Derived from the life of the historic St. Nicholas is the legend of Santa Claus. Surely, the historic man is of greater import than the legend, yet even the legend has value. The legend centers upon a generous benefactor which points us to the Giver of all good gifts. GK Chesterton captures this reality in his typical eloquence within an article entitled, “My Experience of Santa Claus.” Chesterton writes:

What has happened to me has been the very reverse of what appears to be the experience of most of my friends. Instead of dwindling to a point, Santa Claus has grown larger and larger in my life until he fills almost the whole of it. It happened in this way. As a child I was faced with a phenomenon requiring explanation. I hung up at the end of my bed an empty stocking, which in the morning became a full stocking. I had done nothing to produce the things that filled it. I had not worked for them, or made them or helped to make them. I had not even been good – far from it. And the explanation was that a certain being whom people called Santa Claus was benevolently disposed toward me. Of course, most people who talk about these things get into a state of some mental confusion by attaching tremendous importance to the name of the entity. We called him Santa Claus, because everyone called him Santa Claus; but the name of a god is a mere human label. His real name may have been Williams. It may have been the Archangel Uriel. What we believed was that a certain benevolent agency did give us those toys for nothing. And, as I say, I believe it still. I have merely extended the idea. Then I only wondered who put the toys in the stocking; now I wonder who put the stocking by the bed, and the bed in the room, and the room in the house, and the house on the planet, and the great planet in the void. Once I only thanked Santa Claus for a few dolls and crackers, now, I thank him for stars and street faces and wine and the great sea. Once I thought it delightful and astonishing to find a present so big that it only went halfway into the stocking. Now I am delighted and astonished every morning to find a present so big that it takes two stockings to hold it, and then leaves a great deal outside; it is the large and preposterous present of myself, as to the origin of which I can offer no suggestion except that Santa Claus gave it to me in a fit of peculiarly fantastic goodwill.

Osteen’s latest best-selling motivational book is “Every Day a Friday,” in which he encourages each person to live each day with the joy that is often exhibited on Fridays, heading into the weekend. A single word can make a huge difference. Hence, I suggest that Osteen’s encouragement may be transformed into an exhortation with Biblical foundation. “Every Day a Good Friday.” That is the way of Biblical theology.

Grounding our lives in the events of Good Friday is exactly what Christ calls upon Christians to do. Speaking through His apostle Paul in Romans 6, Christ calls Christians to live in the reality of their baptism into Christ. In Baptism, Christ’s Good Friday death is made to be our own. Holy Baptism also unites us in Christ’s resurrection, granting us victory over sin and death, assuring us of our own resurrection at Christ’s return. When Christians live in accord with Romans 6 so that “Every Day a Good Friday,” we live our lives grounded in the grace of God which is in Christ and which leads us into everlasting life.

And so, tomorrow and every day, I shall arise in the morning, make the sign of the cross and say, “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” for every day is a Good Friday as we await the resurrection of the Last Day.

By that, I mean that baseball thrives upon its traditions which are neither commanded nor forbidden in the MLB rule book, but without which the game would be a shell of itself. There are pre-game traditions such as the ceremonial first pitch, the singing of the national anthem, and batting practice. There are traditions which take place within the course of the game such as the seventh inning stretch, the singing of “Take Me Out to the Ball Game” during said stretch (that song gives way to “God Bless America” during the high festival of the World Series), and the particular traditions of each ballpark, including the launching of t-shirts from air cannons between certain innings. There are post-game traditions as well such as the victorious team congratulating one another in the vicinity of the pitching mound, the raucous celebration at the plate following a walk-off hit, and the champagne shower that follows the clinching of a post-season appearance, a League championship or a World Series championship.

Baseball’s traditions serve a variety of purposes, including the promotion of eschatological hope. Such hope is voiced in baseball as “Next year….” Clubs which are accustomed to losing anticipate that they too will one day enjoy the consummation of bliss with champagne corks flying, trusting that a mighty deliverer will arrive in the form of a free agent acquisition or a new manager at the helm.

