, following the fall of the Berlin Wall, the USSR, and the liberation of Eastern Europe, Esperanto has made a modest comeback.

I'm sure many modern-day Communist Esperanto speakers will argue the usual: Stalin was a dictator, the USSR was not "real Communism," it was actually the fault of the United States, etc.  But the record is clear, and it is not sugarcoated in Lins's book.  It is chilling, and ought to make Esperantists rethink their premises about how much they want to empower the state.

There is no Utopia, but where people are the happiest, where poverty is diminished, where human rights and dignity are most respected is where there is freedom: both personal and economic.  And it is in such free countries, where the right to speak and publish is respected, that Esperanto can actually be a tool for fostering peace and brotherhood among free men.

Sermon: Trinity 2 - 2021

13 June 2021

Text: Luke 14:15-24

In the name of + Jesus.  Amen.

Liberty is one of the things we Americans value as a people.  The founding document of the United States calls “liberty” an “inalienable right” that we are “endowed” with by our “Creator.” 

One of those rights is religious liberty.  Sometimes, people will argue that we don’t have religious liberty, because God doesn’t grant us the freedom to worship other gods.  But the fact of the matter is that we do.  God did not create us as robots, or like insects or like plants that operate by instinct and primitive DNA hard-wiring.

Adam and Eve were created with the ability to love God or to reject Him; to hear the Word of God and obey it, or hear the lies of the devil and walk down the path of destruction.  God did not hardwire them to obey.  He did not use force to prevent their sin.  They were created with liberty – whether they used it for good or evil. 

Similarly, God doesn’t compel us to love Him.  He commands us to do so, but He does not take away our liberty to reject Him.  God does not empower the government to force us into Christianity.  For such force isn’t based on faith at all.  God does not establish civil law to compel people to, say, baptize their children.  Believe it or not, I have debated with some Lutherans who believe our Baptist neighbors should be forced by the government to being their children to the saving waters.

And so this story of Jesus about the Great Banquet can be a bit confusing.  On the one hand, the master invites many people to his table for a banquet.  “But they all alike began to make excuses.”  One turns down the invite because he has bought land.  Another does the same because he has just bought some livestock.  A third also turns down the offer because he just got married. 

The master invites a certain group of people into the kingdom.  They refuse.  But the master doesn’t compel these people.  He doesn’t arrest them and bring them kicking and screaming to the banquet.  Rather, he lets them live with their excuses.  He grants them the liberty to refuse his generosity.

But notice that the master wills that his house should be full of guests.  He will replace the ingrates with others who will appreciate his kindness.  And so, he issues another round of invitations, this time to “the poor and crippled and blind and lame.”  These are people who are usually excluded from such things as fancy dinners.  And in spite of lots of new people being invited and showing up for the party, there are still some empty seats.

This time, the master says: “Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled.”  Notice that the word “compel” is used for these people, the ones who would never think to turn down such a gracious offer.  In other words, the master is making them an offer that they can’t refuse.  He is taking ordinary people and offering them the opportunity of a lifetime – to dine on the most magnificent food in a stunning setting of luxury.  And so in this case, the word “compel” is more like in English when we say that we had to “twist someone’s arm” to get them to do something pleasurable.  It’s an ironic word.

This is how God “compels.”  He offers us, who are unworthy, a gift that we could never even dream of receiving.  And so we are “compelled” to receive the gift of the Gospel: forgiveness, life, and salvation.  And although we are not the children of Abraham, God has sent His servants into the highways and hedges of the Gentile nations, and He has “compelled” us to come to His table.  We can take no credit for being there.  We are not worthy of an invite.  We are literally charity cases because God looked upon our wretched condition and determined that it was no barrier to our place at the table. 

And part of God’s invitation to us is that He wants His house filled.  He is replacing those who were invited, but arrogantly turned down the invitation.  He calls us Gentiles to take the place of the children of Israel who rejected their Messiah.  To be sure, not all did reject Jesus.  Those who received Him became the founders of the Church.  But the vast majority rejected Him, as they followed the lead of the proud Pharisees, the theologically liberal Sadducees, or the misguided political zealots.  Ordinary people were caught up in buying property and stuff and in ordinary married life that they were just not interested in following Jesus.

