Category Archives: Christian

Confession of sin is good for you

Confession is an important part of Lutheran worship, there are two sacraments in the church, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But there is a kinda third one and that is confession, followed closely by the preached word. The last two might not be “full” sacraments, but, they are an important part of the Lutheran, the genuine Christian’s life in Christ.

Dr Martin Luther fully encouraged the practice of confession and absolution. There is corporate confession, which is what we normally do at the beginning of worship. There is also individual, or private confession which a pastor will sit with a individual and that person will present to the pastor the things that he wants to confess and to get absolution for all of their sins.

Dr Luther emphasizes the importance of confession and absolution:

“…Openly acknowledging sin decreases the immediate danger and lessens our anxiety. The heart must be helped first. Confession of sin makes it light and allows it to breathe. After this, it’s easier to help the rest of the person. Only after our conscience has been released from its heavy load and is able to breathe freely can we find relief for other areas of distress.

When God’s anger is poured out, we immediately become aware of our sin and become afraid. Foolish people cope with this situation in the wrong way. They ignore their sin and only try to get rid of their fear. That doesn’t work, so they eventually fall into despair. This is the way human reason always tries to handle the problem in the absence of God’s kindness and the Spirit. Wise people, however, try to ignore their fear and focus instead on their sin. They acknowledge their sin and try to get rid of it, even if it means that their fear will remain with them forever. They willingly accept their punishment, as Jonah did in this story (Jonah 1: 9-10).

But godless people do just the opposite. They pay attention to the punishment and are afraid of it, but they aren’t concerned about their sin . If there were no punishment, they would never stop sinning. But this isn’t what happens because punishment consistently follows sin. In contrast, godly people pay attention to their sin and are afraid of it. They aren’t as concerned about the punishment. In fact, it’s almost as if they would rather endure the punishment without sinning than commit the sin without facing any punishment.” (Through Faith Alone Devotional Readings from Martin Luther August 22)

Holding on to your sin, trying to out run it, live it down, work your way out of it, just is not going to achieve the end of relieving your stress, it’s just not. Sure penance is good, and many times is part of confession, but it doesn’t give you complete peace of mind. The only way to achieve complete assurance of forgiveness is through confession. Someone who is a genuine minister of Christ, who understands biblical forgiveness in Christ, who has take vows to protect the integrity of the confessional, to never discuss, even with the confessor your confession. If you want to talk about it swell! But if I see you the next day, I can’t even discuss that I saw you the previous day. Your confession to me is completely in Christ and in Christ I give you complete absolution of your sin. You walk out of that confessional knowing that you are completely forgiven in Christ.

Confession is important to a Christian, it strengthens that bond we have to our pastor and more importantly to our Lord who gives us the complete assurance of forgiveness and eternal salvation in Him. Lift it up to Him through His under-shepherd, your pastor, receive forgiveness/absolution than move on in your life, in Jesus’ Name. Amen!

