A Question on Baptism

As I stated in my previous post, I played for another church today. I sat in on Bible Class, as I played for both services and had to go somewhere in between. The class is studying parables and they wrapped up the parable of the Sower and moved on to the parable of the tares and wheat.
I found a couple of odd points in the discussion. The pastor asserted that the tares are the hypocrites, and the field is the church. I guess I always thought that the field is the world and the tares are unbelievers. Okay, I can live with this idea.
My question comes from the subsequent discussion. They were discussing hypocrites and the sacraments and the passage about eating and drinking to one's condemnation. Then the question turned to baptism. Someone asked if a hypocrite is baptized, is it a valid baptism? The point was made that this would have to be an adult convert in this hypothetical scenario. Both the pastor and the pastor emeritus said that they thought is would not be a valid baptism, and might possibly go so far to say that the person would need to be re-baptized when they turned from their hypocrisy to true faith.
Here is where I'd like to hear from you and/or your pastor. What do you think?
Are these two pastors correct? Is a hypocrite's baptism valid?

Old School

The church at which I am playing tomorrow still uses The Lutheran Hymnal (TLH). My home church, by which I mean the congregation of my childhood and youth, also uses TLH. I have a feeling neither of them will switch anytime soon or even not-so-soon. That does not matter, however.
There’s been much talk of one’s grandfather’s church. I admit that the Missouri Synod of today does not look like the Missouri Synod of my grandfather’s day; then again, neither does the world of today look like the world of my grandfather’s day. What then? Should we make the church of today look like the world of today? Well, did the church of my grandfather’s day look like the world of my grandfather’s day? I can’t say positively, as I was not alive then; nor is my grandfather alive now to ask, but I’m guessing the answer is no.
My grandfather fits into “The Greatest Generation”, while I am a Gen Xer. The Gospel is still the Gospel for me as it was for him as it was for the disciples. Do times change? Sure. Does worship change? Sure. Do we have to throw everything from the past out? Sure—uh—wait—no, we don’t.
The disciples did not throw out the practices of their fathers, Luther did not throw out the practices of his father, nor should we toss out the liturgy. Here’s the rub: too many people (especially the Baby Boomers, sorry guys) are too eager to either hang on to tightly or toss. I think it’s a throw-back from the sixties (again, I was not alive then, so I can’t positively say). In the sixties it seemed to be either “question authority” or its antithesis. Carry that forward to the church.
History without understanding is as ignorant as no history at all. Worship practices without understanding is similar. When I was a youth and there was no Higher Things to set me straight, I thought that the church WAS my grandfather’s church and not for me; therefore, it should be scrapped. Bring on the drums, the guitars, the praise choruses, get some verve and vigor in the door. I didn’t understand the liturgy, even if I had had it memorized since I was five or six.
Today I hope I know better. I have more understanding about liturgy and worship. I can recognize the difference between Christocentric and egocentric texts. I vaguely comprehend the lack when it comes to the theology of glory. I’m not saying I’m a know-it-all (although others might assert that, but that’s another story). I guess all I’m saying is that to be pointlessly stuck in the past is little better than being pointlessly stuck in a place that’s “relevant”.
God’s Word is always relevant. Worship is always relevant. It is the reason we practice what we practice that is the issue. If we don’t know why we do what we do, we run the risk of being stuck somewhere we don’t want to or should not be. This is why some congregations are opening themselves up to any whim of worship to coerce people in the door. This is also why there are some congregations who “have always done it that way” and always will. Even Shirley Jackson warned us against this in her story “The Lottery.” We need to move beyond the rock throwing.
Consider Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof. He knew when to hold to tradition and when to budge. It was adiaphora to allow his daughter to circumvent the matchmaker. It was not when his middle daughter married outside the faith. I know I sound as though I sit solidly on the fence. Let me assure you: I know on which side I am. Christ crucified is what I confess; the doctrine of the church is to what I subscribe; the liturgy as it has been handed down to us from our forebears is what I practice. I am trying to say in a prolonged, sort of way (which will probably get misinterpreted because I’m not as pithy or witty as some) that there are some churches who want nothing more than to claim to be on the conservative/confessional bandwagon, when really they merely like their old hymnals just fine, thank you. It’s not the same. Even McDonalds adjusts to the time without compromising their heritage. Just teach your people the truth.

Advent Comes Quickly

I just wanted to give you advance warning so that you can plan now. If you want to make Advent banners for your church, don't decide to spend six hours on them every Saturday during Advent so that they are ready for the next day.

