#153

Smoky Mountain Reflections #153

As we prepare to go the the polls in Tennessee, there are four amendment initiatives on the ballot. All four are important and every citizen should take a few minutes to read, understand, and make an informed decision. This goes for any ballot you cast; take the time to make an informed decision. Vote in accordance with your ‘educated’ conscience; do not just pick the candidates with an R or a D in front of their names.

Any proposed amendment that is put on the ballot in Tennessee is not a simple yes-or-no referendum for which a simple majority vote decides the issue. In order for an amendment to be added to the Tennessee State Constitution, it must get a number of “yes” votes equal to 50% of the votes cast in the Governor’s race plus one. A majority vote is not enough. If someone votes in the Governor’s race and leaves the amendment slots blank, that, in essence, counts as a “no” vote.  For example, if 10 people vote for a Governor, but with regard to an amendment, 5 vote yes and 1 votes no, the amendment fails.

While the other amendments are also important, they do not have the potential to save lives that Amendment 1 has. If it passes, Tennessee will again be allowed to make common sense regulations about abortion. The states that surround us have common sense regulations that protect their citizens, if we had similar regulations, the number of abortions in Tennessee would fall. This amendment would not affect the freedom of a woman to choose, but because it would reduce the number of abortions chosen, it would negatively impact the abortion industry’s bottom line. Because of this, the industry is spending lots of money to spread lies and negative propaganda about this amendment.     

Lie number 1: “The Amendment will ban abortions in Tennessee.” FALSE! Absolutely nothing in the amendment would ban any abortion. Furthermore, nothing in the amendment would empower the legislature to make laws that violate the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion rulings.

Lie number 2: “The Amendment needs to contain exceptions for incest and rape, or to save the life of the mother.” FALSE! No provision is needed since the amendment does not ban any abortions.

Lie number 3: “This Amendment will put us out of step with other states.” FALSE! Two-thirds of our sister states recognize no state constitutional right to abortion.

Because surrounding states have regulations and we do not, Tennessee has become an abortion destination. Tennessee is the only state in the southeastern United States that does not have at least an abortion-related informed consent law or a law requiring a waiting period (period of reflection). As a result, 25% of the abortions that take place in our state are women from surrounding states, making Tennessee number 3 in the nation for out-of-state abortions. I don’t know about you, but that isn’t what I want my state known for. Vote “Yes on 1” and make Tennessee a safer place to live.

In Christ,

Pastor Robert Portier

Saint Paul Lutheran Church 

#152

Smoky Mountain Reflections #152

Greetings in Christ. As you all know I like to keep my Reflections articles clear and Christ-centered while addressing current issues in our community. This November we will all be asked to do our civic duty and make informed decisions on leaders and issues that affect our day-to-day lives. I would like to help you make an informed decision on Amendment 1 to our state’s constitution because Christians and the church should speak loudly on the issue of protecting innocent life.

Whom we elect and how we vote on other issues are also important, but this amendment should be particularly important to every Christian who loves life. Therefore, we should all vote “Yes on 1”. The facts about abortion in Tennessee are quite clear. Before 2000, the Tennessee Legislature passed a series of sensible laws regulating abortion, including a waiting period and informed consent laws, creating an environment where innocent human life was protected as much as legally possible. That changed dramatically in the year 2000 when the Tennessee state Supreme Court “found” a right to abortion in the state constitution. This decision struck down abortion regulations, in effect, prohibiting any restriction on abortion in Tennessee.

Justice Mickey Barker, who disagreed with the court’s decision, said, “Plainly stated, the effect of the Court’s holding today is to remove from the people all power, except by constitutional amendment, to enact reasonable regulations of abortion.” In response to the court’s overreaching action, state legislators adopted

Senate Joint Resolution 127 (on the ballot as Amendment 1). This resolution will allow Tennesseans to vote this November to amend the state constitution making it “neutral” on abortion and allowing the people of Tennessee to  once again enact common sense abortion regulations regarding licensing, hospital admitting privileges for clinic doctors, waiting periods, and simple health inspections of abortion clinics.

            Those of us who support this common sense amendment have been called the Tennessee Taliban by deep pockets who have a financial interest in the abortion industry here. Out-of-state customers make up 25% of the abortions in Tennessee because there are no regulations protecting young women who have abortions here. Supporters of Amendment 1 desire not to oppress women but to protect them and help them make informed decisions instead of being coerced into making decisions that line the pockets of clinic owners.

            The text of Amendment 1 is fairly simple, and short enough to include here. “Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.”