Confession and Absolution July 25, 2018 by Gene Veith

Get newsletters and updates
7/25/2018 Confession and Absolution
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2018/07/confession-and-absolution/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=BRSS&utm_campaign=Evangelical… 5/17
2 Comments
41
The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod has just issued a major study of the doctrine and practice of confession and absolution. The report by the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations establishes the Biblical and theological basis for confessing your sins to a pastor and receiving
forgiveness from his words of absolution.
This may sound strange to you Protestants who are not Lutherans. What do you do with John 20:21-22? “Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with
you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy
Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.’”
Lutherans are like Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans in retaining confession and absolution. While the Lutheran practice looks like what Catholics
do, like other seeming similarities, it is quite different. Confessing your sins to a pastor is strictly voluntary, not necessary for forgiveness as it is for
Rome, and it is not necessary to enumerate every sin specifically before it can be forgiven. And Lutheran pastors require no “satisfaction”–that is,
works to atone for your sin–as required by the Catholic rite of penance. The forgiveness applied by Lutheran pastors is simply the good news of the
Gospel, that Jesus has atoned for your sins on the Cross, giving you forgiveness in His name.
Most Lutherans do their confession and receive their absolution corporately, at the beginning of the Divine Service. After a time of reflection on our
sins and a corporate prayer in which we admit that we deserve God’s “temporal and eternal punishment,” we hear these words from the pastor:
Upon this your confession, I, by virtue of my office, as a called and ordained servant of the Word, announce the grace of God unto all of
you, and in the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the + Son
and of the Holy Spirit.
But only Christ can forgive sins! Right. And He does so by means of vocation. That is to say, “calling.” Just as God gives daily bread by means of
the farmer and creates new life by means of parents, Christ gives His Word of forgiveness by means of pastors. According to the Lutheran doctrine of
vocation, God is present in and works through ordinary human beings whom He has called into various realms of service to their neighbors. This
“calling” is at the heart of what pastors do. (“As a called and ordained servant of the Word. . . .and in the stead and by the command of my Lord
Jesus Christ. . . .”)
This happens every Sunday, but private confession and absolution has fallen into disuse. It is, however, a powerful weapon in the arsenal of pastoral
care, allowing pastors to cut deeply into the heart of a sinner, eliciting repentance and a sense of great personal comfort from the Gospel. Currently,
there are efforts to bring back the practice of individual confession and absolution.
Here are some excerpts from the CTCR document, Confession and Absolution. To download the entire report, go here.
The two words “confession and absolution” are worthy of some clarification. “Confession” occurs in more than one setting or context.
The root word from the New Testament is ὁμoς, [homos] “one and the same.” The basic meaning of the related Greek compound noun
ὁμoλoγἰα is “an agreement” by which two parties say the same thing, and the compound verb ὁμoλoγέω is similarly used as “to agree.”
Thus, “if we confess our sins” (1 John 1:9), we are saying the same thing that God is saying about our sin. We are agreeing with what
God reveals about us and our sin. We are admitting (acknowledging) that the Lord’s judgment upon our sin is right and true.2 The second
word, “absolution,” is a synonym for forgiveness. Lutheran theology dictates that in any discussion of “confession and absolution,” it is
this second word that requires emphasis. . . .
7/25/2018 Confession and Absolution
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2018/07/confession-and-absolution/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=BRSS&utm_campaign=Evangelical… 6/17
Luther speaks of confession of sins in three settings: 1) private confession to a pastor; 2) confession to God alone (as we find it in the
Lord’s Prayer, Matt. 6:12); and 3) confession made to a fellow Christian (James 5:16). . . .
First, no one should assume that a different kind or quality of forgiveness from Christ our Lord is given in the context of individual
confession. All of the Means of Grace — Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, preaching — convey the same forgiving Gospel. In this respect,
there is no difference between private confession and absolution and that which is conducted on Sunday mornings in public worship. One
Lutheran theologian put it succinctly: “Private absolution is neither more nor less than the absolution the whole congregation receives in
the gospel. Rather, it is nothing other than the gospel the whole congregation receives, specifically applied to the circumstances of the
individual sinner.”
It is our goal to explain why, even though the same Gospel is given through the various Means of Grace, private confession and
absolution may be a considerable aid to all Christians, and especially useful to pastors, who share in the burdens of their people and who
are susceptible to unique temptation and discouragement. It is first of all necessary, however, to clearly establish the biblical foundation
for confession and absolution. . . .
Along with these developments came the threefold understanding of “penance” in the Roman tradition. Penance had three parts:
confession, absolution, satisfaction (or four parts if contrition is included before confession). The absolution pronounced in the indicative
was still conditioned on the works of satisfaction outlined by the priest — your sins are forgiven, but you must still do the works
demanded of you to avoid penalties in purgatory. This served as the launching pad for confession and absolution to be viewed as
something related to making amends. In the period leading up to the Reformation, Rome officially formulated its position at the Council
of Florence in 1439 that established what poenitentia (penance) consisted of: contritio (contrition/ sorrow over sin), confessio (confession
necessarily made to a priest) and satisfactio (the satisfaction or works of penance adjudicated by the priest).
Luther believed this was a fundamental misunderstanding of the gift of absolution and strove to bring it back to its biblical foundations.
For Luther and the other confessors, the keys convey the Gospel (in the broad sense as both Law and Gospel), by condemning, in God’s
name, self-assured people of their sin and by assuring the contrite of their forgiveness. The binding key, however, is for Luther only a
means to an end. The ultimate aim of the keys is the forgiveness of sins. . . .
The preceding material indicates that the authentically Lutheran view of individual confession and absolution is largely unique,
occupying a middle ground between Rome and evangelical Protestantism.44 Unlike most Evangelicals or other Protestants, Lutherans do
not repudiate private confession before a minister and steadfastly uphold the propriety and efficacy of the pastor’s absolution in the name
of Christ.45 Unlike Rome, however, Lutheran teaching and practice makes private confession entirely voluntary, rejects the notion that
one must (or even can) enumerate all one’s sins before a confessor, and rejects the addition of satisfaction as confession’s third element.
Lutheran teaching upholds the absolution above all else and affirms its great comfort for the individual penitent.
Illustration: A woodcut to Article XI of the Augsburg Confession by Wenceslas Hollar (1607-1677) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

