Homosexual Rights and Religious Liberties

By Scott Windsor

Well, as promised, I am writing another article to deal more with the topic of the article I quoted from (Gay Rights and Religious Liberties, by Skye Jethani) in my previous posting on this subject.  One might first notice that I don't use the same title as the original author.  I don't because I'm not into sugar coating the topic, and I believe that's exactly what the use of "gay" does to the subject of homosexuality.  It sounds so much happier, freer, etc. and that's because the original meaning of the word "gay" means exactly those things!  It is no accident that this word is chosen, and it is no accident that I avoid using it.  Does that make me bigoted?  I hope not.  All I'm doing is sticking to the precise word without the sugar coating.

So, back to that article.  The author, a pastor himself, Skye Jethani, breaks his article down into sub-topics, so I will address each sub-topic.  Before the sub-topics, he opened with the story I quoted in my previous article about the silly approach both sides had taken at his college when he was a freshman there - except Jethani calls the GLBA tactic "silly" and the Christian group (which he doesn't name) he calls their tactic "stupid."  I was a bit offended by Jethani's statement, perhaps even bias, here.  The Christian group's tactic was actually quite clever - and matched the silliness of the GLBA plot.

On with the response to Jethani...

REFRAMING

Jethani seems upset, or at best - disappointed in the fact that Newsweek declared 1976 "The Year of the Evangelical" as opposed to, perhaps "The Year of the Homosexual."  Why?  Because Evangelicals were making a huge impact on the political scene, and comprise a very large piece to the overall picture, both politically and religiously.  He objects because 1976 was also the same year that an openly homosexual person was elected to public office in San Francisco.  Well, this might have been big news for the homosexual community, but it was not for mainstream America - but indeed it was a turning point for the homosexual community.  While I agree it was big for the homosexual community, objectively speaking it is not all that big a deal at the time for the rest of America - so this event does not trump the hugeness of the Evangelical movement in 1976 which would lead to the "Moral Majority" (founded in 1979) which for about a decade, had an impressive impact on the American political scene.

Jethani also cites statistics:

For the church this framing has been costly. According to Gallop, in the 1970s 66 percent of Americans said they had a strong or high confidence in the church. Today it is only 44 percent. In 1994 only 27 percent supported same sex marriage. Today it is over 50 percent.

Well, we all know how numbers can be played with, but even accepting these numbers as fact - Christianity is NOT a democracy!  If one is true to their Christian morals and stance - then one is not affected by some sort of numbers game.  If even only 1% remained faithful to Judeo-Christian morals, then it would be that 1% which remained "right."  My friend who pointed me to this article said it wasn't about morals - but the subject of morals is unavoidable when we're discussing homosexuality.  Why would we just ignore the 600 pound gorilla in the room?  On that, I'll let my original article stand.

Jethani closes this section with this summary:

Therefore, rather than asking: Whose values will dominate the public square? we should be asking: Whose identity is welcomed into the public square? Do we believe LGTB citizens ought to bring their identity into government, business, the media, and education without fear of discrimination? And likewise, do we believe a Christian holding traditional beliefs should be able to bring their identity into the public square without fear of discrimination? Framed this way, the issue ceases to be about winning or losing, or which group gets control and which is pushed back into the closet, and it becomes about learning to share the public square as Americans with different beliefs about marriage and sexuality but all possessing inherent God-given worth.

The only "side" which seems to be so concerned about "winning" influence is the homosexual side.  The arguments I hear from the "other" side are based in, "they already have equal rights."  What is it they are really trying to accomplish here?  It would seem the goal of the homosexual community is to get the Christian community to not only accept the sinner, but to accept the sin too - otherwise, why insist upon "homosexual marriage" when a "civil union" creates essentially the same thing?   When they speak of "dominating the public square," just think about it - "they" make up such a minute percentage of society, yet "they" are already dominating in the realm of "the public square!"   "They" are not satisfied, however, with the fact that "they" already have such an influence on public discussion, "they" want "victory."

RETHINKING

In this section Jethani brings up the fact that in the 17th century those who came to America were essentially founding the "New World" upon Christian values and that they believed if they upheld these God would bless them and if they abandoned these principles, God would curse them.  Jethani cites some modern televangelists who blame America's morality for things like 9/11 and even the hurricanes and other disasters relating to the John Winthrop sermon of 1630, where the New World is the "city upon the hill" - and President Reagan echoed the sentiment as well.   Failure to be that "city upon the hill" will result in punishment.   In short, due to the moral decay these disasters are merely a reaping of what we have sowed.

Jethani writes:

According to this logic, the way to prevent terrorist attacks and natural disasters is by earning the Almighty’s protection through moral behavior, adherence to prayer, traditional family values, and frequent worship. This popular belief about God was also prevalent in Jesus’ day. It followed a simple formula—God blessed the righteous and cursed the unrighteous. Obey his commandments, it was taught, and one could avoid disease, accumulate wealth, and find favor with God and men. The equation worked just as well in reverse. Those with material blessings were seen as righteous and those who suffered did so because they were sinners.