            As a resident of Tennessee, it pains me to know that we are an abortion destination. Please help to protect women, both born and unborn, and vote “Yes on 1” in November.

In Christ,

Pastor Robert Portier

Saint Paul Lutheran Chruch

Sevierville TN

#151

Smoky Mountain Reflections

August 2014 #151

            Why does it matter who does what a pastor does? Couldn’t any competent lay person fill his role? In order to explore this question, we first need to explore the meaning of a couple of words: “laity” and “expert”.

“Laity” is a term often used in religious circles to differentiate clergy (pastors) from everyone else. However, a broader understanding of the term will be helpful in answering this question.  The word “lay” derives from the Anglo-French “lai” (influenced by Latin and Greek) meaning basically, “of the people”, or “the people at large”. So by this general definition, everyone is a lay person, even pastors, depending on the context. A pastor is a lay person in relation to a pilot on an airplane, a cook in a kitchen, a lawyer in a court room, a doctor in a hospital, a sanitation engineer on the back of a garbage collection truck, and a milk maid delivering a pail of fresh milk. So, you get the point that laity is “everyone else” in relation to a group of experts with regard to a particular occupation that requires some level of training, if you want it done well.

“Expert” is a term rarely used in reference to pastors, and in some cases justifiably so. The requirements for becoming a pastor range widely, because the ways different groups define the role of pastor range widely. For the sake of this article, let’s go with the Augsburg Confession article 14 definition of “Order in the Church” as our definition of expert with regard to the pastoral office (which is so short I can quote it here). “Our churches teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church, or administer the Sacraments, without a rightly ordered call.” A rightly ordered call in normal cases assumes a proper amount of training, (to follow the apostolic model, about three and a half years at the foot of a master) combined with all the biblical qualifications for an “under-shepherd” found in scripture.

            The first reason that only pastors should do what pastors are trained and paid to do is the same practical reason that lay people should not do the work of any given expert; because the work of the pastoral office is what the pastor is paid and trained to do. This in no way means that any expert is more important than any lay person, it simply acknowledges that churches, communities, and families all have many parts, and for us to get the most out of these, God ordained structures in which we need to do our part, and let others do their parts.

            I am not against training up young men and women to serve in the church under proper supervision. However, if we encouraged children or inexperienced or untrained individuals to do some of the things that pastors and leaders should be doing (as is done in some churches in the name of maximum participation of the laity) then by the same reasoning, we should have those same inexperienced or untrained novices flying planes, practicing law, doing surgery, and administrating our government. I am not talking about this in a “bring your child to work” sense. I am talking about them performing the regular tasks on a regular basis, while the paid experts sit at a distance nodding and smiling, or they are alltogether absent. Please do not tell me that proper worship and right administration of word and sacrament is not life and death business, as practicing medicine or  the law or flying a plane are.  God’s word and sacrament deliver sinners, redeemed from eternal torment. That is serious business.

            Our society has come to have a low regard for those in positions of authority, and I think even more so for pastors. But I do not blame our society for this; because many who call themselves pastors are paid to do a job they are ill equipped to do, while watching those who pay them do the work instead. There are also many church bodies that set no qualifications for individuals taking on the role of pastor. As a result, the American melting pot has many people wearing the mantle of pastor who do not wear it well.

            To compare the occupation of pastor to that of medical doctor shows many similarities. Both occupations are regularly called upon to meet with people to evaluate a situation, present a prognosis, and prescribe effective care or management options based on that prognosis. A pastor or doctor should not try to do the jobs of the other people in the church or hospital. A doctor or pastor should be held responsible by those they serve to provide the best medical or spiritual care possible. And finally, we do not charge untrained quacks with malpractice; we remove them from the roll for the protection of the patients. In the same way, untrained, uncalled, non-ordained theological quacks should not only be corrected, they should be removed for the protection of the flock.

I pray that all your needs for experts in life are covered by well-trained, dedicated individuals.

In Christ,

Pastor Portier

# 150

Smoky Mountain Reflections

August 2014 #150

            So why the “#150” in this title? Well, I decided to start numbering my reflection articles and I began writing a monthly article about 14 years ago. If I were counting, this would be article #168 but I missed a few months over the past 14 years so this is actually article #152.  I decided to start at #150 now though, because I can :-). The rest of this year will have a month and a # and starting in 2015 articles will be numbered only.