The Lutheran Hero of the American Revolution  JULY 4, 2018 BY GENE VEITH

Among the heroes of the American Revolution, which we celebrate on this fourth of July, was a Lutheran pastor, Peter Muhlenberg.  An article in The Federalist tells his story.  And there was more to his career than his famous disvesting in the pulpit.

He became George Washington’s aide, was a military hero, and after independence became a statesman in the new republic.  Read about him, and then I have some questions.

From Ellie Bufkin, Meet A Friend Of George Washington And Patrick Henry Who Fought Boldly For American Independence:

In January 1776, a small church in rural Virginia burst at the seams with parishioners eagerly awaiting the arrival of their pastor. Members of the congregation, who had even spilled out into the cemetery, were alive with excitement.

Over the last few months, with tensions between the colonies and England ever increasing, the members of the Lutheran church had heard from their pastor that a revolution was imminent. He told them the time to take up arms in defense of their nation was now.

This particular Sunday was to be the pastor’s last sermon, and the large gathering represented far more citizens than those who inhabited the small town of Woodstock where the church stood.

Rev. Peter Muhlenberg entered the church dressed in his robe, with a sense of purpose that appeared to make him stand taller than usual. He ascended to the pulpit and delivered his sermon, acutely aware of the importance of what he would say.

As the sermon began its conclusion, Muhlenberg referenced Ecclesiastes chapter three: “In the language of Holy writ, there was a time for all things, a time to preach and time to pray, but those times had passed away.” He faced his congregation for the last time, and in words that he knew meant the end of life in the once- peaceful Virginia countryside, he continued, “There was a time to fight, and that time has now come!”

Muhlenberg removed his robe, revealing his colonel’s uniform, and descended from the pulpit to the sounds of drummers by the church door, drumming for recruits. Three hundred recruits signed that day at the church, and Muhlenberg’s was the first of the Virginia regiments ready for combat service just two months later.[Keep reading. . .]

So what are we Lutherans to make of Rev. Muhlenberg?  Was he violating the Two Kingdoms in preaching the American revolution from the pulpit?  Was he violating his vocation as a pastor, or just moving to a new calling as a soldier?  At any rate, does he not deserve our nation’s honor, along with Washington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and the others who brought our nation into being?

There was a whole family of Muhlenbergs who were important in the early days of American Lutheranism. The key figure is Henry Melchoir Muhlenberg, known as “the father of American Lutheranism,” who was Peter’s father.

Can anyone tell us more about the Muhlenbergs and their legacy in both the church and the state?

 

Illustration:  Portrait of Peter Muhlenberg, Public Domain, via Wikipedia

Baptism now saves you

1 Peter 3:20-21 English Standard Version (ESV)

 