Traditions also abound within Christianity and that is a good thing. Sure, just as there are good traditions, there are bad traditions. Even good traditions can be misused for bad purposes. Thus, Christ reproves the scribes and Pharisees for placing their traditions above the word of God (Matthew 15). His rebuke is not that they have traditions, but that they misuse them. And so the apostles exhort the faithful to live according to the sound traditions of Christianity (2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Corinthians 11:2).

All humans have traditions because tradition binds us to other people which is part and parcel of being human. We cannot escape tradition because we cannot escape being human. Claims by those within and without the Church to be doing something non-traditional are void of accurate description. It may be that one tradition has been replaced by another tradition, but one thing is certain – tradition is found. Thoughtful Christians should identify the traditions which hold sway within their congregation and/or confessional body and then consider whether those traditions keep Christ at the center or move Him to the periphery. In short, what is driving the tradition? Are we doing what we’re doing simply because we like it and we can get away with it? Or are our traditions continually delivering Christ to us?

A significant part of the power of tradition lies in its ability to bind us together in the present by connecting us with those who have gone before us and assuring us that the coming generations will be connected to us via the same tradition. To be void of tradition is to be stuck in the present moment that passes so quickly that we are relegated to irrelevance. So all people are driven to tradition to bind us to one another in something that lasts beyond this passing moment. The only place that is free of tradition is hell for that is the only place where we are solitary and alone, unbound from one another.

One could reply to Gervais’ argument by noting that its historical inaccuracy. The Church is not the mammoth ogre it is made out to be. Taking a cue from Christ, the Church has been at the forefront of protecting the rights (and lives) of women (e.g., the banning of foot-binding in China under the pressure of Christian missionaries, etc.). The Church has invested incredible resources into health care (consider the name of many hospitals, evidencing their Christian founding). Education of the masses has been a hallmark of the Church, including the founding of some of the most prestigious educational institutions (Oxford, Cambridge, and the like) during the supposed “Dark Ages.” And the list goes on.

Such evidence can and should be noted. Yet, the Biblical answer to Gervais’ charge is set forth in terms of Law and Gospel. The Law, summarized in the Ten Commandments, points out how I ought to live, how I fail to live in that fashion, and how I ought to be punished. Despite Gervais’ contention that he has the commandments down better than Christians, the Law does not let any of us off that easy. It condemns us by going to the heart of the matter. It’s not just your actions, it’s your nature, your sinful inclinations. Thus, Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount, “You’ve been told, ‘Do not murder,’ but I tell you that anyone who hates his brother is liable to judgment.” And so we are all condemned by the Law. I haven’t pulled the trigger, but I have borne hate. The Law crushes those (even Ricky Gervais) who are proud of having fulfilled the Law better than others. If the Law defines who is a Christian, then none of us are Christians, for the Law points out the shortcomings of us all.

But it is not the Law that defines the Christian. The Gospel does. Gervais disparages Christians who define themselves as “good Christians” based upon their belief. But the Gospel is not about my belief; it’s about my Savior. My Christian identity is not grounded upon anything I do in thought, word, or deed. My Christian identity is defined by what Christ has done for me through His redeeming work upon the cross, His resurrection, His ascension, His baptism of me, His feeding me in His Supper, His forgiveness of me, His delivery of His word to me, and what He will do for me when He returns on the Last Day. I am a Christian because I have a Savior.

Because Christ has done all that for me, faith and good works are born. My sinful nature remains, battling against the good work which Christ has begun and is continuing in me, but it does not erase what Christ has done for me. Should Christians live more exemplary lives? Most certainly. Is the exemplary character of our lives the ground of our Christian identity? No. “Works serve our neighbor and supply the proof that faith is living,” but the work of Christ alone grants our Christian identity.