And so, they are replaced.

And this is a warning to us as well, dear friends.  Jesus invites us to eat at His table.  But He doesn’t zap you with a taser and drag your paralyzed body to the rail where the pastor jams communion into your mouth.  No indeed! 

Maybe church is boring, you have other things you want to do, you are tired, the weather is too nice, the weather is too bad, or you just don’t see what the point is.  God will not compel you to come to the table.  He won’t preach Good News to you against your will.  The church has no police force to prevent you from walking out the door.  You are free, just as God created you.

And if you choose to turn your back on God, He will give your seat to someone else, to someone who is needy and knows how much this invitation means, someone who won’t squander it on excuses.  The Holy Spirit will “call, gather, enlighten, and sanctify” someone else, someone who will realize that the choice that we have to reject Him isn’t really a choice at all.

But one thing is for sure: those who were invited but who rejected the invitation will pay a price for the exercise of their liberty contrary to the will of God.  “For I tell you,” says Jesus in the person of the banquet master: “none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet.” 

Dear friends, you have liberty.  But don’t squander it.  Don’t waste your time on things of this world to the detriment of the faith.  Come and hear the preaching of the Gospel.  Come and partake of the body and blood of Jesus.  For it may well have been apart from your will that Jesus called you through baptism, though you were very young.  You were invited!  Don’t antagonize the Lord by turning down the invite.

Rather see in yourselves “the poor and crippled and blind and lame,” those who do not deserve to be seated at the banquet, but who nevertheless are there by virtue of God’s grace and mercy.  Give thanks to God that servants were sent out, missionaries bearing the Gospel, pastors preaching the Gospel and making disciples by baptizing them.  Give thanks to our Master that He compels us to come in, that His house may be filled, and let us thank God as well that he did not make us like plants or rocks with no will of their own. 

We have bodies and minds.  We have a will.  We were created in God’s image.  And we have been invited to the table – in spite of our unworthiness!  This is good news, dear friends.  In fact, this good news we call the Gospel.

And let us call to mind the man who, upon hearing the beautiful teachings of Jesus, cried out: “Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!”

Take eat.  Take drink.  And come, let us join together at the table, that the house of the Lord may be filled!  Let us use our liberty wisely, gratefully receiving the gifts He so graciously offers, even everlasting life.

Amen.

In the name of the Father and of the + Son and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.

Sermon: Trinity 1 - 2021

6 June 2021

Text: Luke 16:19-312 (Gen 15:1-6, 1 John 4:16-21)

In the name of + Jesus.  Amen.

Just a few verses before St. Luke relates our Lord’s story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, he explains the occasion for Jesus’ tale.  “The Pharisees” says St. Luke, “were lovers of money” and when they heard our Lord’s parables, “they ridiculed Him.”  They ridiculed Him, dear friends.  And our Lord rebuked them, saying, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts.  For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.”

And so, the Rich Man in the story represents the Pharisees.  They love money, but they do not love their neighbor.  They love to justify themselves, but they do not love the Word of God that speaks of justification as a free gift.  They love being exalted by men, but they do not “fear, love, and trust in God above all things.”

Without understanding this background, we may be tempted to interpret our Lord’s parable to mean that wealth is evil, that rich people are all going to hell.  But this is not so.  For two of our Lord’s benefactors during, and after, His crucifixion were rich men: St. Joseph of Arimathea, who lovingly donated his own tomb, and St. Nicodemus, who lovingly brought spices to anoint the body of Jesus.  Our Lord also benefitted from the businesswoman St. Lydia, and other wealthy donors, who lovingly supported his ministry. 

So don’t fall into the trap of thinking that this isn’t about you.  The problem with the Rich Man isn’t that he’s rich, but rather he lacks love, he justifies himself, and he does not love God.  Rather, he loves himself.  He loves his bling and his hits on Instagram.  He loves his food and his parties, and he isn’t really thinking about other people.