20 because[a] they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
 Make this statement on line; “Baptism saves you”, the response will be immediate, “no it doesn’t”. The respondent never really says what does. Of course those who make their “decision” to “accept” Christ. Well just how magnanimous and smurfy of them. Because of course Jesus is waiting there just begging them to accept them, just hoping that they will be so kind as to accept Him so that He can then be their gini in a bottle.
Baptism saves you. You are led to church to be baptized. It is your sign that God has accepted you, that you are now born again in Jesus Christ, that you are now the temple of the Holy Spirit. Jesus has become the Lord of your life through baptism, in His church, through His chosen minister. Not the concierge of your life.
For those self-appointed arbiters, who are basically taking direction from others that are more cheer-leaders and entertainers than Bible scholars, back up and really understand what you’re saying. You want to be baptized, as soon as possible. You want to be given that new life in Christ. You want that it is entirely God’s call and not yours. Why? Because when it’s God’s call, God’s action, God’s result, you know that it’s completely true and will not fail. When you presume to “decide”, “accept”, “make”, you look back after awhile and begin to think “did that really happen?” “did I do it right, right time, right way…” You don’t have any assurance, you just have continued doubt.
When someone comes to the altar at a, real, Lutheran Church, be they 8 hours, 8 days, 18 or 80 years old and are presented for baptism and baptized by a Christian minister, they know it was nothing about them and all about God. They are saved! Can they mess it up, can they reject and lose that salvation? Sure. But then they know it’s all about them and nothing about Jesus. Jesus did all that was necessary to save them. If they reject that, or presume on that, then it’s entirely on them.

Spiritual? Cut it out! Isn’t it time to get serious about Jesus?!

“If you live in me and what I say lives in you, then ask for anything you want, and it will be yours.” John 15: 7

Why do we study history? There is such great wisdom, people who’ve confronted the same issues we’re confronting today and have given us such deep thought. Dr Martin Luther wrote voluminously is his time. He has created such incredible wisdom, he really did conflate the left and right hand kingdoms (the left is the government/society, the right is the church) in that both are in God, and both need to be focused on God’s will and not man’s. He gave us so much guidance in how we should deal with trials, he spent a good deal of his life being a marked man by the Roman Catholic church which wanted Luther burned at the stake. He certainly knew how to deal with the trials in his life. He gave us so much on how we as Christians should see those who are lost in the world.

I refer you to Dr Luther in a particular writing on prayer. I would stipulate that many people who pray and who are not Christians, and what Dr Luther points out as the profound difference between the two types of people:

“This is a miserable world for unbelievers. They work so hard, yet accomplish nothing. They may even pray a lot, search all over and knock at the door. Yet nothing is gained, found, or achieved, for they’ve knocking on the wrong door. They do all this without any faith. That’s why they can’t really pray.”

“Prayer is the work of faith alone. No one, except a believer, can truly pray. Believers don’t pray on their own merits, but in the name of the Son of God, in whom they were baptized. They’re certain that their prayers please God because he commanded them to pray in the name of Christ and promised he would listen to them. But the others don’t know this. Instead, they pray in their own name and believe they can prepare themselves. They think they can read enough to make themselves worthy and smart enough to make prayer into an acceptable work. And when we ask them whether their prayers have been heard, they reply, ‘I prayed, but if my prayers were heard only God knows.’ If you don’t know what you are doing or whether God is listening, what kind of a prayer is that?”

“But Christians don’t approach prayer this way. We pray in response to God’s command and promise. We offer our prayers to God in the name of Christ, and we know that what we ask for will be given to us. We experience God’s help in all kinds of needy situations. And if relief doesn’t come soon, we still know that our prayers are pleasing to God. We know that God has answered us because he gives us the strength to endure.” ( Martin Luther quoted in “Through Faith Alone” Concordia Publishing House 1999 Jun 11 page)

I’ve seen many genuine Christians pray, and yes I understand we all know to where/whom, they are praying. But I would certainly encourage Christians to end all their prayers “In the Name of Jesus Christ, I pray, Amen”. Then there’s no doubt what you are doing, that our prayers are only in the Holy Spirit to our Lord Jesus Christ. Any other prayer just doesn’t matter, so why even pray it? I was asked to open sessions of county commissioners meeting. The only caveat was not to pray in Jesus’ name. I respectfully refused. Why would I do that? What’s the point? I’m a Christian pastor, there’s only one way I’m going to pray. I understand in today’s world of American Christianity (which is at best nominally “Christian”), we have accepted this civic sort of “To whom it may concern” prayer. Again what’s the point? I’m frankly a little afraid of what/who we’re praying to if not in Jesus’ Name. Which of the many idols we see in America are we actually offering prayer? Jesus tells His disciples in John 14:13 that we should pray in His Name. There’s only one, God Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and it is in the all powerful Name of Jesus Christ our Lord that I offer any prayer.

