Thoughts from Luther on the Husband, from 1 Peter 3

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to reason, giving honor to the wife as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers be not hindered. [1 Peter 3:7]

...

On this subject no rule can be laid down. God leaves the matter to each individually, that he shall treat his wife in accordance with reason, according to the circumstances of each woman: for you are not to use the authority which you have, according to your own will, for you are her husband for this very purpose, that you may help to guide and support her,—not that you should destroy her. Hence none can lay you down a rule with exact limitations; you must understand yourself how you are to proceed in accordance with reason. Thus we have now heard in regard to husbands, also, what good works those who please God are to perform,—namely, that they dwell with their wives, endear themselves to them, and walk soberly with them.

...

"Not disclosing the weaknesses of the wife to others, nor observing them too narrowly himself, but hiding them both from others, and his own eyes, by love: not seeing them further than love itself requires."—Leighton.

...

As heirs together of the grace of life. The husband is not to dwell on this, that the wife is weak and fragile, but on this, that she also is baptized, and has the same that he has,—all blessings in Christ. For inwardly we are all alike, and there is no difference between man and woman, but as to the outward condition, it is God's pleasure that the husband rule, and the wife be subject to him.

Luther, Martin (2009-10-04). The Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude Preached and Explained (Kindle Locations 1463-1464, 1472-1477, 1480-1481, 1488-1491). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition. 
*bold emphasis mine.

Heresy and Christian growth

  One of my theology professors commented once that without exception all of the early church fathers believed things that we would now consider serious heresy.  That was a bit jarring.  Nearly ten years later, it makes a bit more sense, but it's still jarring.  It's almost like some of us subtly believe that heaven is reached by good theology, or at least by not having bad theology. So, here's the question: How much bad theology is allowable in order to be given relationship with God the Father and His Son Jesus?  Does enough bad theology cancel out faith? (The question is put a bit tongue-in-cheek, as I believe I am entirely orthodox on this point.)   

  My physical context is a country with Christian roots that go back to Antioch and Acts 11, and there is evidence of this ancient history all around me.  Thus I followed a friend's recommendation to read Philip Jenkins' The Lost History of Christianity about the history of the church in Asia and Africa.  It has been a very enjoyable read, but it has also revealed the ignorance of so many statements I have made and agreed to across many areas of Christian thought for most of my life.

  See, the Eastern church was never really part of the church history I have known.  After the 400's I assume that's because many of them were declared heretics for their beliefs on the nature of the union of Christ's human and divine natures.  But, while the Western view certainly has more biblical basis in my mind, does that mean that members of those other churches were automatically unregenerate because of this?  

  For instance, if we say that the Catholic church was corrupt in the Middle Ages (an obvious understatement at points), are we saying that there were not true Christians or even true churches within the Catholic church for 1,000+ years?  No, we are making a millennial generality.  In the same way then, why should we be taught nothing of the Asian and African churches from the earliest centuries onward.  Incidentally, numerically, the Asian and African churches likely made up 30-50% of the professed Christians in the world, especially during the early Middle Ages; while geographically the Church of the East would have been larger than either the Catholic or Orthodox Churches for much of this time.

The Three-Fold Christian world, centered on Jerusalem

  While parts of Jenkins' perspective may be controversial, the history hardly seems more difficult than sorting through the mess of European Christianity during that same time period.  Much of it is simply a history which is generally forgotten because as the author says, "the elimination has been so thorough as to obliterate any memory that Christians were ever there."  Other than professional historians, who knows that for centuries there were major Christian centers in Turkmenistan, Persia, Japan, China and Tibet, and possibly Java?  

  In any case, this book offers a history that provides insight into diverse areas from persecution (It wasn't all expansion.) to miraculous gifts (These were commonly reported, regardless of what we think of that. This should be acknowledged in the gifts debate.) to history (Paul's call at Troas took the church to Europe instead of Asia?) to the spread of the good news (Why didn't it reach China before Taylor?).  Maybe most importantly, the book asks the question of why the church can get wiped out in its most native context and why it might also survive when faced with terrible persecution.  What makes the difference?

  So, we are left wondering how much bad theology is too much?  Or, to frame the question the right way, how much of Jesus as He actually is and has revealed Himself does one have to know and acknowledge in order to love Him who has first loved us?  I am thankful to have learned of more of those who have loved the same Savior in hard times and places, even though the theological conundrum is beyond my ability to dissect.

  *Much of this history is also available in "The Church of the East" and other articles on Wikipedia.  However, the book is well worth the $10, as it is very well written.

Baseball Heaven or Heavenly Baseball?

  This morning I was pondering on whether it was really okay for me to be this fervent in my support for the Atlanta Braves.  See, there's a difficulty in my life that has made me realize how much I care for the aforementioned team: I live seven time zones away from Turner Field, which means games usually start around 2:10AM where I am.  It's the postseason now, and the Braves are in!  I can't really imagine being up at that hour of the night to watch the game unfold unless maybe it's Game 7 of the World Series; however... I have woken up early (no alarm) to find out results both games so far.

  So, where is the line in a Christian's life where something that is good can become an idol, more important than obedience, wisdom, or relationship?  I was giving thought to that in my life, but I also wanted to think through the fact that sports are equated to the Christian life multiple times in Scripture, so what might I learn about heavenly truth from this earthly gift of baseball?  A few thoughts that occurred to me, in baseball terms:

1.  If you know that your team will win, then being the pitcher who gets pounded in the middle innings is less difficult because you are still going to be a winner!

 2. If you live for the win and the end is assured, you simply play to do your part well, not to be either the savior or the scapegoat.  

3.  Our performance will not be a deciding factor in the outcome that makes us winners, but it will definitely be related to the individual awards received.   

Play, in such a way that you may win!

GO BRAVES!

How to see a Far Land

  I have been reading Louis L'amour's classic medieval novel, The Walking Drum, for the first time since high school.  The first quote below has a number of applications to both living well in this life, as well as living well for the next one.

He who would see a far land must carry the far land in his heart.  The heat, dust, and struggle are a part of it; these were what made the beauties worth having.   

An excellent second thought from the book:

Reading without thinking is as nothing, for a book is less important for what it says than for what it makes you think.

 My final comment on the book would be that much of the Turkish and Middle Eastern culture portrayed in it is still the same, including many words that have scarcely changed.  This is definitely making it more enjoyable for this student of Turkish culture and language.