Hypothetical

It is common for doctors to notify pregnant women when it is determined that the enwombed one has Down Syndrome. The doctor then informs the woman that she can abort if she wishes. What if. . .
Fast forward to a time when the aborting of a Down Syndrome child becomes the norm. Every woman would be subjected to the testing and instructed to abort if the test comes back positive. Then what? What if then a test is developed which determines Autism. If the abortion of one is mandated or normed, then it would follow that positive results for Autism would lead to an abortion. What next? Then a test for IQ? Then a test for. . . What next--or should I say who next?
If we recommend killing enwombed babies because they have three copies of chromosome 21 instead of two, why not a one that has a defect in a gene (like Fragile X)? Why not anyone who has the potential to not reach an IQ higher than 90? Why 90? Maybe 100? Or 110? Or. . .
I think you see where I'm going with this. If it starts, where does it stop? How can we even dare to say that a child who will not be "normal" does not have the right to live? How can we even dare to define "normal"? We cannot dare either, for we know that if we define "normal" and assert that a child who does not fit that definition shall not be granted life; there will come a day when either we will have our life revoked for not being "normal", or we will ultimately exclude all children from being born.
We must speak up.

Signs of the Times

While driving down a local street, I noticed these three church signs. The three churches aren't too far apart--I'd say they are within a one-mile stretch of the same road.

I thought this first sign was unique, but a little too overbearing.

The second was, ahem, punny, but just wrong from an amillenial standpoint.
Ah! At least one got it right! Funny how it was the one located between the other two. . .

From Whom Comes the Armor?

I have a few favorite hymns (some which rarely get sung, but that's another story); one of which was mentioned in the devotion I was reading today. The hymn quoted is "Christ is the World's Redeemer," LSB 539, and the image which caught my attention is "The armor of His soldiers."

The hymn texts makes many statements in the first stanza stating Who Christ is--Redeemer, Lord, our trust, and so on. The word "armor" got me thinking.

The first obvious thought is armor, The Armor of God mentioned in Ephesians 6. In this passage Paul talks about how to "dress" ourselves to be able to stand against the Devil's wiles; only one piece of armor listed is used on the offense--that is the sword of the Word. The next thought is that Christ is the Word. This is how Christ is the armor of His soldiers. He is the One Who fights for us. He stands strong against the devil. The protection we wear--truth, righteousness, readiness/preparation of the gospel of peace, faith, and salvation--all of these come from Christ Himself. None of this armor do we receive from ourselves; they are all gifts Christ gives. He clothes us in the armor, and then He arms us with His Word, Himself, to stand against the wiles of the devil.

How positively sacramental! Christ clothes us with His righteousness in baptism, and arms us with Himself in his Holy Supper. All so that we can withstand every attack the devil launches at us. Christ is truly the world's Redeemer.

The Waiting Game

Listening to Issues, Etc., this question came up as a “teaser” for an open-line discussion. I pondered emailing my comment to the show, but it has grown beyond a comment into a blog.
It is true that the “marriage age” has been pushed back farther and farther. Consider Laura Ingalls Wilder who got married at 18, and that was about 125 years ago; in Shakespeare’s day it was even younger. In his play Romeo and Juliet, Juliet was only 13 when she married Romeo, although her father argues this point with Paris.
Capulet: But saying o’er what I have said before:
My child is yet a stranger in the world,
She hath not seen the change of fourteen years;
Let two more summers wither in their pride
Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride.
Paris: Younger than she are happy mothers made.
Capulet: And too soon marr’d are those so early made.
So let’s cut to the chase: Above all, Christian parents should encourage their children to marry responsibly and for life.
Why after college, like my mother encouraged me? Maybe the parents believe that their children can be better providers for their family with a college degree. The bachelor’s degree of today is nearly equivalent to the high school diploma of 50 or 60 years ago in terms of employment.
On the other hand, it could be that in our society today people view the job as the most important thing in a person’s life, not the family, and so a college degree is the status symbol, not a marriage. Consider again Laura Ingalls Wilder who had a job—she was a teacher, but hated teaching and hoped to marry so that she would not have to teach any more.
It does put teens and twenty-somethings in a situation of temptation. Waiting longer for marriage is harder when they are bombarded by sexual temptations every day. Is that the fault of the length of the educational system? No, it is the fault of the content of the educational system. The same system which encourages education at the highest level possible (get your bachelors’, master’s, doctorate) also encourages sex—see the posting at Opus—and discourages the nuclear family. Have sex, do what you want, but remember: pregnancy bad, abortion good; marriage bad if it holds you back, marriage good if you’re ready for that step (you can always divorce if he/she holds you back later). No wonder it’s a plethora of confusion.How does waiting to marry after college carry any more temptation for the person who has a significant other than a person who does not? You wait for marriage regardless of when that marriage happens, pure and simple. Christian parents will always encourage their children of that, reminding them that a spouse is a gift, not a right, whenever they are gifted.