Waiting on World AIDS Day 2020

 

I was looking for a good image for World AIDS Day for my Facebook earlier and I saw this and gave a little giggle. Why you ask? Well because in some ways I've given up on waiting for something like an AIDS vaccine. But in light of the blazing speed upon which we have seen a Covid-19 vaccine develop, the lack of a vaccine after all these years for HIV stands out all the more. Maybe it's because of the science of it all, and on a molecular level the virus is so different from that of Covid-19 it is unfair to wonder how one came out in a year while the other has taken forever and a day and still seems forever away. But I won't lie, part of me thinks the difference is that the brunt of the AIDS epidemic is taking place in Africa. That that is the determining factor. Part of me thinks this year shows what happens when the first world really does care about ending a virus. Part of me thinks the economic disaster that has been Covid-19 and the inconvenience that has been Covid-19 in these wealthy nations has been at the least what brought on a vaccine so quickly, if not shown why we haven't had one so quickly for AIDS. But that's just wondering. And don't get me wrong, I am thrilled there is a vaccine for Covid-19 coming, because we do need it. But I know that especially in some nations we pay less attention to, we really need an AIDS vaccine.

But in the US, AIDS isn't in vogue. It sounds stupid to say it that way, but it's true. Talk to AIDS related charities. Ask them if raising funds has gotten easier or harder. Part of this is because of good things: people with AIDS are living relatively normal lives more and more. The death rate has peaked and currently is in a downward trajectory. These are good things, and they no doubt make us collectively worry less about the virus. Science has made developments.

But on World AIDS Day, once a year we pause to remember it ain't over. Once a year we stop and realize that many are still being infected or dying. Once a year we remember that access to health care and medicine for people with AIDS must still be a priority. Once a year we take time to remember those we have lost already and still miss deeply. And in a year like 2020, where the rest of us are experiencing what it's like to be in an epidemic, to wait for a vaccine, to hope and lose people along the way, we perhaps realize just a bit more what a day like today is all about.

In many churches, we have begun a season known as Advent. It is a season of hope and expectation, a time to remember what it was for Israel to wait for their Messiah. It is a season to remember that the story ain't over till our Lord returns. Advent - which means coming or arrival - looks forward to the holy celebration of Christmas, when a long awaited hope first arrived and to the return of Jesus, when our Lord will arrive in glory riding on the clouds of heaven.

In some ways, that first arrival - while the wait seemed long to those Israelites who hoped in God's Messiah - it was like 2020 compared to those of us who have now awaited Jesus' return. And like an AIDS vaccine, we sometimes have been waiting so long we forget to even look for Jesus. And like a day that calls us to pause and remember, that's Advent in the church, it's the ecclesiastical reminder that Christ is coming. This is our hope. This is what we wait for.

Sometimes waiting for God feels long because of how desperately we need him, and even if the wait in the scheme of things isn't all that long, it feels that way. Sometimes we forget to wait, but then we remember, and in remembering we realize how much we still need him. The truth is, a lot of the Bible is people waiting for God. A lot of ministry is being with people waiting for God. It's learning to trust in him who promises, and join with those in celebration who have seen promise fulfilled - all the while believing that promise is a reassurance to us.

I guess that's the difference between my faith in God and my faith in the world. I see a Covid vaccine quickly coming and in no way feel closer to an AIDS vaccine. But I see God bringing healing to a bleeding woman and believe that speaks hope for me. 

We've waited for this covid vaccine. We're still waiting for an AIDS vaccine. We Christians have waited for Jesus for near about 2000 years. Some hopes have been realized. Some are still to come. But in it all, how preciously different a thing hope can be, even when we're waiting.

And of course, some things in life are worth waiting for.

Some things we wait for because we are dying without them.

In a year of waiting, empathize with those who wait.

In a year of hope fighting despair, learn the value of hoping.

And pause somewhere to remember where the journey has taken you, and where you hope to go...

Then perhaps we're ready to observe World AIDS Day in 2020. 

A Short Treatise on Faith and Fear

 Introduction

It comes to pass from time to time that we must address the movements and voices that intrude the church and threaten to pervert its truth. As the slogans are seen and heard more and more in our communities it is time to address those messages that appear in all ways to be a faithful utterance but could at the same time be used to rather skew and distort the truth of God by false pretenses and assumptions of the neighbor unbecoming a Christian. Therefore let us examine the dangerous element of the "faith over fear" (or "faith not fear" or whatever other variation it manifests itself in) slogan and the presumptuous and false dichotomy it presents.

What is Right and What is Wrong

We must pause and first recognize what is good about this slogan that makes it so utterly appealing. To begin with, it calls for people in fearful times to turn to faith. This is a fundamentally good message and one God has often spoken to his people in the phrase "Do not be afraid". The overwhelming use of that biblical phrase and the obvious good in calling people to faith makes it appear to be a noble and Christian thing to proclaim. Yet there is a false dichotomy that is often implied that you must be afraid or faithful, not both. This is demonstrably false, not the least of which by the fact that God repeatedly tells people of faith "do not be afraid". But it also has been viciously used by those who, like the Pharisee who stands before God by gloating that he is not like that tax collector (Luke 18:11-12) seeks to make it out that she or he has done the faithful things while the other has not. This rhetoric has dangerously appeared in our day in relation to the corona virus crisis and in-person worship. 

Let our word be to those who have been taunted with this slogan: the pharisee will find no justification before God by decrying you. But you who from far off still dares to cry "Lord have mercy on me a sinner" will find the sweet comfort of the Gospel wherever you are (Luke 18:13-14). To those who champion this phrase beware from the parable, those who exalt themselves will be humbled! Let us look closer at how false it is to assume that only in-person worship is the faithful response and online worship is the "fearful" or antithetical to faith. Let us also examine closer that implied claim that concludes that an act that includes fear is automatically faithless as well.