Not necessarily so.  Not everything "bad" which happens is due to a "bad" act in Christian thought.  Sometimes "bad things happen to good people" can be a "test" of their faith and/or fortitude.  It might be convenient to use Jethani's cookie-cutter approach, but we cannot force such an interpretation on every situation/disaster which America faces - or any other country for that matter.  I realize he's trying to point out fallacious thinking, but in reality that is NOT the thinking for the majority of Americans, religious or otherwise.

Jethani's Conclusion

Jethani states: 

As Christians, as those clothed in the gospel of peace, we cannot, and should not, demand that everyone share our beliefs. But we can, and should, demand that everyone share our freedoms. When this happens, we will find the courage to take off the armor of the culture war and put on the image of Christ. We will find the grace to put aside fear and take up love. And we can be assured that Christ will be lifted up in the public square and draw all people to himself.

The point is, like it or not, the United States of America was founded upon Judeo-Christian standards.   We believe in those standards and we do not appreciate it when a (minority) group of people get together in opposition to our standards and attempt to force us to accept their standard.  That being said, while we do not want to see our standards whittled away, by the same token, the "rights" of minority groups and individuals cannot be ignored - and even respected.  In fact, the "rights" of religious groups are protected by the United States Constitution.

This is not a matter of putting aside fear and taking up love.  If we truly love our homosexual friends then we don't pretend that a homosexual relationship is some sort of blessing and/or give our blessing to such.  When Jesus stood with the harlot caught in the act of adultery (which, when you come down to it - homosexuality in practice is equivalent to adultery), after getting the hypocrites to leave her alone, He did not turn to her and say, "Go, continue to practice your sin."  No!  He told her she was forgiven and "Go, and sin no more."

Is It A Right?

The bottom line here is the homosexual groups argue that marriage is a right, and they demand equal rights.  Marriage, however, is not a "right" - it is something, much like a drivers license (when it comes to the "state" regulating it) making it a privilege.  No one has a "right" to a driver's license, and likewise no one has a "right" to a marriage license.  This matter of "licensing" (taking it out of religious context for the moment) is purely a "states rights" issue.  The states have the "right" to license whomever they choose.

An attempt to make this a matter of civil rights is quite displaced.  The homosexual community is constantly making comparisons to the Civil Rights Movement (CRM) in the United States and to people like Martin Luther King, Jr.  Those who stood for the CRM should be totally offended by the comparisons.  By in large, the homosexual community is accepted and treated fairly.  Yes, there are some pockets of "homophobes" who mistreat them, but these actions of these homophobes is already illegal!   Homosexuals already have "rights" under the law from such things the CRM protested against.  Continued comparisons to the plight of African-American citizens to homosexuals wanting to redefine marriage should be taken as quite insulting to those who lived through the CRM, and especially those who gave up their lives for the CRM.

Now, that which IS a "right" and IS protected by the United States Constitution is the "right" of "religion" to exist.  Marriage, while "licensed" by the state, is still commonly and traditionally administered by religion.  The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony can ONLY be "sacramental" within the confines of the Church.  Now, I realize that the homosexual community is not currently campaigning for the Church to accept and "bless" homosexual unions, but the fact is they have made such campaigns - and even "won" some in some religions, even some which call themselves "Christian."  From the religious, especially Jewish and Christian view, homosexuality is not a "right" - but a "wrong," and one which cannot be accepted or "blessed" by any truly Christian standard.

Is Is A Wrong?

This is the real bottom line for Christians.  As my previous article points out, homosexuality is a "wrong" and one which is repeatedly condemned as such in both the Old and New Testaments of Holy Scripture.  There's really no getting around this, from the aspect of "religious freedom" (which is part of the title of the article I am responding to!).  What is really happening here is the homosexual community is infringing upon the rights of the Christian community to uphold the standards upon which this country was founded.  They would like the Christian community to give their nod (blessing) to homosexual unions and just stand by and accept the redefining of marriage to include that which Christians see as an abomination before the Lord.  

THE NUMBERS GAME

All too often we see the argument being used that it (homosexual marriage) is becoming more and more accepted throughout the United States (and the world) as if that sort of thinking should influence the Christian stance.   Whose opinion dominates the public square truly is not the issue here.   On the public square in another topic, that of abortion, the abortionists have "won" that "position" but organizations like the Catholic Church have not and will not "give up the war" in that respect.  Catholicism, along with other groups who believe abortion is murder will continue to stand up for the rights of the unborn and fight for those rights until the "public square" comes around to acknowledge these facts.  Similarly, we hold to the same standard on the matter of homosexual marriage - regardless of what the court of popular opinion may adjudicate. 