And if the Rich Man loved God, he would love the Word of God.  But notice that he and his family did not care enough about “Moses and the Prophets” to “hear them” and avoid the “place of torment.”  And so the Rich Man pleads for Abraham to warn his brothers.  But Abraham says, “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.”  The Rich Man retorts that “if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.”  But Jesus, acting as the story’s narrator, has Abraham saying, “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.”

So were they convinced, dear friends?  When Jesus rose from the dead, did the Pharisees, the religious leaders of Judaism who justified themselves and loved money, did they repent?  Did they come to faith in Jesus?  Did they understand what Moses and the Prophets said about Jesus?

They did not.  In fact, they continued to mock our Lord and persecute His disciples. 

And how sad this is, as they had been warned.  They had Moses and the Prophets.  They had the teachings of Jesus.  They had the God who loved them offering to justify them just like He justified their father Abraham – the same Abraham in our Lord’s story.  For what did we just hear about Abraham in the Old testament reading?  “He believed the Lord, and He counted it to him as righteousness.”  Abraham believed the promise.  He did not become righteous by works, nor by his own great deeds.  He became righteous by fearing, loving, and trusting in God above all things.  He acted by faith, and it was his faith that was credited to him as righteousness. 

How sad that the Pharisees missed out on this free gift.  It was right there in their own Scriptures all along.  Moses and the Prophets told them, but they did not hear them.  And although God loved them – and indeed the whole world, “that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish,” the Pharisees mocked Jesus.  The only love they displayed was their love of self, and their love of money.

But before we become smug, dear friends, let us take this lesson to heart.  Do we read the Scriptures every day?  Do we really know what is in the Bible?  Do we hear Moses and the Prophets?  Our congregation gathers an hour before the service to read the Bible together, and there are plenty of empty chairs.  There are many ways to read the Bible through in a year.  There are special Bibles for this purpose, and even apps for the phone, and audio to listen to.  The Word of God is accessible in convenient ways today, in ways that the Pharisees could not even dream of.  We have prayer books that incorporate the Word of God – Moses, the Prophets, the Psalms, the Gospels, and the Epistles – into our daily prayer life.  Do you make use of these resources?

And if not, is it because you think you know it all?  Do you think Jesus is impressed with you?  He has come back from the dead to call you to repent.  Well, are you repenting?  Do you put more stock in your works or your money than the Word of God, than the Lord’s counting to you righteousness based on your faith?  Does the faith matter to you?

These are hard questions, dear friends, because this lesson from Jesus is hard.  Don’t think this call to repentance is only for LeBron James, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos.  For all of us who live in America are part of the global one percent.  We are all rich.  I don’t care who you are.  You’re rich.  So how do you use your wealth?  Do you care about the Lazaruses of this world and in your own community?  Do you support mission work so that others may hear the Word of God freely as you do?  Do you support the work of the church – both this congregation and the church at large?  How about our seminaries and missionaries?  How about those relief agencies of the church that helped us out after many a hurricane?  Is this even on our radar screen as a congregation?

Are we going to hear Moses and the Prophets and the One who rose from the dead?  Or will we mock Jesus by ignoring His Word and justifying ourselves?

The Good News, dear friends, is that Jesus did come back from the dead – from His death on the cross, the cross He suffered upon to save us.  He conquered death by dying for us as a gift.  He destroyed Satan by keeping His promise to do that, to call us to repent, and to forgive us our trespasses.  He bids us, like Abraham, to believe His promise.  Jesus is God, and we just heard in our epistle that “God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.”  For “we love because He first loved us.”

In the Parable of the Sower, Jesus warned about the seed (that is, the Word of God) that falls on thorny soil, and the seed grows up, but is choked by the “cares and riches and pleasures of life” – and the seed dies.  This is really the same warning to the Pharisees in the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man.  And it is our Lord’s warning to us today, dear friends.