Before going further we can graciously acknowledge two things: the first is that some have taken this banner up not considering this implication or meaning to demean others (though we should not fail to note that such intention does not always diminish the effect). Some we can imagine would use the phrase more to explain what has motivated them into certain actions than to make a judgment of others. Yet there are equally those who have heard them and perverted that purpose to not merely explain their resolve but to condemn the resolve of those who have differed. We should note this distinction of the two as we challenge this claim. And while this post shall be firm in our reply we must still be gentle personally with those who use it, especially keeping in mind our inability to always rightly perceive the intentions of any specific individual. Think the best of your brother or sister, after all, to us who have in faith chosen a different path that is what we ask them to do of us. And our Lord Jesus Christ has established this rule as one we would live by (Matthew 7:12). Also, this does not mean the faith over fear message has nothing to share to us who are not worshiping in person or are utilizing safe-guards they chastise. Being reminded to keep faith first is important, as is not being over-consumed in fear. But this treatise must address the way it has been used by those who puff themselves up over their sisters and brothers. It must address those who have felt the sting of shame from it and are looking for someone to raise high the message of faith among those who opt for safer ministries in this time. This writing is to give voice in our holy church to those actions of countless faithful Christians who are constantly being told they are not choosing faith and to say it on terms of common sense and scripture that those who choose to use this slogan against them be challenged to reply in more than a catch-phrase.

Fear is not Always Bad

Let us first strike a hole in the heart of the shame. The use of the word fear in contrast to faith is to not only invoke the "do not be afraid" as an over-simplified justification (we will address that error soon enough) but to make one easily feel less for their decision. No one wants to be afraid. We champion bravery. But tell me first does bravery involve no fear? Tell me that faith means never being afraid (again I say, why then are faithful people constantly afraid in scriptures)? Does wisdom involve no fear?

All this is plainly stated in the negative. Paul tells us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12). Wisdom begins with "fear of the Lord" (Proverbs 1:7). "Fear of the Lord" is in fact an Old Testament phrase for faith. Why should we fear God? Because there is a healthy form of fear. And it is good for our faith to have a healthy fear of God (there is such a thing as an unhealthy fear of God, I would argue this could be seen in the early spiritual life of Luther) that we truly stand in awe of God and respect the Law and heed its warning and condemnation (which drives us to the Gospel). Healthy fear in life causes one to make wise decisions that safeguard us (or those around us) and a lack of it leads to reckless behavior. Thus many of our common sense decisions in life are driven in part by fear, and we acknowledge such as good. It is not a fear-no fear dichotomy that is presented in this slogan. It is rather a question of how much fear is healthy before it becomes unhealthy. No doubt those who banter on about faith over fear usually in some respect believe the safeguards others are doing are over-the-top. Yet instead of honest dialogue they retreat to unChristian characterizations. 

When someone gets sick they take medicine. When there is no medicine/vaccine, the medical community tells us the best way to combat the virus is to prevent its spread. Adopting methods to do so then ought not be dismissed out of hand. When a cancer survivor has tests every six months at the request of her doctor we do not say "you're being overly fearful" even if there is no physical indication her cancer has returned. We instead recognize that she is more at-risk for cancer to return and therefore her caution to try to catch it early knowing that grants her the best possible chance of success makes the action reasonable, even if we might roll our eyes at a perfectly healthy individual feeling the need to get a test every 6 months. We recognize the difference. When this virus poses a different risk of infecting others, and when many of the people who attend church are the most at-risk for a severe battle with the virus, safe-guards or even full on virtual worship should not be decried as "fearful" in a manner that suggests people taking extra precautions in this special instance is somehow unreasonable to expect. This is not just a common flu, something experts have said over and over from the beginning. Treating it differently is reasonable.

The church has made the error in the past of associating any form of "fear" or precaution with a lack of faith. It was not that long ago that many of our churches denounced life insurance as a failure to trust in God to take care of your loved ones and living in fear of what will happen to them when you die. Now all the bodies I know of that made that stance do not anymore, recognizing that one could want to take steps to look after their loved ones and be concerned about what happens when you die and still be faithful. Yet those who avoid gatherings to look after their elderly loved ones are now accused of fear and told to just have faith and return to church gatherings as though their concern is unwarranted and an afront to faith.

Let us then also here note that a lack of fear can lead us not to faith but rather temptation. Assuming one should be reckless (and to be clear, not everyone who uses faith over fear wants no safe-guards, but some recklessly do) in the name of "faith" is to test the Lord. This was the very temptation that Satan placed before Christ when he brought him to the pinnacle of the temple and told him to throw himself down for God's word said that he would use his angels to protect you (Luke 4:9-12). Let us not then assume that fear alone leads one to act faithlessly, but acknowledge that a lack of it can do the same. This again destroys the foolish dichotomy of one or the other, faith or fear.

A Word On "Do Not Be Afraid"

Since there is no doubt that one of the first responses to objections of "faith over fear" is the vast number of times God says "Do not be afraid". To this we simply reply that in these circumstances we will typically see that God is either a) seeking to comfort his people (as at his transfiguration, Matthew 17:7), or b) calling them to a faithful act that fear is preventing (as when he tells you to not fear those who can destroy the body only but to fear him who can destroy the body and soul that one not deny him before others, Matthew 10:28, 32-33). The opponents will no doubt raise the latter as precisely the point. But then we reply: demonstrate that God is stating our worship in this time must be in-person or without precautions like distancing or masks. If one declares that these are unfaithful, they ought prove it. For our part we will note that most of these same individuals likely did not disparage those Christians who were shut-ins and worshiped on radio or tv. In times of the plague whole towns would vacate to attempt to stave off the spread. That is, the closing of churches or the use of alternative means of worship when necessity demands it have been deemed in the past acceptable. Even most of the churches and people who take up this call were at some point during the corona virus pandemic not in-person for worship. And many, while not utilizing as many precautions as others are using safe-guards like safe-distancing. 