Our natural inclination is to define ourselves by the Law, as Gervais does. Honest reflection upon the Law leaves us in despair, for we never love our neighbor perfectly though we ought to strive to love her perfectly. Every religion has the Law (though not in its fullness), but only Christianity has the Gospel for it alone has the God-man Jesus Christ who has won the world’s salvation. The Gospel alone brings us the certainty of salvation based upon who Christ is and what He has done for us. The Gospel defines the Christian.

I propose that a respect for language which comports with the Christian worldview prescribes three things based upon one reality. Christians are to refrain from cursing, forsake cussing, and engage in meaningful conversations. All of this is driven by a recognition of what Christ does via His word and what, therefore, we are capable of doing through the words we speak even when the topic is not theological. Notice that the motivation is not legalism, but reverence for the value and power of words.

I use the term “cursing” to refer to the misuse of God’s name and those titles which refer to Him. God has chosen to connect Himself so intimately to His name that wherever His name is found, there He is. Thus, the use of God’s name reveals one’s attitude toward Him. Surely, many misuse God’s name who simultaneously trust in Him for salvation. Yet their abuse of His name reflects a casual (dare I say, irreverent) attitude toward God. “O Jesus Christ” is the cry of the faithful in distress, but when it is used as an interjection, our Savior’s name is treated as meaningless. “O my God!” is found upon the lips of the faithful when in dire need, but when used as an exclamation of surprise (even in its abbreviated form OMG), the invocation of the divine becomes nonsense. So it is with the abuse of other divine names or titles (“O Lord,” “Good Lord,” etc.). Those who use such words will often claim that they didn’t mean anything by it, which is precisely the problem. The divine names and titles do mean something of the highest order. Using them as if they mean nothing is disrespectful of Him who has claimed those names and titles for Himself.

By “cussing,” I refer to the use of words which society has deemed to be expletives. While cursing (as defined above) is prohibited by the second commandment, cussing is not strictly forbidden. The faithful Christian, however, chooses to forsake such words that his conversations may not give offense except for the sake of the Gospel. Some expletives can be used in accord with their actual definition (e.g., “God damns impenitent, unbelieving sinners.”). By using the term properly, it is not operating as an expletive. Beyond such instances, Christians ought to feign expletives. The apostolic exhortation is “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (Colossians 4:6). Expletives are not salt, but arsenic sprinkled upon conversations, presenting a stumbling block to the hearer. The only stumbling block permissible for Christians is the natural offense of the Gospel.

While cursing and cussing are the negative prescriptions (what should not be done) for Christian discourse, the positive prescription (what should be done) is meaningful conversation. Small talk is permissible for Christians. Likewise, Christians can faithfully engage in those venues where meaningful conversations are inherently rare (though not non-existent). Many forms of social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) are superficial and artificial by nature. The Christian can engage in such arenas as a means to create the opportunity for meaningful conversations elsewhere. And that is to be the goal – attaining meaningful conversations. When interpersonal dialogue rarely transcends ephemeral topics such as sports and entertainment, I have not engaged the other as an actual person with any meaningful depth of character. Respecting another as having temporal significance and eternal existence beckons me to engage them in meaningful conversation. What is meaningful conversation? To a degree Oliver Wendell Holmes’ definition of pornography applies. He said, “I cannot define porography, but I know it when I see it.” It is nearly impossible to define “meaningful conversation” but we know when we engage in it. Conversing about the person and work of Christ is, of course, meaningful. Conversing about my plans to barbecue this weekend (a topic in which a Christian can engage and even should engage as part of regular conversation with family and friends) is not meaningful by itself.

So why all this concern about avoiding cursing, forsaking cussing, and engaging in meaningful conversations? Because words have power! The Lord has chosen the spoken word to be His means to accomplish His good works. Creation took place by His spoken word. Christ restored His creation temporarily in part by His spoken word as He healed the lame, the deaf and the blind. Christ heals us for eternity in the spoken word of Holy Absolution. Christ uses His word in combination with water to put name on us and in combination with bread and wine to deliver His body and blood to us. On the Last Day, by His word, we will arise to everlasting life, bringing to consummation all that He has won for us on the cross.