            So what shall I reflect on in #150? Let's tackle tolerance, love, and marriage, shall we? These are light topics! First let me say "thanks for the tolerance" to all those enlightened, tolerant individuals who accuse the pro-life, pro-traditional-family movement of being hateful and bigoted while trying to force us to accept and fund the results of following their precepts of a non-traditional, non-biblical lifestyle. You know what funding I am talking about; they want to use your tax and healthcare premiums to pay for medications to deal with epidemic diseases and to "terminate unwanted pregnancies" (murder innocent unborn children).

            These are political issues but they are also moral issues and the church cannot stand silently by and politely nod when innocent helpless people are being murdered. How did we become a society so bent on sacrificing our children on the altar of materialism and success? It is simple, we are all selfish sinful human beings, that is why Christ had to suffer and die on the cross. Maybe if we look at this through the lens of love, with Christ’s help, we can find a better way.  The English language falls short on defining love. We only have one word for it and a lot of meaning has to be carried in the context. The Greek language, on the other hand, has four words for love: filos (brotherly love), eros (physical love), storge (familial love), and agapa (unconditional love). Notice none of these definitions speak of feelings, they are all about relationships and how we function within those relationships. In Saint Paul's famous “love chapter” to the Church at Corinth, we get some great insights on love. He tells us what it is and what it is not. First, he tells us that love is not smooth-talking, prophetic, wise, or appearing to have faith, or appearing to be self-sacrificial, because without love all of these actions are only one thing, self-serving. Without faith, forgivness, and love, all of our actions center on ourselves. And if self-service is at the source of anything we do, it is without love and therefore only a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal; equal to nothing, gaining nothing.

            God-pleasing love on the other hand, is selfless and it is made so by Christ’s redeeming death on the cross. True love can be patient and kind because it selflessly desires to serve the one to whom patience and kindness is given. Love does not envy or boast and is not arrogant or rude, because it desires to serve selflessly the one to whom the honor or deference is given. Love does not insist on its own way, because it enjoys the object of one’s love having their way. Love is not irritable or resentful, because it enjoys being pleasing and pleasant toward others. Love does not rejoice at wrongdoing, because that means someone who is loved is being harmed. Love rejoices with the truth, because truth is where the Gospel is found. Forgiveness is the glue that binds all God pleasing relationships and is where the peace that surpasses all human understanding is found.

            A recent study published in the AFA journal noted that today's young adults have a number of enlightened prerequisites for getting married. Our young people did not think these things up. Society instilled these values in them. Here are some of those prerequisites: 24%  purchase a home; 33%  pay for a wedding; 50%  have 1 to 2 years of full time work under their belts; 51%  have a career underway;  90%  finish education;  and 91%  be financially independent. Had I applied that last one I would: still be a single man and would have missed out on over 31 years of marriage to my best friend; would burn with passion in a violation of the 10th commandment sort of way; and three of my favorite people would not exist. Maybe getting married at the age of 21 is too young in the opinion of many, but I say that all of the above prerequisites can be worked on much better if you have a life mate at your side to work on them with.

            With God's help we can provide the kind of love that bears all things, believes all things,   hopes in all things, and endures all things, because true selfless love is connected to the gospel. We know this because of these three little words in Paul's letter, "love never ends." If love is eternal it can only flow from an eternal source, and there is only one eternal being. The omnipresent triune God is the only possible source for a love that never dies. In marriage, in accordance with God’s design, we get a little glimpse of what the pre-sin creation must have been like.

            I pray that your summer is blessed with true tolerance and true love, living out your God-given role in whatever kind of family you are a part of, while holding up the Biblical model for the family as the anchor in our society for the selfless commitment of a married couple to each other and to the children they are blessed to raise.

In Christ,

Pastor Portier

SMR 0614

Smoky Mountain Reflections

June 2014

            Summer is here and it is time to finish that series on historic heresies. We discussed Legalism, Gnosticism and Arianism, so let's wrap things up and discuss Pelagianism and Socinianism.

            PELAGIANISM: The next great heresy in the church was Pelagianism. This heresy is named after the British monk named Pelagius (354-420 or 440) who first popularized the view. Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special divine aid. Modern day Pelagians reject the doctrine of original sin or what Calvinists call total depravity, and they reject the practice of infant baptism. This heresy leads to works righteousness or partial works righteousness known as semi-pelagianism. 

            Pelagius and Augustine were opponents and the conflict between Pelagius and Augustine involved some of the very same issues Calvinists and Armenians (believing in decision theology) still argue over today. Pelagius was motivated by a concern to elevate human free will, because he was (wrongly) convinced it was the only way to preserve human responsibility. Augustine defended the sovereignty of God, because he (rightly) knew it was the only way to preserve the centrality of divine grace in salvation.