Your faith is counted to you as righteousness.  Your faith is trusting in the promises of God.  And those promises are found in the Word.  The Word is available to you.  Jesus is here for you every week in the Word and in the Sacrament.  When we gather at the beginning of the service and confess our sins, this isn’t just some silly ritual.  For Jesus Himself gave authority to His ministers to forgive sins by His authority.  And this baptismal font is in front of your eyes, dear friends, for a reason – even on those weeks when we aren’t baptizing anyone.  It is there as a reminder for you to remember the promises God made to you when you were baptized.  And in our service, several times we are encouraged to make the sign of the holy cross in remembrance of our baptism, for that is when we were promised salvation, and that Word of God was placed on us with the water bearing the Word and promise of God. 

Where you are seated right now, dear friends, is an embassy of the Kingdom of God.  We are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses that we cannot see, but we believe are with us.  We believe this because we believe God’s Word and His promises.  We are with Abraham and everyone whom Lazarus represents, right here, for here we are counted righteous.  And Jesus begs us not to leave this place.  For with the grandson of Abraham, we proclaim with joy: “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.” 

Remain in your baptismal grace, dear friends.  Abide in God by abiding in His love.  Believe the promises of Moses and the Prophets.  And trust in Jesus for your justification.  For He has indeed risen from the dead and comes to you in love, calling you to repentance, and justifying you in His love and by His mercy.

And when you are warned by the Lord’s Word and by the Lord’s preacher, pay attention.  Listen.  This Word of God that I am proclaiming is more important than anything that is distracting your attention right now.

For by this Word and by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, you will not be on the other side of that chasm, in Hades, in torment, begging for someone to put a drop of water on your tongue and warn your family to hear the Word of God.  Let us abide in His love by abiding in His Word, even to that day when the saints will be carried by the angels to Abraham’s side, where they will be comforted for all eternity.

Amen.

In the name of the Father and of the + Son and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.

Sermon: Holy Trinity - 2021

30 May 2021

Text: John 3:1-17

In the name of + Jesus.  Amen.

Jesus revealed the Holy Trinity to Nicodemus, who had come looking for answers.  The teacher of Israel needed to be taught by the rabbi who is God in the flesh.  Nicodemus was also a Pharisee and a member of the ruling council.  Although these groups hated Jesus, Nicodemus confessed that Jesus had “come from God” and God was “with Him.”  But He had come at night, because believing such things could have gotten him in a lot of trouble with the authorities.

Jesus, the Son, speaks of God, the Father, and He teaches about the Spirit – and He wraps the entire lesson up in Holy Baptism.  He tells Nicodemus that in order to be part of the kingdom of God, he must be “born again.”

Nicodemus is baffled by the expression.  What does it mean to be “born again.”  Obviously, Jesus is using a figure of speech, because one cannot “enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born.”  Some people today think that “born again” means you’re some kind of special, super-charged Christian, like you actually believe and live this stuff.  Then you’re a “born again” Christian as opposed to a normal, lukewarm Christian.  Or maybe you have to have some kind of emotional conversion that allows you to wear the “born again” badge.

But where does Jesus say any of this?

He explains that one must be “born of water and the Spirit.”  This is a mysterious saying at the time, because Jesus had not yet established baptism – but He will.  But for now, it’s a missing puzzle piece, a mystery for the teacher of Israel to chew on. 

But being born is not something that you can choose to do.  It just happens to you.  Somehow, you became you because your parents brought you into the world.  God created you through them – just as He told Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply.”  When we were all born into this world, there was no decision on our part.  There was no emotional conversion from non-existence to existence.  It just happened by God’s will.

And being “born again” is a similar experience.  It is something that happens to us by “water and the Spirit.”  The word “Spirit” has a double meaning.  It also means “breath” or “wind.”  Jesus explains the work of the Holy Spirit to Nicodemus this way: “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes.  So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”  When Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to the apostles just before He ascended into heaven, He “breathed on them” and “said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’”

When we are baptized, there are two things that happen: first, water is used, and second there are words: words that bear the breath of the one conducting the baptism.  There is water and breath – and in the case of Holy Baptism, the breath is the Spirit.  The one being born again may or may not be aware of it.  It is something that is being done to him, rather than something that he does. 