Be not afraid when used in this way must be able to demonstrate that fear is keeping one from being faithful. Otherwise they ought consider a slogan that better emphasizes the comforting element of the phrase, as we could all certainly be reminded of that. Since we have demonstrated that not all fear is akin to faithlessness it requires a greater demonstration that God would not approve of the church ministering in the manner it is during this time (either by distance worship or using various safe-guards). And such a demonstration will be forced to demonstrate how it has been acceptable to do such when circumstances have demanded it in the past but not now when our world is struggling to control a virus that not only kills, but makes many incredibly sick, and can leave chronic issues and permanent organ damage.

Fear is Not the Only Reason Churches Are Making These Decisions

As we have demonstrated that not all fear is antithetical to faith we ought also take note that those who make decisions to create safer worship environments (including virtual ones) can and often are being motivated by reasons other than simply fear. We might remember the people from the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh who settled east of the Jordan (Joshua 22). Believing that one day those who lived in the boundaries of Canaan would not recognize them as fellow Israelites and declare they have no portion with the LORD, they built an altar to the LORD on their side of the river. It was not to sacrifice upon, but as a testament to their faithfulness. When the people to the west of the Jordan rose up against them in outrage assuming wrongly that they were abandoning the faith, they used it to call to them as a sign of faithfulness and the high priests were forced to conclude "Today we know that the LORD is among us, because you have not committed this treachery" (v31) and the people upon learning that they had misunderstood the intentions of their kin blessed the LORD and spoke no more words of hostility (v33). May those who have misunderstood us do the same, for it is faith also that can open one up to the possibility of alternative worship. It is the promise of God's abiding presence in transient times that causes us to dare to trust that we may find him still (Genesis 28:15-17). It is the assurance that Christ is with us in our ministries of proclamation (Matthew 28:19-20) that tells us the ministries we deem less to still be vital and Spirit-filled (1 Corinthians 12:4-25). 

Love of neighbor, the second greatest commandment (Matthew 22:36-40), apart from which the greatest commandment cannot be obeyed (1 John 4:21) asks us to consider the needs of others. Any church that makes decisions out of the well-being of the people it ministers to is keeping in the spirit of this command. We can demonstrate this by comparing the early church's concern for the economically vulnerable (Acts 6:1-4, Romans 15:25-26, 1 Timothy 5:16) to a concern in our day for the bodily vulnerable. Many congregations are made up largely of those who fall into high-risk categories. The church, even in its commitment to proclamation should see to their needs (see again the Acts reading above). Therefore efforts to safe-guard them in the midst of their proclamation are quite fitting. What is more is we are taught by Christ to see service done to the "least of these my brothers and sisters" as done to him (Matthew 25:40). Committees and individuals who are making these decisions are often noting these individuals or their own vulnerable family members. Should we call that fear? A colleague tells me how the church made the conscious decision to remain virtual, because forwarding the spread of the virus in their small community would negatively impact the already struggling small businesses around them. They looked after the community's needs while still worshiping God. Was that faithless? Was that fearful? Seems instead that they put their fears aside to tend to the worries and wants of others.

On Perfect Love

This would be a good time to address another passage, namely from the first epistle of John, "There is no fear in love, for perfect love casts out fear...whoever fears has not reached perfection in love" (1 John 4:18). While one may bend it to say "Aha! See, fear is cast out and has no place here." We reply that the context is very clearly one of fear of judgment from God, for it's fuller passage reads "Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the day of judgment, because as he is, so are we in the world. There is no fear in love, for perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love." What is more is this perfect love that does not fear punishment is a love of God (and from God) manifested in our love towards our neighbor: "We love because he first loved us. Those who say, 'I love God,' and hate their brothers or sisters are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love a God whom they cannot see" (1 John 4:19-20). Thus this passage tells us to not fear judgment when we act in such love for our neighbor, but rather to know that just as much as our love of God can only flow from God's love for us, so our love of God must also flow into our neighbor. Christian love can be demonstrated in no greater way. Shall we then call activity done on our neighbor's behalf fear? No! We shall call it the perfecting of our love through faith in Jesus Christ. 

Fear Can Lead Churches to Be In-Person

The grave error of assuming that any choice to safe-guard worship (and especially to be virtual) is an act of fear is equally matched by the fundamental error of assuming that any decision to worship in person is out of faith or done fearlessly. Instead the only thing that may have shifted is what one is afraid of or how one intends to cope with that fear. The economic hardship nation-wide quarantines brought upon churches for example can cause one to brush past other fears out of the greater fear of closing the church. Similarly, churches that are worried of losing disconnected members or who have pressure from influential members and are accompanied with threats of leaving the church will open up for fear of shrinking member bases. In times of great fear people often lean back into their routines or habits as a coping mechanism. That is, opening up is a striving for normalcy precisely because one is afraid!

Stepping out can increase our fear and even lead to doubt and negatively impact our faith. Consider Peter who stepped out of the boat to walk on the water. His fear did not subside from that action, instead he (according to Christ) doubted and when returning to the boat was chastised for being of little faith. Additionally, those who remained behind were glorifying Christ as the Son of God (Matthew 14:22-33). While we ought not take this example too far, we can certainly see within it an antithesis to what is widely assumed by the faith not fear banner for churches to open their doors with abandon.

Now again we must pause and cautiously warn that we ought not assume these are the only or primary reasons people are calling for unrestricted worship. Nor should we make the equally false dichotomy that if fear was a motivating factor in their decision they are the faithless ones. Rather we should merely use it to recognize how wrong the presumptuous dichotomy of faith or fear truly is. We should not however think so much less of those who make these decisions as people of faith, especially where we are not privy to more specific information regarding the circumstances of their decision. We should realize that the political voices and the rapidly changing science leads to some to reject things even as they try to work things out in faith. We should be charitable towards one another, lest we bear false witness against them. May those who read this treatise not abuse it against their neighbor but use it when they are abused or to open their eyes to the folly of their abuse.