Christ’s word is powerful. So should be the Christian’s. When we speak as He has called us to speak, our words cannot help but be powerful. But when my general means of conversation involves cursing, cussing, and a lack of meaningful discourse, then I have robbed my words of the impact which they can and should have. I cannot expect anyone to care what I have to say if I speak in such a manner as if I do not care what I have to say.

Much more could be said (and this post is already painfully long) based upon linguistic theory and, far more importantly, biblical theology regarding the power of words. Instead, may it suffice to say that the words of your mouth are powerful so they ought to be treated accordingly. As the psalmist prays: “May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in Your sight, O Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer” (Psalm 19:14).

My own experience with campus ministry took place at my alma mater, Missouri State University (but it will always be SMSU to me). The Lutheran Student Center had the perfect location. Directly across from the main campus, I could stop into the LSC after class, see who was there, chat, and such. The LSC did not have Sunday services which created a challenge for some students who would need to arrange for a ride to one of the local congregations. Invariably, it meant that this very slight inconvenience was the excuse for some to skip the Divine Service, missing out on Christ’s gifts. Yet the LSC had a significant sway in my latter undergraduate years and through the entirety of other students’ entire college years because it was strategically located. Having witnessed this first hand, I was not surprised to see that many other campus ministries in our district also benefit from a strategic location which allows them to naturally connect with the students. So also, my conversations with another Christian ministry at WashU revealed the same. The ministry operates out of the director’s apartment which is immediately off the campus. Gatherings with students happen in his living room regularly, even daily, thus affording him the physical presence adjacent to the campus.

As Village looks toward WashU, we recognize that while we are near the campus (about a 10 minute drive) such a distance is huge in college terms, especially for those who live on campus. Among our action items is determining how we might establish a physical presence adjacent to the campus. Our work over the past six months along with my collegiate experience and what I have observed with other campus ministries leads me to the conclusion that if we are sincere in our desire to care for the students at WashU, we will put a premium upon establishing a physical presence immediately adjacent to the campus. Much could also be said about the theological underpinnings for such a conclusion – creational theology, incarnational theology say a lot about the importance of physical presence.

If we are serious about keeping our Lutheran students connected to the Church and Christ’s gifts given out there, if we desire to bring the Gospel to students who do not know Christ, and if we want collegians to know that they matter to us, we will place ourselves as close to campus as possible. To distance yourself physically from the campus is to distance yourself from the students.

At first blush, that sounds negative. A non-performance church doesn’t do anything, right? He meant quite the opposite. He was impressed with the amount of energy which the pastors and their congregations poured into the members who are “non-performing” - rarely attending services, not contributing to the work of the church, etc. He saw that there was no lessened value for the individual based upon their “non-performance.” Each congregational member is of the highest value because they have been created by God, redeemed by Christ, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit through the waters of Holy Baptism. Our value is based upon God’s action on our behalf, not our action on His behalf.

I was proud to hear that my brother-pastors had shown forth the Gospel so clearly. This is exactly what the Lord has called us to do. Christ repeatedly tells His disciples that they must become like little children. That may sound charming and romantic to us, but to the Biblical world, becoming like children was demeaning. Children are incapable of caring for themselves, they are demanding. In other words, they are “non-performing.” And this is who we are to be, because we are to live in dependence upon Christ. He bid the children come to Him and He bids us come to Him, recognizing that we are just that needy. “Nothing in my hand I bring; simply to Thy cross I cling.”