And about the same time that Jesus breathed on the disciples and gave them the Holy Spirit, authorizing them to forgive sins, Jesus established Holy Baptism: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” 

It would be then – when Jesus ordained the apostles into the ministry, when our Lord instituted baptism, and after Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came and guided the disciples into all truth  – that it all became clear.  And that is why at Pentecost, after Peter’s sermon, “those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.”  Souls are added to the kingdom of God by baptism, by being born again of water and the Spirit.

In His teaching of the teacher of Israel, Jesus makes it clear that He is not merely a rabbi or a prophet, but rather the “Son”, who was sent by God the Father, into the world.  And Jesus, the Son, was not sent by the Father to condemn the world, but to save it.  “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”

And this new life is given to us, dear friends, just like our old life; through birth.  We are born first of flesh and blood, and then we are born again of water and the Spirit.  We are baptized in the name of the Trinity, according to the instructions of Jesus, washed with water, as St. Paul wrote to Titus: “But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”

This is the second birth that mystified Nicodemus. 

Jesus gave Nicodemus a clue about Himself from the Old Testament, something for Nicodemus to look out for that would help him to understand.   He reminded him that “Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,” back when the people were dying of snakebites.  God told Moses to make a bronze serpent and raise it up on a pole, and everyone who looked at it would be saved.  Jesus told Nicodemus: “So must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him may have eternal life.” 

Nicodemus would see the Son of Man lifted up on the cross.  And even though this put him at odds with the authorities, Nicodemus defended Jesus’ right to be heard before being condemned.  He was at our Lord’s crucifixion, and he provided embalming spices for our Lord after His death, and he worked with Joseph of Arimathea to give Jesus a proper burial. 

And it would be in light of the cross that these mysteries would become clear – especially when Jesus rose again, when He breathed the Holy Spirit into the apostles, and when He sent them into the world to make disciples by baptism.  Only by sticking with Jesus to the end would the night-time lesson about the saving work of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit make sense.

Scripture doesn’t say what happened to Nicodemus after the crucifixion of Jesus.  Church tradition also has nothing to tell us other than that Nicodemus was a believer, that he was born again, and that he became known to the church as St. Nicodemus. 

And of all his fame and learning and accomplishments – none of these things amount to anything compared to being born again by water and the Spirit…

In the name of the Father and of the + Son and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.

On 'Good Uses' for the Confederate Battle Flag

One of my colleagues in the ministry of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS) recently wrote that among "good uses" for the Confederate battle flag are "diaper, shop rag, kindling, stuffing for a pillow, burping cloth," and "toilet paper."  In the ensuing discussion - which I was not a part of - he added, "It's a treason/slavocracy flag.  Plain and simple.  It's the revisionists that have a complete lack of understanding of history."

Fortunately, this kind of churlish and disrespectful rhetoric is not common among my brethren in the ministerium.  

But it is a helpful window into how much our education system and culture have degraded.  There was indeed a time when the movie Idiocracy was a farcical comedy and not a documentary.

His assertion is that anyone who disagrees with him is a "revisionist" with a "complete lack of understanding of history."  My colleague is quick to point out that he is a Ph.D. student.  I wonder if his Declaration of Historical Ignorance applies to scholars like Clyde N. Wilson, M.E. Bradford, Richard M. Weaver, Jr., or the twelve scholars known as the Southern Agrarians - among many others in the Southern intellectual tradition. 

Maybe these men, unlike my enlightened and brilliant colleague, were all just stupid.

My colleague's hubris is the inevitable result of history being taught in our schools as "social studies," as political activism, where intelligent discussion is replaced by an iron-fisted intolerance of dissent, where history is not permitted to be a dialogue between different schools of thought, but rather a Pharisaical, virtue-signaling, one-size-fits-all interpretation to be determined by the state and its interests.  And in such a Soviet-style 1619 Project-based "education" paradigm, there is no room for historiography or the examination of original source material from differing sides of a conflict.

In the current paradigm, there are not many perspectives and voices in the study of history, only the right view (which is politically-correct) and the wrong view (which is deemed "white supremacist").  The arrogance and ignorance in my colleague's rhetoric takes the tack that he has read deeply on the subject, and has considered various perspectives.  And having done so, anyone who disagrees with him is a "revisionist."  

But just what has been revised?