What Matters is the Proclamation of the Gospel

At the heart of this all is a commission to preach the gospel (Mark 16:15). There the Spirit works faith (Romans 10:17, John 14:26). There is Christ Jesus (Ephesians 4:11-16) and there we are to be found (John 8:31). On him and his message depends the very existence of the church (1 Corinthians 15:1-2). That is to say, what ought be asked in regards to the faithfulness of churches or individual Christians is their fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet somehow we have made it about what voices of caution (or lack of caution) we are listening to in regards to our civic responsibility.

All of us ought to take the position of Paul who informs the Philippians regarding his ministry during imprisonment. While he is constrained to prison, he notes that he is still there able to do fruitful ministry among the guards (Philippians 1:13). Meanwhile, others begin preaching outside the prison (v14) and not all with the same or even honorable intentions (v15, 17). Yet none of these differences phase Paul in regards to how we are to regard the ministry. Instead he says, "What does it matter? Just this, that Christ is proclaimed in every way, whether out of false motives or true; and in that I rejoice" (Philippians 1:18). If some find themselves contained, others not; if some are doing ministry in a manner you suspect is by fear while you are not; if some are doing worship virtually while others are not "what does it matter?" For our answer ought be, "Just this, that Christ is proclaimed in every way...and in that I rejoice." Mission focused Christians in this time will ask how are people being reached with the comforts of the Gospel more than anything else. They will see in those who are doing what they are not another means by which the Gospel is being proclaimed. 

Diaspora Worship is Biblical

Finally, we will address specifically the practice of virtual worship. After all, we recognize especially in things like holy communion the shortcomings of this form of ministry. Is there a case for having such a worship?

To begin with we would note the development of the synagogue, which Jesus regularly worshiped and taught in (Luke 4:15-16). The synagogue offered an opportunity for regular hearing of the Torah. The Magdala Stone shows us how it was used as a means to harken people's faith to the Jerusalem Temple which because of its great distance would not be regularly worshiped in by Galilean Jews. While the sacrifices and major festivals were reserved still for the Jerusalem Temple (much like those of us who are reserving practices of Holy Communion for a return to in-person worship), the synagogue was an otherwise accepted alternative. Perhaps more important is its roots. They arose during the Babylonian Exile, when the Temple was in ruins and the people were not allowed to return to Jerusalem. It was in these circumstances that the synagogue became a part of Jewish religious culture, and for a time it was then the place of worship. Not only does Jesus partake uncritically in the practice, but the LORD told the people to settle during their exile and from there call upon his name and search for him and know that God would find them (Jeremiah 29:4-14).

We might also note the early church, as Christians were being expelled from synagogues (John 9:22) formed homes into places of worship (Romans 16:5). Indeed the Spirit descended on the disciples on Pentecost at a home (Acts 2:1-4) and upon God-fearing Gentiles during a sermon preached in the home of Cornelius (Acts 10:22, 44). The church has therefore not only also adapted in the time of need, but found the adaptation to not be wanting of God's gracious working. 

If these examples show us something of adapting due to circumstances, we must also say something about expressing the Gospel in isolation of one another. Here now the Word itself shows us something specifically of the grace of Jesus being shared in separation. Paul corresponds to numerous churches through the means of writing, never hesitating to share the grace and peace of God (Romans 1:7, 1 Corinthians 1:3, 2 Corinthians 1:2, Galatians 1:3, Ephesians 1:2, Philippians 1:2, Colossians 1:2, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Thessalonians 1:2). These words are not merely common salutation as we hold them to be sacred scriptures (2 Peter 3:14-16) that convey the Word of God (2 Peter 1:20-21). John on Patmos was not told that he was fearful and faithless for abiding by his exile instead of sneaking off to share his vision. Instead he was told to "Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches" (Revelation 1:11). It was not only in the face of changing worship circumstances that God chose to abide but also in distant sharing of the Gospel. 

Let Those who Disagree Put Away Their Pride

You will not justify yourselves by holding your great and puffed up faith over our scared little mustard seed of a faith. Even the prophet Elijah who bantered on about his great zeal for the LORD was greatly mistaken if he thought it would let him remain at Mt Horeb (1 Kings 19:14-18). Those who exalt themselves will be humbled (Luke 14:11), but he gives grace to the humble (James 4:6). The message is simple, we ought not boast of our faith as some game of king of the mountain upon which we declare ourselves king. In Christ such are toppled (Luke 1:50-52) while those who are poor in spirit and meek find themselves receiving the kingdom and inheriting the earth (Matthew 5:3, 5). As we have counseled those who agree with us or join in our practices not to look down upon you or make false assumptions of your reasoning, so we now counsel you to do the same. This treatise is to make clear that such dichotomies do not serve God's church, therefore let us do away with them. You need not agree that the best practice is for the churches to use certain safe-guards or remain virtual in order to put away the divisive and demeaning language of faith over fear. Let us all take a spirit of humility that regards our own pursuits of God, even the ones named and defended here, as folly save for God's gracious coming unto us. Let us empty ourselves of religious ambition and not regard ourselves more than others (Philippians 2:3). Let us go to what faith is truly about: how God comes to us in Jesus Christ. Let us hold fast to what is good and call one another to faith, but let us put aside the wasteful talk that has politicized our worship, as if siding for in-person or virtual worship is any true measure of faith. Let us instead ask ourselves to be sure to keep faith in those decisions and indeed every one. Let us instead ask ourselves to keep preaching the Gospel in every way. In a time where the church is struggling over the coronavirus to limit conflict, let us seek the better way (1 Corinthians 12:31-13:7). Let us avoid judgment lest we ourselves be judged (Luke 7:37-38). 

