tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post7377732012396432886..comments2024-03-24T05:54:23.612-05:00Comments on Weedon's Blog: A Wonderful Homily by Pr. Sawyer for this SundayWilliam Weedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-52604869683091906822011-10-14T10:17:39.922-05:002011-10-14T10:17:39.922-05:00I should be clear, since my prior comment is poorl...I should be clear, since my prior comment is poorly tensed (as in, present), I have not been a parishioner of Pastor Sawyer for going on 6 years now. He is a good friend, though, and we speak frequently. I'm pretty comfortable with the assessment that he was not trying to pick on the poor Widow of Zarephath except to use her as an example of what we all do with regard to the gifts of God over and against the things of the world.David Garnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-80245642064467227862011-10-14T10:14:09.296-05:002011-10-14T10:14:09.296-05:00Wow. I'd prefer to let Pastor Sawyer speak fo...Wow. I'd prefer to let Pastor Sawyer speak for himself regarding what he said. I'll offer only this, in nearly 5 years under his wing, I have never heard him say anything that would fairly be characterized as "condemning" or "blaming" another for something he would first acknowledge that he himself does.<br /><br />Pastor Sawyer likes to take our own little foibles and weaknesses and use them as examples of how none of us live up to God's expectations. He uses himself and his own sins a lot in this regard. I seriously doubt he was in any way trying to minimize the suffering of the woman over losing her son. It seemed to me to be an example of how fast we all lose sight of the great mercy of God. And given how that particular story ends, it seems a fitting example.David Garnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-517719939710937072011-10-13T19:18:27.402-05:002011-10-13T19:18:27.402-05:00What has changed for this woman? She still has the...<i>What has changed for this woman? She still has the Word and Ministry of God in her midst. She has only lost her son!</i><br /><br />I dearly hope Pr. Sawyer had no mother in his congregation that morning who "had <b>only</b> lost her son".--helenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18284019616559905428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-24981348122937988452011-10-10T20:08:27.490-05:002011-10-10T20:08:27.490-05:00Basta for me too. Except for the closing words of...Basta for me too. Except for the closing words of the sermon:<br /><br />SOME Things will never fail, dear Christian, and THESE God provides to keep you and yours in the One True Faith – unto life everlasting! And they will!<br /><br />Wishing you all the best, George!William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-16085387070894431602011-10-10T19:34:07.403-05:002011-10-10T19:34:07.403-05:00Dear Rev. Weedon: My last try. You write, “I hea...Dear Rev. Weedon: My last try. You write, “I heard absolutely nothing about the Lord condemning one of his dear children for aching over the first article gift that was taken away.” Quite clearly I did not either. The words are still on the posting. Please copy them and post them to see if I ever wrote that. My point was clearly that our Lord would NOI and DID NOT do that. But here is what Rev. Sawyer writes, “Would this woman have rather had the Word and Ministry of God or her son? You know the answer to that! Our love of First Article Gifts is powerful. Look how we pursue them over the Word of God! We are talking of the First Commandment, aren’t we? Having no other gods, and so we should fear, love and trust in GOD above all things!” So he is condemning the widow for grieving over her son. He is, of course right, in the sense that, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” But our Lord had too much compassion to say that to the widow who had just lost her son. She would come to this understanding later. <br /> <br />This whole discussion is without merit to begin with, since Martin Luther’s explanation of the Creed was never intended as a source for setting the values for various gifts, nor should it be. Here is what Luther said according to the Table Talks, “The highest and most precious treasure we receive of God is, that we can speak, hear, see, &c.; but how few acknowledge these as God's special gifts, much less give God thanks for them.” All First Article! But I would not build a hierarchy of values on this.<br /><br />The whole idea of categorizing gifts from the different persons of the Trinity is only valid where Scripture tells us specifics, as “in the night He was betrayed”, or “He (the Comforter) will lead you into all truth.” But that all of the Father’s gifts are temporal while those of the Son and Holy Spirit are eternal is simply absurd.<br /><br />Rev. Sawyer wrote about Steve Jobs and his parents. Steve was apparently confirmed in an LCMS church. It isn’t clear to me whether Rev Sawyer says that Jobs died outside of the faith, or simply that he was buried without a pastor. Nevertheless, from that follows, ”Dear parents, what are you willing to provide YOUR children at the expense of God’s Second and Third Article Gifts? What would you be willing the world have through YOUR child’s genius, talent, accomplishments, success – at the expense of having no pastor to bury him or her as a Child of Light?” Is it what the parents do, even after Confirmation, that determines whether a person is or is not a child of God? Isn’t this laying on the guilt a little heavily where it does not belong? Does a person at some point become responsible for his own sins? Was a member of the Elect ever prevented from reaching Paradise because his parents chose First Article gifts for him?<br /><br />I cannot find any justification for someone blaming a widow for wanting her child alive. Can you? Our Lord had the right to do that, but He chose to be<br />compassionate. I cannot understand how someone can trivialize such suffering by then referring to “our” pursuits of First Articles gifts as if these could possibly be compared to the loss of a child. “Maybe we have to work on Sundays. Maybe we tell the boss it’s OK. We don’t mind. We need money. We think we can do without the Word and Ministry of Christ. Nothing bad happens when we do without it, but when we have no money? No gas, no this or that, no fun with friends. No food! We’ll DIE without money!”