NOT A MATTER OF MORALITY?

I was criticized in my original article that Jethani's article was not about morals, but rather upon religious freedom.  My question to whom would criticize me on this is - how can the two be separated?   It was Jethani who brought Jesus into the discussion and questioned what He would do - and as I said, He would not bless this "movement" nor should Jethani or those who support homosexual marriage expect true followers of Christ to ever accept the concept anymore than we accept abortion. 

ARE CIVIL UNIONS THE ANSWER?

Well, many, if not most, states already have such "civil unions" on the books wherein those of the same sex enter into a contract with each other - which when push comes to shove, isn't that "civilly speaking" all that a marriage license does?   The homosexual community already has this ability, even "right" if you will, in many states - and they have this "right" without impinging upon the "right" of the state to define "marriage" as the union between a man and a woman.  Where this battle should be fought is in those states which do not even allow for the "civil union" of homosexual persons.  

I have had and continue to have several friends who identify themselves as homosexual in either preference and/or in actual participation.  I do not shun these people in the public world, and they know my feelings on their chosen lifestyle.  We rarely get into discussions on morals - for they know where I stand.  Essentially I see this attempt to get me/us (Christians) to "accept" homosexual marriage as an attempt to get around the moral discussion by making it purely a political/civil discussion.  As I said before though, I compare this to trying to get us to accept legalized murder - which is precisely what happened in the abortion debate.  If the marriage debate ends similarly, I will be saddened, but I will not accept that a "homosexual marriage" is anymore "right" than abortion is, and when asked, I will continue to voice my concern for MY "freedom of religious rights" which are being whittled away by those who pick and choose which of God's Laws they will follow - or reject God's Laws altogether.  

Thank you for reading, and I do invite respectful discussion/debate on this topic.

AMDG,
Scott<<<

PS - I should clarify too... those who identify themselves as "homosexual" in preference, but have not acted upon it are not what I would call "homosexuals."  To BE a homosexual requires more than desire.  To BE a murderer, one has to murder someone.  To BE a rapist, one has to commit rape on another.   To BE a homosexual one must have participated in the act and/or continue to participate in it.  Those who are not actively participating I would consider to be, sexually speaking, celibate.  

Equality v. Tradition

In this atmosphere of the homosexual community screaming for "equality" we're seeing even more and more non-homosexual persons standing up for "equal rights" for the homosexuals.  All over Facebook people are changing their profile picture to a red background with a pink "equal" sign on it.  The big push currently is for homosexual marriage.  As you have seen earlier on this blog, some who support the traditional values of marriage, that is "one man, one woman," have responded with their own profile pictures being changed to red backgrounds with a pink "plus" sign, or a pink cross (which is like the "plus" sign) or an image of a pink man and woman holding hands - or some combination of those.

 VS 

Some of you reading along here may recall, I've been having a discussion with a friend of mine who has recently "come out of the closet" - at least partially (to trusted friends and family).  This has sparked some articles here on the CathApol Blog.  This friend of mine sent an article to read on this subject, perhaps in response to my posting of alternative profile pics for Facebook, but regardless, it's worth a look...

When I was a freshman in college, the GLBA–Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Alliance– organized an annual Gay Awareness week. What I remember most was “Jean Day.” The student leaders of the GLBA posted signs all over campus announcing that students could express their support for gay rights by wearing jeans on Thursday. Of course denim is a second skin for most college students, and it was obvious the GLBA was seeking to inflate their perception of support. The tactic was so transparent few people paid attention—until a conservative Christian student group began putting up their own signs. Their flyers called students who did not support gay rights to “wear a shirt on Thursday.
The battle lines were drawn. The silliness of the GBLA’s scheme was matched by the stupidity of the Christians’.
Thursday came and members of the GBLA went to class in blue jeans and topless. (Some women wearing only bras.) The conservative Christians marched to class wearing khakis and in some cases multiple shirts, proudly doing their part to “uphold righteousness.” Eventually the two groups got into a heated shouting match. The shirts accused the skins of being godless and immoral. The denims accused the khakis of being bigots and homophobes.
As I watched the scene unfold, the voice of my high school teacher echoed in my head. “Just remember,” he’d told me, “college isn’t the real world.”
Sadly the real world has proven to look more like my college experience than I would have hoped, only now the shouting between the gay community and Christians happens on cable news, talk radio, outside courthouses and in school board meetings. Still, there are many of us–both gay and straight, Christian and non-Christian, supporters of same sex marriage, and those like myself who hold to the church’s traditional definition–who do not identify with the culture war rhetoric emanating from either side. We stand on the periphery wondering: isn't there a better way?