In any conflict, there are different assumptions and interpretations.  That's why there are conflicts.  This is why there are debates and disputes, and this is why there are wars.  Johnny says the toy is his.  Mary says the toy is hers.  Each child sees his claim as valid.  If the children cannot agree, an adult will have to step in and resolve the dispute.  And lacking such a judge, the larger and stronger child will simply prevail.  And the smaller child's perspective may or may not be remembered.  The result of the bigger child winning may well simply be accepted by all as the outcome.  But the point is that there is a dispute because there are two different claims of ownership.

In the war of American secession from Great Britain, there were two rival claimants as the legitimate overarching government of the colonies/states.  And in international disputes, there is no authority, no adult to decide to which child the toy belongs.  And so there is sometimes war to "settle" the matter.  In the case of the First American War of Independence, the secessionists won, and American government schools generally teach the school of history friendly to the rebels, while the loyalist point of view, if taught at all, is downplayed.

And yet, regardless of who wins or loses, there are differences of opinion.  To really understand what happened, it is important to consider all points of view - even if, and especially if, one's opinion is biased toward one side or the other.

Our Confederate ancestors - be they the politicians who led, the military personnel who fought, or the civilians on the home-front who supported the war effort and suffered depredation - had a point of view.  It was based on the Jeffersonian understanding of the Union, the compact theory of the Constitution.  Their opponents held to the Hamiltonian perspective of the Union, the nationalist interpretation of the Constitution.  This dispute predates the Constitution itself, as manifest in the debate between the so-called Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.  To this day, both views are held by different camps of Americans.  Without understanding this nuance, it is impossible to make sense of the conflict.  Nor is it possible to go beyond the churlish historiography of "the toy is mine and anyone who disagrees with me is a poopy-head."

Unfortunately, the "poopy-head" theory of history is precisely what is being taught in our schools and on our ubiquitous TV screens.  It is pushed in popular culture and shrieked by activists.  It is how most of our politicians operate.  And it is, of course, based on the victors' perspective and the Big-Government Hamiltonian school.  It ignores the Jeffersonian model that has, of course, been around since the beginning of the Republic.  It ignores the fact that there has been no "revision" - as the Southern perspective on the War for Southern Independence has been consistently taught for a century and a half.  The idea that there was a consensus and a united historiography until now - when all of the sudden, people invented a new history, a revised history - is simply objectively untrue.

The radical changes in our culture and worldview: the resurgence of socialism, the new interpretation of all American history as "racist," the plummeting test scores for Americans in literacy and math, the politicization of every educational subject, and even the normalization of the Frankfurt School's Critical Theory in matters of race and sex are all evidence that we are not dealing with historical revisionism, but rather a social and cultural revolution.  And the teaching of history has been coopted by this movement.  The 1619 Project agenda - with its demonstrable falsehoods - has been mainstreamed.  Sadly, my colleague has fallen for it.  But it is also part of a psychological agenda to be on the Hegelian "right side of history."  People want to be part of the "winning team."  And from where we stand right now, the malleable and political "right side of history" is with the iconoclasts who are toppling monuments - not only memorials to Confederate history, but to American history as a whole.  My colleague will either one day scratch his head when statues to Washington, Jefferson, and even Lincoln and Grant come down (which has already begun), or he will be so invested by that point that he will be part of the mob, self-righteously calling for their eradication.

But perhaps more disturbing than his shocking ignorance of history and historiography is his hatred toward people who hold the Confederate battle flag with reverence.

Symbols are, by nature, subjective.  Most Americans hold the Stars and Stripes dear.  And this can be for many reasons.  It may be as simple as a love for one's home.  It may be that one's family members fought in past wars for the nation.  It may be that one sees in the flag the principles of liberty.  Or it may be a combination of all three.

But there are also other opinions. 

Perhaps someone is a recent immigrant without any particular sense that the flag represents his home.  It may be that one's ancestors - like perhaps the American Indians - fought against the United States, and may have even been oppressed by the United States or by individual Americans.  It may be that one believes that the premise of liberty is a lie, as one's family may have been transported as slaves on boats flagged with Old Glory, or one's recent family were interned in camps for Asians during World War II with the Stars and Stripes on the flagpole, or maybe one has been railroaded by a crooked prosecutor representing the federal government.