2020 MLB Playoff Bracket

 Of all the tragedy that 2020 has been to baseball (I have not felt so disconnected from the game since I started following in 2000) the one thing that I am excited for is the new playoff bracket system. Expanded playoffs should be interesting. And I am more than thrilled that the wild-card round is a best-of-three series finally. So while I didn't even venture to make predictions at the start of this shortened season I will throw my bracket out there.

Disclaimer: I realize that the AL already has played a game, but I will try to not let that alter my predictions that preceded them.

Wild-Card Round:

NL:

Dodgers over Brewers: If the Brewers win, not only would this easily be the biggest upset of the postseason but also would probably cause a lot of fans and writers to decry the entire new postseason system, since the sub-.500 team with terrible offense beat the team that was on pace for 116 wins. That said, anything can happen in short series and people should not underestimate that no team is hungrier for an upset than the Brewers who lost a heartbreaker wild-card game due to a fielding mishap last year and the year before lost a grueling 7-game Championship Series against none other than the Dodgers. That said, there seems little magic in this Brewer team and the Dodgers are the best in the league. I'd love the upset, but I'm betting Dodgers.

San Diego over St. Louis: The Pads are for real this team, and assuming the Brewers get eliminated they will be the NL team I'd like to root for this year. St. Louis is a team I have always warned not to dismiss because they sneak up on you, but I'm going with the better overall team.

Miami over Chicago: Here's my first upset prediction. The Cubs have Darvish and Hendricks, but we all know that Darvish has had some postseason blow-ups before and the Cubs offense has been abysmal. Add to that the fact that the Marlins have never lost a playoff series and I will give them the upper hand in a tough series.

Atlanta over Cincinnati: The offense of Atlanta against the pitching of the Reds. Usually in the playoffs you bet on the pitching, but I'm gonna go the other way because this Atlanta offense is so good. They'd be in a better place with Hamels and Soroka, but I'm not buying the predictions that say those are losses too great to make up.

AL:

Blue Jays over Rays: Let's start the AL off with an upset. The Rays are certainly a tough team with a tough rotation. But this is the best time for the Jays to play them, in a best of three. Having Ryu gives them a legit shot at one upper hand pitching matchup and their offense is young and could be electric through the postseason. All it takes is a spark. The Rays are hot, and they are the best in the league but I'm waving my Maple leaf for this one.

Yankees over Indians: The Yankees have a formidable top of the rotation to go with a strong line-up and the expectation to succeed. That culture of winning will help them trounce a deeper Indians rotation. This one will come down to line-ups and bullpen and I'd bet on the Yanks for that one.

Houston over Minnesota: So far I have chosen the lesser ranked seed each time and I'm choosing it again. It seems strange given how strong the Twins are, but a 16 game post-season losing streak is hard to swallow. While everyone is wondering if the 'Stros can do it without cheating, they have been here before quite a bit lately and Dusty Baker is one of the best managers in the game today and desperate for that elusive World Series victory. The Twins are built like a deep postseason team and I'd love to see it, but I don't think I will.

Chicago over Oakland: And with that I predict the lower seed in every match-up. The White Sox are 14-0 against left handers in the regular season and faced stiffer competition than the A's. This series is a bit of a coin flip for me, but I'll give the edge to the Sox.

Division Series Round:

NL:

Dodgers over Padres: I want it to be the other way, and I think the Pads have a real chance in this series, but I'm taking the Dodgers, particularly in regards to their superior pitching. But I don't think it will be easy, and I'll be cheering for the Friars all the way. Expect this series to go to game 5.

Braves over Marlins: Now I expect the Marlins to suffer their first ever postseason series loss. The Braves are just too good of an offense. And in a weird 2020 season I'm betting on offense over pitching.

AL:

Yankees over Blue Jays: Well...I'm also betting on pitching. The Yankees are the better team. If the Jays do advance though it will take a strong game 1 pitching performance to shut down the Jays' momentum and energy. Luckily you have Gerrit Cole for that.

Houston over Chicago: I did mention that the Astros have run this circuit before, and they have made it clear that they are a tough playoff team - even without the cheating. Pitching will be a real question. But this team wants to prove they are talented without the back-room sign stealing cameras and banging trash cans. I think they want it more.

Championship Series:

NL:

Braves over Dodgers: I don't want the Dodgers to win it again. So maybe this is wishful thinking, but I believe the Braves' offense is the one thing that can outhit the Dodgers, even with their strong staff. That said, I could easily see the Dodgers running over this team too. But if there is someone in the NL who can pull the rug out from under this monster team its the Braves and this is when they meet. Let's defy the experts and predict a different NL pennant winner.

AL:

Yankees over 'Stros: They are the complete package, and they're just as hungry to beat the 'stros after two straight years of the opposite. 

World Series:

YANKEES over Braves: a rematch over twenty years in the making. I don't however think it's going to go differently this time. Perhaps now is the time to say it: if they had Hammels and Soroka, perhaps things would be different.

NL Darkhorse: Cincinnati. While the Dodgers have the talent to be named as a back-up for the NL Champion, calling them a "dark horse" seems silly. The Reds on the other hand is a team no one is expecting to go deep but has the rotation to do just that.

AL Darkhorse: Blue Jays. I picked them over the Rays for a reason. As I said this is the season I'm gonna bet on offense. If they can knock out the Rays and the Yanks all other teams should be on notice.

re: no online communion

The practice of online communion for worship has grown in our church. I wrote up a piece some months ago for this blog about the issue but determined it was too long to post (like 11 pages single spaced) on why I would not do online communion. Nothing has changed in that regard. Allow me to try to share more briefly why. Please know this is in no way meant to attack those who have discerned to do so. I have quite high regard for many of them and realize the pastoral concern in their desire. I merely seek to share why I will have no part in the practice and why I find it so concerning in our church. I feel we have an obligation to share such concerns in an amicable manner, especially when they concern important matters of our ministry. I offer everything in the bonds of peace.