Well, good question, "Is there a better way?" I would start off by saying this author did not need to use "stupidity of the Christians."  Both sides were being a bit silly in this "debate" and those who did not support homosexual rights were actually being quite clever, probably not expecting some of the supporters, especially the female ones, to come to class without a shirt.  The "response" was more to counter the silliness of the homosexual supporters who called for the wearing of jeans, which is quite common on a college campus.  As if anyone wearing jeans that day were automatically supporting homosexual rights.

That being said, I do not oppose "equal rights" - but what I do support is the "right" for society to "hold strong to that which we have been taught, whether by word of mouth or by epistle."  (2 Thes. 2:15)  It is through both that Christians object to and reject homosexuality.  Verses which reference directly or indirectly the sin of homosexuality:  

Genesis 19:1-11  Leviticus 18:22   Leviticus 20:13  Judges 19:16-24   1 Kings 14:24    1 Kings 15:12   2 Kings 23:7    Romans 1:18-32   1 Corinthians 6:9-11   1 Timothy 1:8-10   Jude 7

In a discussion I has having with one of my sons, he stated that someone challenged that where the Bible speaks against homosexuality, it is only in the Old Testament (OT).  Well, clearly one can see that there are ample verses in the New Testament (NT) too.  Perhaps what has changed in the NT is how we are to deal with such sinners.  In the OT the punishment for getting caught in a homosexual act was to be stoned to death.  In the NT when Jesus is confronted by an angry mob wishing to stone to death a woman caught in prostitution (also a crime punishable by stoning to death in the OT), Jesus challenged them, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone."  Those who were about to stone her dropped their rocks and walked away.  But did Jesus end there?  No, he turned to the sinner and said, "Go and sin no more."  He did not excuse her sin and give his blessing to continue in the sinful lifestyle - no - He told her to not sin anymore.  In short, it was an example in how to "love the sinner, but hate the sin."

Is Homosexuality A Choice?

Well, again, that question has been at the root of this debate for a long time - perhaps since the debate on the subject began.  Ultimately one must conclude it is a matter of choice for someone to engage in homosexual -OR- heterosexual -OR- a celibate lifestyle.  Anything we "do" is something we have choice in "doing" and thus "responsibility" for what we "do."  Essentially ANY sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful.  Sex before marriage is fornication and sex with someone who is not your spouse after marriage is adultery.  Perhaps this is what motivates proponents of homosexual marriage.  If such a "marriage" is accepted - then the next step would be to accept the sin as well.  Through the backdoor they are getting us to accept not only the sinner, but the sin too.  But back to the question of this section, is homosexuality a choice?  Again, our answer must be a resilient YES!  If we believe it is not a choice, then there can be no fault, no sin - but clearly God's Word on the matter is that it IS sin and therefore MUST be a matter of choice.  

Is Homosexuality By Nature?

Well, if homosexuality were the natural course - "life" itself would last no more than one generation for there can be no procreation in a homosexual relationship.  Nature demands heterosexuality in order for the species to continue.  The argument of "I was born this way" just does not apply to matters where we CHOOSE to do what we DO.  Does that mean that a man cannot be "turned on" by another man or a woman by another woman?  By no means!  In fact for some that "forbidden fruit" makes it that much more tantalizing to engage in.  But again, nothing in "nature" dictates that homosexuality is a "natural" lifestyle and would be actually contrary to "nature."  

How About the Facebook Profile Pic "War?"

Well, perhaps this meme puts it a bit into perspective:

  

  
  

How Could He?!

Well, he can because, um - he's POPE!  Contrary to some reports, Pope Francis did not break "Canon Law" in performing the foot washing ceremony on Holy Thursday (Maundy Thursday).  It is true that this action was contrary to the tradition of the Church, but this was not a Sacrament.  The non-sacramental ritual is traditionally performed on twelve men selected from the congregation because the first time this was done there were twelve men, and only The Twelve, the Apostles.   Does this mean this ceremony can only involve men?  Well, that conclusion is more of an assumption than a given.  

The community in which Jesus washed feet was in the community of His Apostles.  The community in which Pope Francis washed feet was in a juvenile detention center which houses both male and female.  To separate the females in this community could have carried a message of segregation which Pope Francis did not wish to convey.