Every congregation is called to be a “non-performance church,” supporting those who are most needy. It is a healthy question for a congregation to ask: “How much are we investing of our resources in those who will give us nothing back in return?” The more we can invest in the delivery of the Gospel to those who will give us nothing in return, the more we are living up to our calling as a “non-performance church.” If we are driven by a concern to find our numbers growing because of what we’ve done, we’re forsaking our calling as church. This is not reason to be poor stewards of our resources. We should employ our God-given gifts effectively and purposefully. But the effective purpose is not about us, but the delivery of the Gospel to those who can give nothing in return.

Televangelist Pat Robertson shocked his audience by sanctioning a husband’s desire to divorce his wife due to her affliction with Alzheimers. A steady flow of negative feedback to his position has been documented in the reports found here and here. The Christian feedback has resounded with the marital vows: “for better or worse, in sickness and in health, til death do us part.” Clearly, Alzheimers is not a justifiable grounds for divorce. Watching a spouse suffer through such a condition is a cross to bear. And that is what Christ calls upon us to do, bear our cross. In this case, it is done in loving devotion to a spouse to whom one is bound by marital vows.

The criticisms of Robertson’s position which I have read have not commented on an issue at the core of his statement, namely, that he takes a Platonic position. Plato’s philosophical legacy includes the crass division between the material/physical and the “spiritual.” Such a position stands in stark contrast with the Biblical worldview which holds that the physical and the spiritual are bound together in a union from creation that was meant by the Creator to remain united for all time. It is the tragic result of the fall into sin that physical death tears us apart so that body and soul are separated. It is the blessed promise, the fullness of Christ’s salvation, that the day is coming when He will raise our bodies, rid them of Alzheimers and all other infirmities, and reunite them with our perfected souls that we might be whole for all eternity.

While that is the Christian hope awaiting fulfillment on the Last Day, it has a mighty impact upon how we live here and now. One clear deduction from this Christian doctrine is that we are not to separate a person’s being from their physical body. Thus, when a person’s condition deteriorates to a point that they appear vegetative to us, we still show great care for their body. When one dies, we treat the body with the utmost respect. This truth is captured in the blessing which I have the honor of speaking at funerals:

Marriage is a prinicipal location for respecting the intrinsic value of the body. When Christ established marriage in the Garden of Eden, He did so, saying, “the two shall become one flesh.” Not one spirit, but one flesh – you don’t get any more physical than that. As heart-breaking as it is to see a spouse deteriorate, the one-flesh union calls us to fidelity.

GK Chesterton once commented that the marriage vows are made when they are not needed. His point was that the young couple that is head-over-heels in love doesn’t need to the vows, because they are so smitten. But we make the vow at that point so that it is there to hold us faithful when we must bear the cross. Let us pray for those who bear the cross in marriage, whatever form in which it comes, that they might be held faithful to their vows by He who has borne the cross for them.

Restless children can distract others in the service. I recall being such a child on occasion and my parents had a fine means to deal with my behavior – a trip to the exterior steps of the church for some firm words and possibly a stinging posterior. Today, congregations do well to have a cry room where parents can take children who are in need of discipline. Tragically, some debate whether children should even be allowed in church. One such discussion can be found in an article linked here.

It is telling that the article gives such weighted attention to the concern for a “worship experience” which can be negatively impacted by children. What other parts of the body of Christ are detrimental to my experience? Those who sing off-key? Perhaps they too should be shunned. Just like there is “Children’s Church,” maybe we can have “Tone-deaf Church.” Maybe your experience is negatively impacted by those who dress too casually or those who dress too formally. Let’s start “Pajama Church” and “Black Tie Church” to address those concerns.

Or instead of a narcissistic concern for my experience being the determining factor for the service, perhaps Christ ought to be its centerpiece. In reverence to Him, the pastor will utilize fine oratorical skills, the accompanist will utilize fine musical skills, and parents will remove unruly children for discipline. And in reverence to Him, the whole body of Christ, of every age, of every level of musical talent, of every socio-demographic background will be welcome to hear His word, repent of their sin, receive His forgiveness, and sing His praise.