How might a victim of the My Lai massacre see the US flag?  How about those whose families were incinerated by bombs dropped on civilian targets by the United States?  What if one's entire family, innocent of any wrongdoing, were wiped out in a drone strike?  Do such events in history mitigate against a family in Peoria putting out Old Glory on the house for the 4th of July?  Would it be within the grounds of propriety to suggest that the flag of the United States should be used as toilet paper?  

After all, as the 1619 Project will gladly point out, just as Robert E. Lee was an aristocratic Virginia rebel who fought for a county that had black slaves, so too was Washington.  In fact, Washington's image appears on the great seal of the CSA.  Every stripe on the current US flag stands for a slave state in 1776.  Nearly every signer of the Declaration of Independence was a slaveholder.  And on that 4th of July, the slaveholding United States seceded from a nation that had abolished slavery.  The 1619 Project holds that the entire reason for being for the United States was the preservation of slavery, and thus slavery must be the single interpretive lens for reading American history.

The narrative sounds vaguely familiar, doesn't it?

Another similar disagreement over history and symbols is seen in the intertwined history of England and Scotland.  For centuries, Scottish rebels fought in wars of independence against their English overlords.  In the 13th and 14th centuries, Sir William Wallace led the Scottish bid for independence, until he was captured.  He was tried for treason, tortured, and executed as an enemy of the state.  His head was put on a pike to discourage any further rebellions.  Centuries later, following another Scottish rebellion in 1745 - one that members of my own namesake ancestors participated in - the defeated Scots, who had already been banned from speaking their native language, were proscribed from wearing their traditional tartan symbols of their tribal allegiances.  

And yet today, a monument and statue of William Wallace stands at the site of one of his greatest victories over England.  Today, members of the English royal family wear kilts bearing the tartans of their own Scottish ancestors.  The flags of Scotland and England are both part of the flag representing the political Union between the two.  And in spite of both waving the Union Jack, both singing God Save the Queen, they are separate countries.  When there is a soccer game between England and Scotland, the English sing their national anthem Jerusalem, while the Scots sing their anthem of rebellion Flower of Scotland.  Both sides have a perspective, a narrative, a historiography, but as a people coexisting in a Union, there is mutual respect.  And while the flags of England and Scotland are waved by the rivals in the stadium, and while both sides see their own view as correct, neither side considers it to be its duty to crush a different perspective, or use the other side's symbols for toilet paper.

Southerners are like their British cousins, being inclined to remember their ancestors and nations, while the denizens of other regions of America scoff at such nostalgia.

I have no particular affection for the national symbols that are not my own nor of my heritage.  But I certainly understand that other people do hold these symbols with reverence.  I could not imagine telling my Russian, Kenyan, or Brazilian friends that I would like to use their flags for toilet paper.  I may not respect their symbols as they do, but I respect the people who do respect them, and I understand that which they hold dear may not be that which I view with reverence.  

The Confederate battle flag as we know it today became a unifying symbol for the defeated South, and has since also become a symbol of many things: rock and roll rebellion, motorcycle culture, Southern music, food, and folkways, as well as a symbol of political liberty - as it was waved in East Germany and other Iron Curtain countries as Communism fell and nations held captive were permitted to secede and establish home rule apart from colonial oversight.  It continues to be treasured the world over.  It is a symbol that we continue to place at the graves of our ancestors - a characteristic of Southern culture that often mystifies people from other regions who perhaps could not even tell you the names of their own grandparents, have no particular attachment to familial land, and who care little for their heritage.

How many bumper stickers or tee shirts have you seen that say, "American by birth, Midwestern by the grace of God"?

I have been a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans for nearly 30 years.  It is in one sense a genealogical society, but it is really much more than that.  When the Confederate veterans returned to civilian life, they received no federal pensions, and in many cases, their destroyed states were too poor to provide for their needs.  And so, they created a veterans' organization, the United Confederate Veterans (UCV) in 1889.  And their daughters stepped up, establishing the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) in 1894 to establish homes for the aging veterans and to erect monuments and grave markers.  Their sons established the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) in 1896 to be the legal successor organization to the UCV.