Many radical Traditionalists (RadTrads) are all up in arms about this, stating it is indicative of the Pope having an agenda to ordain women to the priesthood.  Some may even be accusing the Pope of heresy, but there is no heresy in breaking with this tradition.  Essentially, those who argue negatively about Pope Francis' action are on a slippery slope if they conclude heresy over this non-sacramental ceremony.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said he didn’t want to wade into a canonical dispute over the matter. However, he noted that in a “grand solemn celebration” of the rite, only men are included because Christ washed the feet of his 12 apostles, all of whom were male.“Here, the rite was for a small, unique community made up also of women,” Lombardi wrote in an email. “Excluding the girls would have been inopportune in light of the simple aim of communicating a message of love to all, in a group that certainly didn’t include experts on liturgical rules.”  Salt Lake Tribune 

This was not the first time Francis had washed female feet. As Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio and archbishop of Buenos Aires, he often included women in the gesture. However as pope, his move was quietly groundbreaking. In their later years John Paul II and Benedict XVI had restricted the rite to 12 Catholic priests.   The Guardian 

The Vatican's chief spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the pope's decision was "absolutely licit" for a rite that is not a church sacrament. Francis also took into account "the real situation, the community where one celebrates," Lombardi added.  Cleveland.com

This is moving. Jesus, washing the feet of his disciples. Peter didn’t understood it at all, he refused. But Jesus explained it for him. Jesus — God — did this! He himself explains to his disciples: “Do you know what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord — and you are right, for that is what I am. So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you” (Jn 13:12-15).It is the Lord’s example: he is the most important, and he washes feet, because with us what is highest must be at the service of others. This is a symbol, it is a sign, right? Washing feet means: “I am at your service”. And with us too, don’t we have to wash each other’s feet day after day? But what does this mean? That all of us must help one another. Sometimes I am angry with someone or other ... but... let it go, let it go, and if he or she asks you a favour, do it.    L'Osservatore Romano

As I have been telling others - let us not rush to judgment of this pope.  Is it a break with tradition?  Yes.  Was this a matter of heresy?  No.  

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3458073.0.html

Marriage Meme

With all the "equality" memes on Facebook and elsewhere, we thought we'd offer some which support traditional marriage.  Consider downloading one or more of these and changing your Facebook profile picture to it.

/

New Experiments on the Shroud Show It is from the First Century

For those interested in The Shroud of Turin, like I am, you have got to read about this from the Vatican Insider.

Professor Giulio Fanti and journalist Saverio Gaeta have published a book with the results of some chemical and mechanical tests which confirm that the Shroud dates back to the 1st century

ANDREA TORNIELLIromE
New scientific experiments carried out at the University of Padua have apparently confirmed that the Shroud Turin can be dated back to the 1^st century AD. This makes its compatible with the tradition which claims that the cloth with the image of the crucified man imprinted on it is the very one Jesus’ body was wrapped in when he was taken off the cross. The news will be published in a book by Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua’s Engineering Faculty, and journalist Saverio Gaeta, out tomorrow. “Il Mistero della Sindone” (The Mystery of the Shroud) is edited by Rizzoli (240 pp, 18 Euro).

Read the rest here.

 

Death of Death

The following is a sermon, not my words - not even a Catholic's words.  As many of you know, I am a former Lutheran, and every so often I happen to be in my car listening to the radio and "The Lutheran Hour" comes on.  Last Sunday, Palm Sunday, was one of those times.  Sometimes I marvel at just how close to the truth Lutherans can be - but just lacking the fullness I found.   Anyway, Pastor Klaus gave this sermon and it's really quite good, so I thought I would share...

"The Death of Death" #80-29
Presented on The Lutheran Hour on March 24, 2013 (Palm Sunday)
By Rev. Ken Klaus, Speaker Emeritus of The Lutheran Hour
(Q&A Topic:God's Plan?)
Copyright 2013 Lutheran Hour Ministries

Text: 1 Corinthians 15:55-57

Christ is risen! He is risen, indeed! Today the Christian world prepares to remember the passion, the suffering, and the death of the Christ. It is a sad story, a powerful story, and if it ends at the cross and with a dead body in a borrowed tomb, it is an incomplete story. Today we invite you to come and see the Savior who gave His life to defeat death and save you. By God's grace may you know the living Lord gives life eternal to all who believe. God grant this believing to us all. Amen.

A reading from the Bible, from the 15th chapter of Paul's 1st letter to the Church in Corinth: "'O death where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?' The sting of death is sin and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." During my years in the parish I conducted well over 300 Christian funerals. To the best of my memory those words were read at every one of those services. Because of Jesus Christ and the sacrifice He made in winning our forgiveness and salvation, St. Paul is almost taunting as he challenges: "Death where is your victory; death where is your sting?"

Those words are appropriate at Christian funerals, but they are quite out of place at the memorial service of someone who had no use for Jesus or the redemption which He won on Calvary's cross. As a friend of a mourning family, I have attended a number of those non-Christian services. The message of comfort that Christ alone can give is replaced by a eulogy of the dearly departed.

You know how it goes...the eulogy usually begins with a recap of the deceased's birth and early years. Time is spent in telling what that person had done in life, who they had loved, and, if the speaker is being honest, a little bit about the individual's sins and shortcomings. Normally, the majority of the message centers on how the deceased affected those around him. The last part of a well-rounded eulogy shares some information concerning the individuals last days and hours and how his or her departure has changed our outlook on life. This is the pattern this Lutheran Hour message is going to take as I, at the beginning of Christianity's Holy Week, give a funeral message for death.