1. Distance does matter. While there is no biblical or theological mandate saying "the distance of the hearing of the word to the people must not exceed..." it does matter. We know that, for example, by the fact that the words of institution must accompany the elements and distribution and that they were to be done loudly and not whispered. The emphasis in this was on the people's hearing. But it reminds us that these things rightly go together. How then do we determine when they are separated? Why is the amplification of a sound system to the back of the church or the narthex/basement of a full gathering acceptable but not online? Well, I think the very fact that one creates controversy while the others didn't suggests there is something fundamentally different. Online communion is more akin to situations of tv communion or phone communion than simply situations of amplification, and those are something we never suggested as acceptable even with our sick or homebound members. And I think the defining characteristic is space. While sound systems help share the word in the space where the people have gathered (including through walls), these other forms transmit to some other space. In short, the controversy comes when we transgress the lines of the gathered space. Digital gathering lacks the physicality of space, and the sacraments are by their nature a very physical and spacial thing. That is, according to Luther, part of their importance.
2. The Corinthian controversy. I cannot get over the fact that Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 chastises the people of Corinth for partaking in communion in a manner where some are eating everything and some come and get nothing. The problem with digital communion is it expects everyone to have the elements to participate. Even if I were to drop off elements at all my members' homes we regularly get attendance from other individuals, sometimes states away. In worship we welcome all baptized believers to the table and let them examine themselves if they wish to partake. And if they in faith desire it we make sure they have access to the sacrament. In this, we cannot truly welcome them all to the table because not everyone may have access because they lack the elements. And I cannot stand the idea of making people watch themselves being excluded from the Lord's Supper because their grocery list didn't meet the requirements.
3. Who is presiding (and what does that mean in this context)? Presiding over the sacrament has typically meant presiding over the entire act of consecration and distribution. In this context, the pastor could only preside over the consecration (sort of, since the pastor is not by the elements) and someone from the home would preside over the distribution. In our tradition, the act of presiding in the absence of the pastor is limited. It is limited to trusted individuals, often with the support not only of the congregation but the synodical bishop. There is some form of a call even if only a temporary one. In the case of online communion, a multitude of individuals are tasked, elected from within the home with no input by the wider church (congregation, synod, or otherwise). While on paper it seems like little could go wrong if directed by the pastor (after all, pastors give directions to individuals and congregations regarding communion all the time), a lot actually could with little to no accountability or oversight. Here are two simple examples:
   
   Jane decides to commune her cats, since they sit in worship with her as she watches each week.
   
   Bill has no bread and wine, so he opts for Snickers and Coke as elements.
   
   Now some pastors may not consider these as serious as I do. And yet they go beyond the bounds of what we would (or should) do in the sacrament had it taken place in person. The first is kinda sweet, but yet the sacraments are by all biblical indications for people only. The second shows the limits of adiaphora in the sacrament. For while we have some wiggle room in regards to the elements (unleavened/leavened bread or wine/grape juice for example) I do not believe we have unfettered freedom in regards to the elements where any substitute will do. And while Bill was doing the best he could (because he did not want to be excluded for not having the elements - see issue 2) how does one later say that may not have been the sacrament? Faithfulness to the sacrament I think goes beyond intention (which in both scenarios are good ones). The presider has a responsibility to see everything done according to the gospel so that there be no reason to doubt the sacrament or fear it being used in a manner that could cause offense. Whose responsibility is that? If it is mine (which I think it is), I do not feel I could do it adequately.
4. We reject individual communion. To do this, some individuals who worship alone will be asked to commune themselves. Private communion as personal devotion is expressly forbidden within the Lutheran Confessions. Additionally, we have not ever encouraged our homebound members previously to commune themselves. Even in historical circumstances of isolation from church/pastors the Lutheran church has not advocated for self-communing but instead to rely on other means of grace. This was the primary response of our greater church at the outset of the pandemic: lean into the grace of the Word and your baptism. While online worship is a different context than say the lone-communing devotion in the Reformation times, I'm not sure we can simply assume communion in isolation to be now acceptable. And we still ought ask this question: does communion require at least two people? Does the other person being "on the screen" count? Consider especially how we've been able to identify (and have done so for years) the shortcomings of presence and relationship through digital means. Communion is a preached act accompanied by physical sharing. Jesus takes the bread, breaks it, and gives it to them saying... I think we are lying if we cannot admit already the shortcomings of digital media in conveying the preaching, how much more the physical sharing?
5. Home churches and worship from home are not the same. A common argument is that the church met in homes for years. Why are we now insisting it has to happen in our building (especially when most pastors try so hard to say the church is not the building)? The answer is that there is a fundamental difference from worshiping from home and a home as a church: a home church was a home used as a church for any christian who gathered there. It was considered a public assembly even in a private home. Consider even the word the New Testament uses for church - ekklesia. The word was used for when people left the privacy of their homes to gather in a public space for an assembly. Worshiping from home is still by and large worshiping from the privacy of your own home not opening your home up to worship. We aren't usually inviting people (except maybe family), it isn't a designated gathering for the ekklesia - the church. It is a place where we are tuning into where the gathering is centered (and note, that centering is not the pastor but the Word. The church for this function has ministers, not the minister making the church). Consider especially the many church services that are not two-way media like Zoom but one way medium like a Facebook Live video. Everyone can in a way gather with me where the Word is being shared, but not I with them. There is also then a shortcoming of what it means to gather. We can connect - even meaningfully - but that is not the same as gathering. The myriad of people who desire our in-person worship to resume so they can be with their brothers and sisters, the years of shut-ins who tell you watching on tv is not the same all attest to the fact that whatever form of gathering or church is happening when we tune in, there is something gravely lacking. The biblical ecclesiology is not (as it is often miscast) "you are the church" but "you all are the church". You individually are but a part of the church as Paul says "you (plural) are the body of Christ and individually members of it."
6. Perhaps it's better to refrain from the sacrament than doubt it or cause others to. Paul was glad he only baptized a few people in Corinth. It's one of the strangest passages in scripture unless we consider why; namely, baptism (and who did the baptizing) was part of the lines of division in the church. It is bad enough and grievous enough that the sacraments are one of the most clear areas of division in the ecumenical church today. When I consider that in recent years some of the greatest area of controversy in our denomination revolves around the Sacrament of the Altar I don't think it is good that we are adopting so quickly a new and highly debated practice. While our church embraces a lot of diversity in practice (even around the sacrament) our high view of the sacrament (right administration is one of the marks of the church) makes the wide embrace of any diverse practice essential in order for it to be embraced by the church. Splintered practice (which is different from diverse practice) sows the seeds of doubt for the community of faith, which is antithetical to the purpose of the sacraments. While uniformity is not the necessary answer, greater agreement on what practices are still "according to the gospel" is.
7. There are other innovative methods that cause less offense. I realize part of this change in stance for some is because we are looking at the long haul. When my parish first canceled in-person worship, we did so for two weeks, fully expecting to be back for Palm Sunday. Then we realized it would stretch past Easter (I wept, literally wept, over not having communion for Maundy Thursday), then through April, then May, and all of June and now most if not all of July. The long game is part of why some are starting to say, "It's one thing to go a few weeks without communion, but now we're talking months." Luther said in the Large Catechism a Christian should desire the sacrament often. But he also said it should be according to our opportunity as well. Just as congregations at times have had to endure longer periods without the sacrament because the lack of a pastor kept them from the opportunity, so we should acknowledge that the age of Covid may limit our opportunities too. We should not be burdened by our inability to receive it. Communion is for us, not us for communion. Christ did not give it to be a burden. But also, as we pastors see the need (for Luther says we should receive according to need and opportunity) we may start trying to find ways to commune our brethren. But I would note that in our synod alone a myriad of means of communion have been experimented that far as I can tell carry far less controversy and concern as digital communion. This eliminates the right of necessity. Just as the church has not in extreme times in its past allowed private, personal communion out of necessity, so I do not see how we can claim necessity for digital communion when other means are available to us that would by their less offense be of greater value to the whole church. 
8. We don't make communion. It is not our good pastoral intentions, nor our "magic hands" of the ordained, nor the deep faith of those partaking that makes communion what it is. It is Christ alone who can make communion what it is. Theology of the cross says we must lay aside our glory searching and test everything according to Christ and his cross that empties us of all spiritual innovation. This is why faithful administration is a big deal. It's not about some new form of legalism (which it can become). It must be about the only way we can trust in the sacrament is by trusting in God. And the best way to do that is faithfulness to the institution that promises us communion with Christ. That's why these things are so important to me. I do not doubt the wisdom, passion, love, or faith of those who suggest or partake in online communion. I do not doubt that people who have practiced it have found it to be meaningful. But our meaning is not what makes it what it is. No doubt those who practice online communion are leaning on this theology and the sufficiency of Christ's word wherever it is shared, but it also means that concerns around this practice are not small ones or to be dismissed. And arguments of intention, or not so much caring because one thinks Christ can accommodate it or other claims that minimize the concern will not suffice for me. Nor will arguments of adiaphora or diverse practice as this reminds us of the limits of such arguments in regards to that which Christ has commanded the church to do. 