There has been a continuum from the veterans themselves, to their sons and daughters, to their grandchildren who continue to honor their memories today.  We are the guardians of their history, their stories, and their artifacts.  We have their diaries and their writings. We have their uniforms and their flags.  We meet each and every year, as we have without fail since 1896.  We are the inconvenient speedbumps to the 1619 Project and its Orwellian scheme to rewrite history and crush dissent.  And we are also living monuments, whose very existence is repugnant to the keepers of the Marxist oppression narrative.

Perhaps the most repugnant aspect of my colleague's words is the obliviousness to the fact that other people, those who have a different historiography than he, those with family ties to the South, hold the Confederate battle flag with affection, see it as a symbol of their own families - ancestors and descendants alike - and use it as a funerary device.  Of course, we continue to mark and visit the graves of our veteran ancestors - some of whom lived full lives after the war and were buried in family plots, and some of whom fell in battle and were thrown into unmarked trenches and mass graves.  The monuments across the South serve as grave-markers for those who were never found.  

Today, not only are these statues, many more than a century old, being toppled by mobs (often while police watch passively) and removed by legislatures, mayors, and governors - even grave markers and tombstones are being vandalized and destroyed, all with self-righteous justification.  And of course, this cancer of the vandalism of graves has metastasized and spread even to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier of the American Revolution.

When nothing is sacred, even funerary symbols are treated with contempt.

And the Confederate battle flag is not only used to mark the graves of Confederate veterans.  For it is a symbol of our heritage, and our families are a continuation of that heritage.  For example, when my fifteen year old son died suddenly and tragically last year, he was buried with certain symbols.  First, of course, was the cross that he wore to serve with me at the altar for seven years.  The cross is the symbol of his redemption and of his impending resurrection.  Second, he was buried in the dress blue uniform of the US Air Force Auxiliary: the Civil Air Patrol.  He loved serving his community, state, and nation, and held the rank of Cadet First Lieutenant.  He saluted the US flag and was even called on a live mission for the Air Force on one occasion.  Like many Confederate descendants, he was an American patriot and served his country insofar as he was able to do so at his young age.  

I do regret that I didn't also bury him with a piece of the MacBean family tartan, as he was proud of that aspect of his heritage as well, and the DNA in his bones reflect our brave ancestors who fought for their country and clan, as well as for political liberty and independence.  That too is part of who we are as a family - past, present, and future.

But I did bury my boy, a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, with two Confederate battle flags (a generic one, and the flag of a Virginia military unit) - the symbols of which my colleague thinks should be used as toilet paper.  By contrast, that symbol meant a great deal to my son.  He knew his heritage.  And just as he saluted Old Glory, he also saluted the flags of the Confederacy.  He stood for Dixie.  Along with his favorite pop music, he listened to the old songs of our ancestors: Dixie, The Bonnie Blue Flag, I'm a Good Old Rebel, and many others.  He understood that God created him incarnationally as part of a family, bearing flesh that was given to him from his ancestors: including men who fought for Scottish independence, American independence, and Southern independence.

Tolerance is the hallmark of a civilized and intelligent people.  Only barbarians and savages cannot understand that there are many different sides to a conflict, and that it is natural and laudable to honor one's fathers and mothers and respect one's heritage while being respectful of the heritage of others.  Our country and our culture have descended to a dark and sinister place, one where there are masters on the top of the pyramid, who dictate history and historiography to the rest of us, who sit in judgment of our heritage and of our ancestors, who tell us what we are permitted to believe and hold dear, a place where we who dissent are being increasingly marginalized, proscribed, and even subjected to violence.

And no matter how crass, vile, hateful, and churlish people like my colleague are, and will continue to be, I am honored that my son awaits the resurrection with symbols of who God created him to be in this life: a Christian, an American, and a Southerner - as well as a dissident against an increasingly intolerant and totalitarian culture and state.  

May he rest in peace until I see him again.  Deo vindice.