<br /><br />I think I have answered your questions. My problem is that I hang on to every word of a sermon, not just the general sense of it. <br /><br />Basta.<br /><br />Peace and Joy!<br />GeorgeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-26730871171708292182011-10-10T12:43:02.181-05:002011-10-10T12:43:02.181-05:00But George, I'm not sure how you EVER got that...But George, I'm not sure how you EVER got that from Pr. Sawyer's sermon. I think you're hearing in it something he never said. It's interesting to me that David Garner who used to be his parishioner, found it to be a really good homily. As one who sat and listened to Pr. Sawyer, he didn't hear in it what you heard. As one who is just blessed to read Pr. Sawyer's work when he posts it, I didn't hear what you heard. I heard absolutely nothing about the Lord condemning one of his dear children for aching over the first article gift that was taken away. Who can condemn Job for mourning his children? Or the countless Jobs that suffer that heart-wrenching moment - which our dear Luther himself knew?William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-32717384980677492122011-10-10T11:15:50.235-05:002011-10-10T11:15:50.235-05:00No. That part was pretty clear. But, as I recall...No. That part was pretty clear. But, as I recall Elijah did not say that to the Widow of Zarephath, nor did our Lord say it to the Widow of Nain. Our Lord emptied Himself to relieve the suffering of others even before He suffered for us on the cross. He did not tell her, “Listen, get over it. This is a First Article thing that you should just let go if you are serious about wanting to get to heaven.” Instead He had compassion for her and said, “Do not weep.” Do you think that our Lord thought badly of her because she did not stop weeping then, but only after He had resurrected her son? <br /><br />The Gospel teaches that if one of His children forgets about the things of the Kingdom when grief seems unbearable, our Lord will not condemn that child, but He will pour the balm of His consolation into his heart through the Holy Spirit so that he will be able to face life again, and even to rejoice, and to continue to seek the things of the Kingdom. Now that is the Gospel! Amazing indeed!<br /><br />And whoever robs us of this Gospel is like the steward to whom his entire debt was forgiven, and who then grabs his parishioner by the throat and says, “No relief for you, fellow. You desired a First Article gift.” <br /><br />Peace and Joy!<br />George A. MarquartAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-39664994484005643742011-10-09T15:49:13.319-05:002011-10-09T15:49:13.319-05:00Amazing. I think you missed what Pr. Sawyer was in...Amazing. I think you missed what Pr. Sawyer was inviting us into entirely. "And your heavenly Father knows you need them all, but seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these will be added to you as well.". Seek them first.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-53269838041309873162011-10-09T15:07:01.706-05:002011-10-09T15:07:01.706-05:00Certainly Martin Luther never intended to limit th...Certainly Martin Luther never intended to limit the gifts we receive from the Most Holy Trinity when he wrote of them in his explanation to the three articles of the Creed. To say that, “First Article Gifts wear out. Second and Third do not!” is absurd. Luther writes that, among other things, God the Father Almighty has given me a soul. Does this wear out?<br /><br />Luther intended the explanation of the Creed to be an explanation of the Creed, not a method of categorizing God’s gifts.<br /><br />Luther lists the various gifts we receive from God in order to show why we should be thankful, not so that we could engage in meaningless talk about what gifts are better, and which are worse. He certainly did not intend to limit specific gifts to particular Persons of the Holy Trinity, except where Scripture tells us about them. The whole purpose of this sermon is to give us more reasons for feeling guilty than we had before. Did we thank God more intensely for Art. 2 & 3, then we did for 1? Well, if we didn’t we don’t really appreciate the value of God’s gifts, do we?<br /><br />When we pray to our Father in Heaven, “thy Kingdom come”, does He answer with a gift which wears out or lasts forever? When we pray, “Thy will be done”, is this will limited to temporal things. Who (Colossians 1: 13) “… has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins?” Does this Article 1 gift from God the Father wear out? <br /><br />This should “… occupy our thoughts and speaking, that it may determine our choices and our living, especially for the sake of our children?” Spare me! 1 Cor. 2: 12 “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. 13 And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual. 14 Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God's Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else's scrutiny. 16 ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ.” Is this Article 1, 2, or 3?<br /><br />I am thinking about Max Lieberman again. Not only because of what was written, but because everyone seems to think it is priceless. The gifts that do not fail would be meaningless if we had not first received the gifts that fail. This is what happens when we forget what the Gospel is and its centrality in the life of the Church. Just because we say that Jesus died for your sins does not mean we have proclaimed the Gospel. <br /><br />Peace and Joy!<br />George A. MarquartAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-46001735887647800432011-10-08T22:35:15.541-05:002011-10-08T22:35:15.541-05:00So typical of him to preach the same homily over a...So typical of him to preach the same homily over and over and over and over and over and over.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />But it is a REALLY good homily, isn't it?David Garnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10868519827605827991noreply@blogger.com