i've never been a roller coaster person, despite my desire to be.
some time in my early teens, i went with some friends to a roller coaster park, and one girl i liked hanging out with was willing to go with me on the smallest, least dramatic roller coaster available to "ease into" the fun. there are only a few things i remember about it:
1. it was called "the mousetrap."
2. it was unreassuringly creaky and clanky, and (in my opinion) unnecessarily jerky and whiplash-y.
3. as i was envisioning a future of paralysis from neck injury, my friend was sitting next to me as comfortably as if she were on a sofa… reciting a few Psalms that she had memorized for just such an occasion. it was stunning, amusing, shocking… annoying… amazing, really.
i'm finishing a 5-part series about martin luther on a newfound history podcast, and one of the more interesting aspects is that the hosts are atheists. ikr?!? overall, they give a better description of the reformation than I feared, although they've kept strictly to only one of the 5 "solas:" sola scriptura ("only scripture"). in total, they are: sola fida, sola gratia, solus Christus, sola scriptura, soli Deo gloria. in meaning, they state that salvation is through faith alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone, as in the Scripture alone, for God's glory alone.
bunny trail: back when such a thing was possible, my mom majored in latin. she knows all the reasons for sola vs. soli vs solus, and had she lived in martin luther's time, i bet his Bible translation would have been finished even earlier and perfectly proofread. i have zero talent for language, except american english. i don't even do english-english, because sorry-not-sorry we won that war, king george.
the one "sola" they've stuck with makes sense, because it's really the only "tangible" concept there that you could expect an atheist to explain. in addition, the Scriptures contain the others for the most part, so i can give them partial credit without difficulty.
i believe they are mistaken on some aspects of the story, like some (most of) of his motives, and the reason for his resolve is never explored. which is bonkers, when you go a mile in luther's crocs and think through the implications of what this lonely until-then obscure guy did and said. leaving out the "why" is a major logical "whoopsie."
then they take that logical slippery slope like an unhitched roller coaster car.
down a greased track.
in a lightning storm.
somehow- couldn't tell ya how- but somehow, they wind up at the conclusion that martin luther-
the guy who set off the protestant reformation
and basically changed the trajectory of a major branch of Christianity- that martin luther!!- is just like one of those liberal
"pro-palestine" protesters. yup. they said that.
bunny trail: i hate political bunny trails, but i really thought they'd hold out longer. key difference between them and martin luther? luther actually accomplished something- but that's just my limited analysis.
the podcasters, being the religious-roller-coaster daredevils they are, [cut the brake line and whip around a hairpin turn and] declare martin luther is a radical who cast off the oppressive regulations of the religious authorities so he could "live his truth." they [fly down that deconstruction track as they disengage all safety mechanisms and] hypothesize that atheism is the natural conclusion to the protestant reformation, because if luther could trash everything the catholic church produced except the Bible, why not chuck that, too? luther was "living his truth," and so should we!
[**gruuuchkkkniunckkngkkkngkngkngk** that's the sound of the roller coaster car veering around a corner and shooting off the track's end, grinding to a halt in a pile of twisted, sparking metal. the podcasters go airborne, floating through the atmosphere on their own fanciful theories. they haven't yet landed.]
luther was not "living his truth." he had read the Bible and discovered The Truth. "I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life," Jesus said (john 14:6). martin poured over the Bible from beginning to end, laboring meticulously to wring out the meaning of words like "grace" and "propitiation" and "faith." he knew somewhere in that mountain of church writings, doctrines, and practices lay the answers he so desperately needed. after digging through the top layers of grass and dirt, sand and loose gravel, he hit the bedrock. finally, a place he could stand, a place that could support the tremendous weight of the gospel of Jesus Christ. this gospel is the pearl of great price. the buried treasure the rich man sells his entire estate for in order to buy the otherwise useless field. for him, and for luther, this was worth e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g. his job, his reputation, his friends, his family, his time, his strength, his every heartbeat.
any faith you build on dirt or sand won't stand up to more than 2 puffs and a huff from the big bad wolf.
but on a layer of bedrock? you couldn't have a harder, more solid foundation under you. "on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (matt 16:18, emphasis added). "this rock" is understood within protestantism to refer to the gospel, peter's confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
that's what luther realized. "i cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. here i stand- i can do no other. so help me, God."
this, after encountering the Truth about God's holy wrath intersected by His redeeming grace.
this, in response to his religious and political authorities, who had consolidated power and turned faith into a spiritual one-a-day tablet ["available for a price. discounts applied at register. one indulgence per customer per confession. may not be combined with any other relic sale or promotion"].
bunny trail: so. many. questions. about those indulgences. what was the return policy? what if you bought one for someone who'd already gotten one the previous year from a different relative? what did you do with it? how long did they take to work? what if it got lost or destroyed?
this, knowing his life was at stake.
this, knowing he'd be accused of disrespect, heresy, offensiveness, stupidity, recklessness, and who knows what else.
there are some things in which, in all practicality, it is impossible to *not* take a stand on. to say you are *not taking a stand* is in itself taking a stand. standing on very shaky dirt and sand, but still.
the gospel of Jesus Christ is one of those things. the Bible containing that gospel is thus necessarily one of those things. either it's true, or it's not. the very second you add or subtract to the Bible and its gospel, you are just strapping yourself into another roller coaster cart behind my atheist buddies. yeah, that one- with no lap bar and the bent axle. good luck.
another quote i found, also attributed to martin luther, is this: "the truth of the matter is rather as Christ says: 'he who is not with me is against Me.' He does not say, 'he who is not with Me is not against Me either, but merely neutral.' " i've visited multiple churches in the past while that are trying (unsuccessfully) to find that gray area of both sound doctrine and societal acceptance. they're trying the podcaster's idea of discarding the Bible, and they will wind up in the same place- nowhere. or rather, nowhere good.
i've been blessed not only by much more theologically sound podcasts, but mostly by multiple returns to the sacred refuge of that glorious gospel. no matter who or what tries to offer me a watered-down version, i can't take it. every manner of spiritual and political authority is making power-grabs all over the freaking place, now trying to offer up a politically correct, utterly inoffensive, store-brand religious one-a-day.
i don't have all the answers; neither did good ole doc luther. but we have far more than enough to give me confidence in the holy, inerrant, Word of God. i stand firmly in the gospel of Jesus Christ. i believe His words. i trust His promises. He is the propitiation for my sins, and i trust Him fully for my salvation and have the Holy Spirit as a "guarantee of the inheritance" in heaven until the day i get there. this gospel is "old-fashioned." it is "weird" and apparently, "on the wrong side of history." it is most definitely not "cool." but it's true, and I'm staking my entire eternity on that simple fact.
bunny trail: when did history start having "sides"? and where is the edge, or corner, or fold? who makes that decision? seriously!
this, because i've encountered the Truth in an undeniable, unavoidable way. i had the smallest possible glimpse of my sin from the Truth's perspective, and then nearly drowned in the flood of that same Truth's redeeming grace. that encounter is one the reality of which i simply cannot deny or avoid, and it demands that i respond accordingly.
this, knowing i'll be (or have already been) accused of disrespect, heresy, offensiveness, stupidity, all manner of phobias and "anti-"s, and i don't know what else.
what i do know is that however many loop-de-loops and twists this roller coaster of life blasts me through, there's an absolutely safe ending: standing before the heavenly throne, praising my Savior and God without restraint and without end.