Yes, you heard correctly; today we preach a funeral message for death. You are acquainted with death, aren't you? No, I'm not going to imply that he is your best and dearest friend. For most of us he is hardly that. Still, in humanity's history, he has been a force to be reckoned with. Although it's hard for us to imagine, there was a time when death and its influence was unfelt in this world. After God had finished His creation, He looked around and pronounced everything "very good." That means there was no death. Indeed, there never would have been such a person as death if it hadn't been for a dalliance which took place between the devil and disobedient humankind.

Search as you will, you will never find a hospital record recording death's weight and length at birth. Even so, we do know when death drew his first breath. After Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden fruit, God plainly told them, "for you are dust and to dust you shall return." (Gen. 3:19b) Even as a newborn, death gave an indication of his future abilities when the Lord slaughtered animals to clothe His fallen children. These animals, once Adam and Eve's friends, possibly their pets, were killed for their pelts. Each day's wearing would remind the humans of what they had done. Of course, Death didn't stop with such minor conquests. He grew, he became stronger, more efficient, and within a short time, Cain murdered his brother, Abel.

Parents know that children grow quickly, and as they grow, they like to challenge their boundaries and abilities. It was no different for Death. In no time at all, Death considered the entire world to be his playpen. He found himself adept at activities like Hide-And-Seek. Hide anywhere you wanted, he would find you. Run as fast as you could, Death would catch you. He never tired of his endless game. He never napped; he never rested. He just grew stronger.

In an obituary, it is right to speak of an individual's good qualities. Death had some attributes which might appear, to some, as being admirable. For example, it can never be said that death had any favorites. In a global flood he managed to destroy all of humanity, with the exception of eight who were rescued by God's intervention. Similarly, it must be confessed that Death was not awed by wealth or rank. Equally, and efficiently, he came to all races, all places, and yes, all ages. True, there were times when certain age groups received special attention. In Egypt, the Hebrew baby boys were killed; in Bethlehem, the little ones didn't escape Herod's henchmen. As we list Death's attributes, we have to say he was never a "here today, gone tomorrow" kind of guy. On the contrary, constancy was his middle name. Oh, and we dare not forget creativity when we list Death's qualities. He was unpredictable in his visits. He might turn a woman into a pillar of salt or open the earth to swallow some serious sinners. You just never knew what he would do. We do know over the years Death became capable and competent, efficient and effective.

Which is not to say he was perfect. Although Death's success rate was impressive, his record was not flawless. Enoch managed to walk with God and got away from death. Elijah was given a chariot ride which took the prophet beyond Death's clutches. But these were the rare exceptions and not the rule. Daniel, Shadrach, Meschach, Abednego, Jairus' daughter, a young man from Nain, and Lazarus, might, by Divine intervention, elude him for a while, but Death was patient. Eventually he would have them all.

And so the centuries passed. Strong men's strength would wither and waste away when Death approached. The powerful love of a mother or father could not keep Death away from their children's bedside. His arrival at a sickbed was occasionally welcomed, but most often his appearance was dreaded by human eyes. Death was, at one-and-the-same-time, the immovable object and the irresistible force. To all who watched him at work, it appeared as if he was and always would be undefeatable, unstoppable, inescapable, and unconquerable.

But then, as Scripture says it, in the fullness of God's time, another Baby was born into this world. Death readily, and quite rightly, recognized this Child as God's Son, his Competition. Death could make this identification because the two had met before. Jesus had been there at the fall when God offered words of hope and salvation to Adam and Eve. The two had met when God shut the door on Noah's Ark. They had met when the Lord pulled Lot out of condemned Sodom and Gomorrah. Jesus and death had met in the fiery furnace of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

Yes, they had met before, but Jesus' birth put a new spin on things. Death could never bring down God's Son as long as He stayed in heaven. But when Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, He became fully human. And that meant, for the first time, Death had a chance to bring down the ultimate Prize, the Son of God. He knew that human beings were many things, but most of all, they were earthly, they were temporal, and they were terminal. Although Death knew the prophecies about how God's Son would die on a cross, he felt he had nothing to lose and everything to gain. That's why he tried to derail God's plan of salvation right at the start. It took little effort to have jealous king Herod dispatch his soldiers to slaughter the newborn King. Although death missed his Mark, it was hardly more than an inconvenience. He would try again. He did try again when he encouraged Jesus' old neighbors in Nazareth to throw Him off a cliff. He tried again when he suggested to the religious establishment that they ought to have the Savior stoned.