While these words will perhaps feel as an attack by some, I submit them in a spirit of collegiality and a mutual desire to seek the good of the whole church as we discern this issue. Any argument I challenge that have been made by specific people is not meant to be a challenge of that person but merely to engage the arguments I have come across as this issue rages in our church. Perhaps I am on the wrong side of this debate, perhaps I too will be persuaded. Every pastor committed to the truth of the Gospel and the authority of the Word must be open to the possibility of their own error. But I respectfully submit these brief points to the table of discussion. 

***Later Addition: This post is intended to show the shortcomings of online worship regarding Holy Communion, and is not a condemnation of the practice of online worship itself. A defense of such can be seen in my post on faith and fear.

HIV: The Choice of Safety or Secrecy

I was in a conversation with fellow clergy today around the issue of re-opening. We realize that for most of our churches, we are still realistically some time away from being able to have in-person worship. As we discussed the myriad of dynamics at play here the conversation went to personal choice. Some of our members - indeed some of our pastors - are more vulnerable to serious even lethal outcomes from the Coronavirus. This led to how part of our future will also include personal choice. There will be a point where the government cannot blanket close so many institutions. That is a reality and in some ways a good one. We don't want to totally cripple our economy, close businesses for good, and leave people unemployed and impoverished (especially when so many are already in that boat). But when that happens it will leave the people whom safe-at-home most protected with a choice. And part of the message from those who want to re-open things are especially saying the choice should lie with the individual rather than be stripped from them by the government.

But the problem is there are all sorts of dynamics with that which don't make it as easy as saying it is just a choice. A person who chooses to stay home when the state allows them to go out will not qualify for the same benefits of economic security, making it harder to stay home. Some bosses, eager to get business flowing again, may not be so tolerant of those who choose to not come in or work from home, forcing a person to choose between their job and their life. These were some of the dynamics that ran through our conversation. But there is another one too that ran through mine, thanks to life in the AIDS community: some people will have to choose to either reveal things about themselves they don't want others knowing, or endanger themselves. 

Many people who are HIV+ have chosen to live in secrecy, not disclosing publically that diagnosis with others, sometimes even close family members. Even as someone who has been public since a young age about his status, I don't broadcast it as much as I once did, and I've had enough negative experiences to not blame a single person for wanting to avoid them entirely. Every time I tell someone I am afraid of experiencing another one, even though - God be praised - they are fewer and farther between. 

What this means is that as the world re-opens but the threat of Covid-19 continues, people with HIV (or other health conditions they don't want others to know about) will be asked to make a choice between safety and secrecy. 