Scripture over tradition, yes, no, maybe, what makes me happy?

A very large part of the debate between Lutherans and Roman Catholics was and still is, the importance of Scripture versus that of tradition. Luther and others, Martin Chemnitz in this particular case, felt that the Roman Church was much more interested in elevating the importance of tradition and the ruling of the Church, via the Pope and the Cardinals. This was in reality, probably much more of a hot button issue in the debate than the discussion over indulgences. The debate over the unique and sole authority of Scripture certainly being inclusive of the debate over indulgences.

I’m reading Chemnitz’s “Examination of the Council of Trent” (Part 1 Translated by Fred Kramer, published by Concordia Publishing House copyright 1971). This council was called by Pope Paul III, as a reply to the Lutheran Reformation in 1547. The original intent was to try and reconcile some of the issues, I do believe it was a good faith attempt by the church to examine if maybe, just maybe, Luther might have a point in some areas. The result didn’t come close, in fact it hardened the position the Roman church held before the Reformation.

But as Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon left the scene a new voice stepped in to further the cause of the Reformation and Christianity. Martin Chemnitz wrote extensively and persuasively in order for the Lutheran Reformation to continue to advance Christianity. Well could be if it weren’t for Chemnitz, the Lutheran Reformation might have been a brief bright flash in the Church, only to be repressed by the Roman Church or limited to an obscure corner of the church.

Chemnitz argued that none of the early church fathers had favored the canon of Scripture that had been organized by the church in the 4th century. While there was a time that the apostles and early church leaders did not have canon and had to preserve and pass on Scripture orally, they never intended for that to be the practice. They had written down the books of the New Testament and as much as possible intended all Christians to rely on the written, universally agreed on, books of the New Testament.

Chemnitz writes: “…Irenaeus says: ‘The apostles delivered to us in the Scriptures what they had preached.’ And for what purpose? What use did the apostles want the church to make of this their Scripture? Irenaeus answers: ‘That that which they delivered to us in writing might in the future be the foundation and pillar of our faith,’ namely, of that faith which the church received from the apostles and delivered to her children. Therefore we have in the Scriptures which the apostles delivered to us by the will of God the foundation and pillar of the only true and life-giving faith of the primitive church, received from the apostles. It is called the foundation of faith, because faith is learned, known, built up and received from it. It is called a pillar because through it that faith which alone is true and gives life is proved, confirmed, defended against all corruptions, and preserved. A faith, therefore, which is built up, received, proved and confirmed from any other source than from the Scriptures transmitted by the apostles is not the true, life-giving, apostolic faith of the primitive church. This lies most clearly and firmly in the argumentation of Irenaeus. And later he says that those are heretics who do not agree with the apostolic writings, and he describes the marks of the heretics in these words in chapter 2: ‘When they are proved wrong from the Scriptures, they turn and accuse the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not correct and were without authority [wow! where do we see that today? Everywhere including the churches from across the spectrum who don’t like to get too dogmatic. Basically so much of Christianity today that likes to pick and choose and make it up]. “both because they speak now one way, now another, and also because the truth cannot be found from Scripture by those who do not know the tradition; for (so they say) the truth was not given through epistles, but through the living voice” etc [kind of the same whiney make-believe rationalism of today].

Chemnitz goes on to quote Irenaeus that the apostles had passed on God’s word and did not intend to leave room for tradition and additions to God’s word, that their writings were to be the foundation of the church: “…Irenaeus shows in this statement for what purpose the apostles delivered their doctrine to us in the Scriptures and what use they wanted made of this Scripture in the church, namely, that it should be the foundation and pillar of our faith who have not heard the living voice of the apostles. And he adds that those are heretics who either cast away those Scriptures or turn and accuse them of speaking inconsistently and say that the truth cannot be found in them, unless besides these Scriptures the traditions are added which are treated as having been handed down by the apostles orally.”

Chemnitz put a lot of weight on Irenaeus’ word on Scripture. Irenaeus was a very early defender of the Christian Church, going back to the second century. He was also a leader in opposing the heresies of the period. He took Scripture seriously and did not take lightly any attempts to dilute what was written by the apostles only about 100 years earlier and passed on through the church from all over the Christian world, Asia, Europe, Africa, which generally subscribed to the canon of the New Testament.