            Augustine responded by demonstrating from scripture that the human will is not free in the sense Pelagius taught; our wills are hopelessly bound by sin (Romans 8:7–8). Sinners are utterly helpless to change for the better apart from the external working of divine grace in their hearts (Jeremiah 13:23). The Council of Ephesus in 431 condemned Pelagianism as heretical.

            SOCINIANISM: Socinianism is a system of Christian doctrine named for Fausto Sozzini (Latin: Faustus Socinus), which was developed among the Polish Brethren in the Minor Reformed Church of Poland during the 16th and 17th centuries, and embraced by the Unitarian Church of Transylvania during the same period. It is most famous for its Non-Trinitarian Christology but contains a number of other unorthodox beliefs.

            Socinianism is the culmination of heresy—an amalgamation of all the other heresies—and it is without a doubt the most widespread of all the heresies in our generation. Modern theological liberalism is nothing more than a variety of Socinianism. Rejecting everything Catholic, the Socinians ended up with a doctrine that embraced virtually every serious error that had ever assaulted the church. Like the legalists and the Pelagians, they taught salvation by works. Like the Gnostics and the Arians, they were Anti-Trinitarian. In fact, they denied not only the deity of Christ but also every miraculous element of scripture, just as many do today. They blended the skepticism of the Sadducees with the humanistic rationalism of the enlightenment era, and that combination is what gave birth to this heresy. Modern day Unitarian Universalism is a clear representation of this heresy. This heresy does away with the authority of scripture and makes human reason supreme. Socinians would say that Jesus came to show us how to live not to die for our sins.

            Every cult and every false doctrine that exists today has something in common with one or more of these five false doctrines. Now you are equipped to take on any serious heretic. So remember, if you run into a any of these garden variety heretics, let them know the church condemned Legalism in the first century, Gnosticism in the second century, Arianism in the third century, Pelagianism in the fifth century, and Socinianism around 400 years ago. Or, just tell them to read the Bible.

Blessed Summer,

Pastor Portier

May 2014

Smoky Mountain Reflections

May 2014

            Words and phrases can mean different things in different contexts to different people. We should be very careful to know what our words mean before we say them.  I cannot change the meaning of a word/s to suit my own needs and desires. I will acknowledge that word usage and meanings can and do change over time, but sadly, some words are used today that mean one thing for one group and a different thing for another. We as Christians should be careful how we use words. Let's look at some words and see how they are commonly misused, and how we might communicate more clearly by saying what we really mean.

            Let's start with the word “tolerance”. According to Dictionary.com, this word has many definitions, but let's exclude its medical and technical definitions, and focus on the second of the three general definitions, which is "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own."   We do not need to pick this definition apart; let's just say one can be civil toward those whose opinions and practices are different than their own. This does not say that you must agree, just that you have a kind permissive attitude toward them. As
conservative biblical Christians these days, we find a strong double standard applied to us when it comes to the word “tolerance”. We are called intolerant and judgmental of others when we stand with the clear teaching of God's word on the definition of family and the sanctity of human life. At the same time those who accuse us of being intolerant are at the very same time being very intolerant of us and our consciences with regard to the authority of God's word. Now some of this is because some Christians try to judge others and tell them how they should act or what they should do. But that is not our call as Christians. We are to be ready to give an answer for the hope we have in our hearts; this means that I, as a forgiven sinner, want others to know how great it is to be forgiven, so I stand ready to tell others that Christ died for our sins, and in order to understand what sins are, we must accept God’s definitions and not make up our own. So if you find yourself being called an intolerant bigot, thank the person who says that to you, letting them know how much you appreciate their tolerance of your convictions.

            There are also common words and phrases that Christians use that should be used with caution. You have probably heard me say before "I am too blessed to be depressed". This is a catchy phrase, but it carries, I think, a dangerous assumption that only happy, well-to-do people, are blessed. This is of course not what is meant, but
consider the next time you are sharing your struggles, pains, or anxieties in life, that this is also a time to acknowledge that you are blessed because God's blessings upon us are constant. He is always there caring for us and working for our good even if we are ignorant of it during times of suffering. 

            Another dangerous phrase is "It’s a God thing" not because something is not “a God thing” (because He is in control of everything, so everything is a God thing). Unfortunately, we often use this not to acknowledge that God is in control (and it amazes us how He works through the things in our life to both discipline and care for us), but it is used to recognize things that we feel are good. This again implies that the bad things that we don’t like are not “God things”, but He is working there as well.    