Repeated failures to eliminate Jesus did nothing more than strengthen Death's resolve. "Perhaps," he reasoned, "I might be more successful when Jesus is carrying the sins of the world. Those sins will crush Him into the ground. That's when I'll get my chance." And so it was. As Jesus fell, face forward, in the dirt of Gethsemane's garden; as He sweat, as it were, great drops of blood; as He shouldered the sins of every one of us, Death came. If you had been there, you could have seen the torches of the High Priest's henchman; you would have seen the Savior's disciple betray Him with a kiss; you would have seen the Lord of life, the ultimate Passover Lamb, bound and led away to die.

Knowing Jesus was guiltless, Death snickered at the ridiculous lies which were told about Jesus when He was railroaded at a trial before the Jewish' Sanhedrin. Death smiled when Pontius Pilate protested Jesus' innocence and then caved in the face of public opinion. Death stirred up the crowd as they shouted for the crucifixion of the Christ and he celebrated when Pilate conceded and said, 'Take Him away. Let Him be crucified.' Memories of past frustrations and failures were set aside as death saw the great, square-headed iron nails being hammered into the wrists, and the ankles, of the Savior. He rejoiced as the cross was set into place and Jesus began the process of dying.

Death appreciated what was happening and applauded the efficiency of the Roman death squad. Later on in history some doubters would suggest that those executioners didn't do their job that day. They say that Jesus blacked out or went into a coma and He revived in the coolness of His borrowed tomb. Death knew better. Those Romans were some of his most adept assistants. They crucified tens of thousands of men, women, and children and nobody, nobody ever escaped the finality of the Roman cross.

Death took great pleasure in watching Jesus die. He watched as Jesus writhed upon the cross. He listened as Jesus forgave those who had murdered Him; provided for the mother who had borne Him; spoke comfort to the thief who turned to Him; called out to the Father who had left Him. Around the sixth hour, Death started to pay closer attention. The earlier beatings, and yes, yes, our sins, had weakened the Savior's physical constitution. Death knew the signs which always heralded the end. Jesus was fading; His breathing was failing; His heart was racing. In the final moments, Death came right up to the Savior so he would see the closing moments of Jesus' life. Yes, He was somewhat surprised when Jesus, right before He died, loudly stated, "It is finished," but it made little difference. Jesus was dead. The Roman spear into Jesus' heart was icing on the cake. Death had won, God had lost and Jesus was finished.

And so were many other things. For example, man's hope was finished. Man's salvation was finished. Man's future, finished. Man's redemption, finished. Man's atonement, finished. As far as Death was concerned, it had been a good day, an excellent day. Jesus had been defeated and humanity was damned. Death knew, if he lived for more than a million times a million years, he would never again see another day as good as that Friday almost 2,000 years ago.

Death rejoiced, but he was not alone. The High Priests would have been laughing, smiling because Christ was dead, and the Danger they had feared had, well, it had passed over. Herod would have turned to his lackeys, his cronies, his entourage and shown his pleasure. He had managed to get rid of another crazy Prophet, this One worse than the Baptizer. But this time, Herod had managed to do the deed without getting his hands bloody.

Of course not everyone was glad. That first Good Friday night, Pilate would have been busy trying to mend the broken bridges between himself and his wife. He would have had to explain the necessity, the political expediency, of letting Jesus die. It would take some time, though, if ever, before she forgot the fact that her husband had ignored her good counsel and had a man crucified whom he knew to be innocent. Jesus' disciples, they spent their time cringing and cowering. They had seen their world crumble, their dreams of ruling kingdoms die alongside their Master. Now they had to make themselves so small, so insignificant that they would be forgotten. That first Good Friday night, Jesus' most faithful followers, the women who had followed Him from Galilee, who had seen where His dead body had been buried, with quiet tones and through tears made their plans to make sure Jesus would be given a proper burial. That first Good Friday night everyone knew Death had won. One more Man had died. His passing would not change the world. In a very short time, people would remember Jesus no more.

That first Good Friday night, everyone knew that Death had been victorious. Everyone knew it, except for Death, himself. Something was wrong. Something was tragically, terribly wrong. Death received reports from hell and Satan. The demonic dancing had, all of a sudden, stopped. Jesus had appeared to them. But the Jesus they were seeing was not a defeated Jesus; He was not a dead Jesus; nor was He a damned Jesus. In front of them was standing a Jesus, no longer limited in His power. Before them appeared a Jesus fully armed with all the attributes of God. In victory, Jesus came to them, stood before them, extended His nail-pierced hands toward them; let them see His spear-sliced side, and they knew. They knew they had lost and Christ had won. Death no longer was a one-way ticket to the terrors of hell. That first Good Friday, you see, is the day that death died. This is his eulogy. Death no longer has a sting. The grave no longer has a final victory. Everyone who has Jesus as Savior, has a bridge... a blood-bought bridge between earth and heaven. They know Death's strangle-hold on humanity has been broken and whoever believes on Jesus as God's Son will not perish but have everlasting life.