 

Luther’s Reformation of Beer NOVEMBER 3, 2017 BY GENE VEITH

 

Not only did Martin Luther reform the church.  He also reformed beer too.  Specifically, the Reformation gave us beer brewed with hops.

So says Nina Martyris, who takes the prize for an influence-of-the-Reformation-on-its-500th-anniversary story with The Other Reformation: How Martin Luther Changed Our Beer, Too : The Salt : NPR.  She is drawing on a book by William Bostwick, the beer critic for TheWall Street Journal:  The Brewer’s Tale: A History of the World According to Beer. 

So how did Luther give us hoppy beer?

The story begins with another prominent figure in religious history:  St. Hildegard of Bingen.  Recently canonized by Pope Benedict XVI and made a “doctor of the church,” this 12th century abbess was a talented musical composer, an innovative playwright, a mystic, a theologian, and an influential herbalist.  She taught against the use of hops, saying they “make the soul of a man sad and weigh down his inner organs.”

So the church said that beer should no longer be made with hops.  More to the point, the church established a  monopoly on gruit — as Bostwick explains it, “the mixture of herbs and botanicals (sweet gale, mug wort, yarrow, ground ivy, heather, rosemary, juniper berries, ginger, cinnamon)” that took the place of hops.  Beer made with this gruit was also subject to a heavy church tax.

But with the Reformation, brewers celebrated their freedom from the tyranny of the pope by renouncing gruit!  Instead, they turned to hops!  Just as Luther recovered the Gospel, as taught in the New Testament church, after it was covered over by accretions of human teaching, the Lutheran brewers recovered beer with hops, as brewed in older days, despite the accretions of human innovations such as mug wort, heather, and ivy!  (My analogy.)

There were other financial advantages to making beer with hops.  The flower was plentiful.  And beer made with that ingredient was not taxed at all.  Furthermore, says Bostwick, hops are a preservative, making it possible for beer to be a trading commodity.  The making and selling of beer thus became part of the new commercial growth that accompanied the Reformation, fueled mainly by the “work ethic” associated with the doctrine of vocation.

Furthermore, Reformation beer had different effects than Catholic beer.  I’ll let Nina Martyris, via William Bostwick, explain it:

Another virtue in hops’ favor was their sedative properties. The mystic Hildegard was right in saying hops weighed down one’s innards. “I sleep six or seven hours running, and afterwards two or three. I am sure it is owing to the beer,” wrote Luther to his wife, Katharina, from the town of Torgau, renowned for its beer. The soporific, mellowing effect of hops might seem like a drawback, but in fact it offered a welcome alternative to many of the spices and herbs used by the church that had hallucinogenic and aphrodisiacal properties. “Fueled by these potent concoctions, church ales could be as boisterous as the Germanic drinking bouts church elders once frowned on,” writes Bostwick. “And so, to distance themselves further from papal excesses, when Protestants drank beer they preferred it hopped.”

Can we still see this, sort of, in obnoxious beer drunks who get loud, start fights, and “make poor sexual choices”?  Are they not always drinking tasteless mass-produced beer with few hops?  Whereas those who drink hoppy beers in brewpubs find themselves relaxing, becoming calm, and engaging in good conversations?  Or not?

The reporter asks Bostwick if the Reformer could be considered the patron saint of beer:

“Luther might blanch a bit as a good Protestant at being called a saint,” points out Bostwick, “and there’s already a brewery saint called St. Arnold, who saved his congregation from the plague by making them drink beer. In the interests of Protestantism, I wouldn’t call him a saint, but he was certainly a beer enthusiast, and many a beer bar and brewery today has a picture of Martin Luther on their wall. So let’s say that while we certainly don’t genuflect to him, he’s known and appreciated.”

Well, Luther’s kind of Protestants still have the category of “saint,” though I’m not sure about “patron saint.”  (Can anyone address that?)  All Christians, he said, by virtue of their salvation by Christ, are simultaneously sinners and saints.

But remember Luther and the Gospel the next time you taste hops in your beer.