            "God placed it on my heart" is a phrase that implies special divine revelation, when we know God reveals Himself through His word.  When we have an idea or make a decision it is possible, if not probable, that God uses our environment, friends, family, and our prayer to help us come to a God pleasing idea or decision, but to say "God placed it on my heart" implies divine authority behind the words we speak, and unless we are proclaiming biblical truth, what we say is our opinion, not God's Word.   

            There is one phrase, however, that I think we as Lutherans should never use, because I feel it is based on a theology that is not biblical. "Come to Jesus". We as Christians do not “come” to faith in Christ, the Holy Spirit plants faith in our hearts at our Baptism or when God’s word is preached and we hear and believe. Either way we are not coming to faith, faith is coming to us.

Ok, enough rambling with words about words. Have a "blessed" (no matter how good or bad it is) :-) Spring.

In Christ,

April a little late

Smoky Mountain Reflections

April 2014

            Spring is upon us, and as I clear my head from a busy winter I have noticed that I started a series of articles in January that I neglected to finish. Now that it is spring and I am thinking more clearly, let’s return to the series I started on the five historic heresies. We already discussed the oldest (legalism), and right on its heels came Gnosticism and Arianism, so let’s look at these.

            Gnosticism: The word Gnosticism comes from the Ancient Greek “gnosis” meaning knowledge. This heresy first shows up in a number of ancient religions which taught that people should shun the material world and embrace the spiritual world. Gnostic ideas influenced many religions, including Christianity. Gnosticism is basically a pendulum swing away from the first heresy, legalism.  Where the Judaizers combined Jewish practice with Christianity, Gnosticism combined pagan philosophy with Christianity. The Judaizers were holding on to the past, while Gnostics broke with the past looking to be attractive to the society of their day.... sound familiar?

            Ancient Gnosticism is hard to pin down. It requires a “special knowledge” but that special knowledge is never clearly defined, much like today’s New Age movement (which is already decades old, so it is no longer new and therefore has faded from popularity like all fads).  Christian varieties of Gnosticism did not really come into full form until sometime in the second century. That is when we see things such as Gnostic gospels show up. Christianity survived Gnosticism by confronting it head-on. Many of the early church fathers fought for Biblical truth, laying down their lives rather than compromising their faith in Christ by mixing it with Paganism.

            Gnosticism made numerous claims over the years, and as one version was squashed by the church, another would pop up in its place. However, most forms of Gnosticism fall into three categories. Dualism claims that everything in the universe is reducible to two fundamental realities, for example Good & Evil or Flesh & Spirit. Syncretism is the merging of two different systems of belief, for example, modern day Unitarian Universalism, or the beliefs of many Americans who claim to be Christian but will say "all paths lead to God". The last category is Docetism, which claims that Christ only appeared to be human. Modern historic critics make a similar sort of claim when they try to explain away all of Christ’s miracles with human reason, making him an aberration of a collective consciousness or the creation of a deluded individual or individuals.

            Arianism shows us how heresy can arise from within the church. During a climate of tolerance after Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, Arianism became a movement within the church before anyone rose up to oppose it. This is Satan’s favorite tactic; disguising himself as an angel of light. Arianism is an attack on the deity of Christ. The Arians claimed that Jesus Christ was a created being, higher than humanity, but less than truly God. The Gnostic attacked the church from outside the church, but Arianism brought false doctrine to the church from within. Arius was the heretic for whom this doctrine is named. He devised a view of Christ that made Him a created being, neither divine nor truly human, but a mediator between God and humanity. According to Arius, Christ was the firstborn of all creation, higher than other creatures, but a creature nonetheless. This is exactly what modern Jehovah’s Witnesses teach. Jehovah's Witnesses use the very same arguments Arius did.

            The Nicene Creed was the church’s response to Arianism, but it marked the beginning, not the end,

of the controversy in the church. After their doctrine was condemned by the council, the Arians pleaded for tolerance, and they succeeded in infecting the church worldwide with their doctrine. Emperor Constantine was frustrated when the Nicene Council was not successful in quelling the Arian controversy, because he wanted harmony in the church to promote harmony in his land. Arianism became so popular that only one man ended up standing against it—Athanasius (the same Athanasius after whom the Athanasian Creed is named).

            Although Athanasius stood alone against the majority of the church in his day, his arguments won out, because he employed Scripture skillfully and persuasively to demonstrate the error of the heresy. This episode is a classic example of why Scripture, not majority opinion, is the first and last test of every doctrine. This is why we hold to the Book of Concord as the clearest exposition of biblical truth.

            We only have two left, so next month we will address Pelagianism and Socinianism. See you then.

In Christ, Pastor Portier