Either you will rejoin the world to keep your secret, knowing that as an immuno-compromised person it may cost you your life or you stay home and become subject to the questions of why you are not going back to work, why you can't go to Bible study, what would make you think you need to keep distancing and isolating more than the rest. This is especially true for younger demographics since the statistics are otherwise so overwhelmingly in their favor in regards to the impact of Covid-19. Along with their peers who question why they don't share their "it's no big deal" attitude are elders who may look to them to essentially build up the herd immunity.

We might also note that some HIV+ people are also closeted members of the LGBT+ community, and the strong association many hold between HIV and homosexuality will no doubt raise questions that may put other secrets in jeopardy as well. Like Michael Scott unintentionally outing his accountant Oscar in The Office I shutter to think that we might do the same.

I have no solution to this dilemma, since as I said before we cannot remain closed forever. I merely bring it forward to raise awareness to something perhaps you haven't had to think about among the many things we are thinking about when it comes to re-opening our states. And to those who identify with this, whether directly or indirectly, so you know someone else is thinking about your worry and fear. May God truly be with you in whatever path you take.

As an HIV+ person I always had an affinity for the X-Men. Many from outcast groups or groups that have experienced hate and prejudice do. I remember  where there was genuine fear over mutants in society and a desire to know who they were (the public felt they had a right to know who they were). The "Mutant Registration Act" was proposed. The secrecy that one held to themselves or their families - that they were a mutant - was threatened of being stripped away. For a lot of reasons that always resonated with me. And as this dilemma emerged in my head, the thoughts of that secrecy taken away again rises to the front of my mind. This time not in the form of government imposition, but, ironically enough, the opposite. When the government lifts its measures and we are more "free" to "choose", for some people the choice will be a different one. 

And a much more difficult one.

MLB: Steroids & Sign Stealing

My opinions regarding the steroid era of baseball are well laid out to regular readers of my blog. In short, I felt the writers who now shame and try to blackball anyone associated with steroids (whether proven or not) didn't seem to have as much a problem with it when it was happening. And I felt the league did little to nothing for too long allowing it to get out of hand. And in the era of suspicion there is a lot of finger pointing and difficulty in quantifying any advantage juiced players might have had, especially because it may have been such a league wide issue pitchers and hitters were both benefiting from it.

Now enter baseball's newest scandal: technological sign stealing.

Most notable is the fact that now two World Series winners - 2017 Houston Astros and the 2018 Boston Red Sox - have both been accused of inappropriately using cameras, sounds, and signals to steal signs. In both instances the grievance is said to have happened "during the regular season", but that doesn't do much to ease the reality that these were the WS winners those years. For one, it seems odd to utilize such an edge in the regular season but not post-season (unless of course there were greater league scrutiny in watching for such a thing during the post-season) and even if we grant the benefit of the doubt and only go as far as the reported scandals it begs the question of how many wins did the team get by sign stealing? In short, would they have been playoff bound to have a shot at a World Series in the first place?

Now we should pause a moment and be clear, we are still only talking allegations (although at least for the Astros the reports are sounding more and more like there will be discipline shortly meaning those have been substantiated enough to merit such action in the league). But as the news broke that the Red Sox too may have done the same we find ourselves asking what can be done? Perhaps more alarming is the fact that the issue seems far more of a league wide issue. Jeff Jones reported that multiple players named Texas and Milwaukee as major sign stealers. The Yankees were accused of sign stealing with the YES network. They in turn accused their rivals. The Brewers have accused the Dodgers. We shouldn't forget several years ago the Blue Jays supposedly had a person in the bleachers who was a sign stealer for the team.

Then the players have gotten involved. Darvish suggested Yelich stole signs, Yelich blasted back he didn't need to with him. Davies said 90% of his former team (Brewers) wasn't interested in sign stealing at all and there was no elaborate system. Middlebrooks, speaking much more generally, said it's a league wide issue and even the 95 loss teams that no one is naming are using it.

In short: the issue is wide spread enough that it's getting to the point players of saying "everyone's doing it". And every team or hitter with a remarkable run of success is falling into suspicion. Indeed, it's hard to tell how much it is helping if it is as wide-spread as the accusations within the league make it seem.

Is this starting to sound familiar?

It sounds to me an awful lot like the PED scandal: wide-spread, hard to quantify, suspicion everywhere, some evidence found, and the top dogs especially the ones put under the eye of scrutiny. Of course though, I have to ask, if Alex Bregmann has a Hall of Fame worthy career, will the BWAA withhold it because his team was found sign stealing? My guess is no. The reason being the blame is thrusted more on the team. But of course, how then can you rely on his career numbers? Or his team's success (and his role in it)? Steroids in the locker-room, even gained by trainers didn't stop them from putting the blame in the players for wanting the competitive edge and not the teams that paid them to find it (and even lent their personnel towards the task). And how will you know for sure which members of the team used the sign stealing and which didn't (think again about Davies' comment, which hints that players are not all in agreement on the issue)? These problems highlight why the BWAA treatment of the steroid era is such a joke. But they also should tell us that we are entering the same mucky world and the game needs to again act.

Not only must there be some strong discipline meted out to the teams accused if they are found to be guilty (which to his credit Commissioner Manfred has hinted at there being), but the next collective bargaining agreement needs to address this issue and even come down with significant punishment to players involved so that they have a reason to not want the competitive edge.

As a fan of teams like the Brewers and Yankees and Astros, I don't like to see their names brought up in this. I don't want the success of my team tainted with actions that seem beneath the game. Sure sign stealing has always been around and in some way is permissible, but it doesn't feel clean or honest. And adding technology and cameras to do so just adds to it. It feels like having a secret microphone to listen in on the other team's huddles in football so you know the play and can anticipate it. Something intuitive tells us it should not be a mainstream part of the game. And however difficult it is to fix, something needs to be done now...

...before the 2019 Nationals are accused!