True, it would take until Resurrection Sunday before the world would find out what hell had already discovered. It would take until Sunday before the world would realize that Jesus would not be forgotten. It would take until Sunday before humanity knew that Jesus had, through His perfect life, managed to defeat sin; through His resistance of temptation, frustrated the devil; through His sacrifice on the cross, had defeated death. It would take until Sunday before this sad, sorry, sinful world would realize there is One Man, and One Mediator between God and Man. It would take until Sunday... and then on Sunday, the world would hear. And what would they hear? They would hear the three, most beautiful words in the world. They would hear: "Christ is risen!"

Death has been defeated.

Audio version of the above by Pastor Klaus

I know it may seem strange to see a Lutheran sermon on a Catholic apologetics site, but I, for one, cannot deny when those in my former faith "get things right," and this is one of those situations.

-------
Addendum, Holy (Maundy) Thursday, 3/28/2013

Well, I posted the complete sermon because I truly enjoyed the overall message, now COULD I have been more critical?  Certainly.  Rather than give the nod to those parts we agree upon, let me focus on some of the points where there may be some disagreement...

Parents know that children grow quickly, and as they grow, they like to challenge their boundaries and abilities. It was no different for Death. In no time at all, Death considered the entire world to be his playpen. He found himself adept at activities like Hide-And-Seek. Hide anywhere you wanted, he would find you. Run as fast as you could, Death would catch you. He never tired of his endless game. He never napped; he never rested. He just grew stronger.

That Death would catch you is mostly true - but not 100% true, even for the people of the Old Covenant, for we have examples of Enoch and Elijah who were taken to Heaven without death.  We also have evidence in the New Testament that those who did die under the Old Covenant were not “dead” but alive in Heaven!  Where you ask?  Well, the most blatant example would be at the Transfiguration of our Lord Jesus Christ where Moses, who died centuries earlier, was clearly “alive” with Jesus and the three Apostles who accompanied Him.  Pastor Klaus does recognize Enoch and Elijah later, but not Moses.

Yes, they had met before, but Jesus' birth put a new spin on things. Death could never bring down God's Son as long as He stayed in heaven. But when Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, He became fully human. And that meant, for the first time, Death had a chance to bring down the ultimate Prize, the Son of God. He knew that human beings were many things, but most of all, they were earthly, they were temporal, and they were terminal. Although Death knew the prophecies about how God's Son would die on a cross, he felt he had nothing to lose and everything to gain. That's why he tried to derail God's plan of salvation right at the start. It took little effort to have jealous king Herod dispatch his soldiers to slaughter the newborn King. Although death missed his Mark, it was hardly more than an inconvenience. He would try again. He did try again when he encouraged Jesus' old neighbors in Nazareth to throw Him off a cliff. He tried again when he suggested to the religious establishment that they ought to have the Savior stoned.

Pastor Klaus does not mention the Temptations of Jesus Christ wherein Death, if you will, tempted Jesus to give up the mission and follow him.  Jesus resisted those temptations - that would be yet another victory over Death.

Skipping to the end...

True, it would take until Resurrection Sunday before the world would find out what hell had already discovered.

It is Easter Sunday.  This is what Christians have called this Sunday, that glorious day of all days, for nearly 2 millenia.  Yes, it is the day of the Resurrection - but why change the name?  Because it is too “Catholic?”

It would take until Sunday before the world would realize that Jesus would not be forgotten. It would take until Sunday before humanity knew that Jesus had, through His perfect life, managed to defeat sin; through His resistance of temptation, frustrated the devil; through His sacrifice on the cross, had defeated death. It would take until Sunday before this sad, sorry, sinful world would realize there is One Man, and One Mediator between God and Man. It would take until Sunday... and then on Sunday, the world would hear. And what would they hear? They would hear the three, most beautiful words in the world. They would hear: "Christ is risen!"

Death has been defeated.

Yes, Christ is risen - He is risen indeed!  As you can see, I only have some minor points of contention here - and overall, Pastor Klaus’ sermon was and is quite moving.  

AMDG,

Scott<<<

It's Palm Sunday!

2013 Palm Sunday, Pope Francis

Welcome to Palm Sunday!

This is the last Sunday in Lent, and begins Holy Week.  If you have been faithful to your Lenten penance, great!  One more week!  If you've slipped up, it's not too late!  Renew your penance for Holy Week.   

Today we celebrate our Lord's praised entry into Jerusalem, and we prepare for His Passion, yet to come.

Keep in mind, regardless of your penance, on Good Friday it is a day of abstinence from meat AND a day of fasting.  You are allowed one full, but meager meal, and two smaller ones and the two smaller ones cannot add up to the one full meal.  

May God richly bless you this Holy Week. 

What plans do you have?  Are you going to Maundy (Holy) Thursday Mass?  Good Friday?   Easter Vigil?  Extra-Ordinary (Traditional Latin) Rite?