The Burr in the Burgh

Dr. Alvin Schmidt writes really awesome books. You may note that I have several of them highlighted along the right edge of my blog.

But I've noticed that one of his books is now travelling under a new name and that's why I felt the need to highlight it. I've probably recommended his "Under the Influence" around 100 times since I purchased and read it a couple of years ago. While that title is cute, the new title maybe does a little better job of explaining what it's about. Now it's called "How Christianity Changed the World."

Schmidt is a sociologist and a historian as well as a theologian. So he cruises through the two millenia since the birth of Christ and demonstrates the ways in which Christianity has positively impacted every civilization in which its presence has become prominent. A couple of years ago, I preached a Christmas Eve sermon that I entitled "What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?" and Dr. Schmidt's book gave me some good illustrative material. You need to read it. And you each need to convince at least one other person to read it, yhear?

Hoorah! I've been accepted as a book reviewer for Mind & Media. Check it out. Periodically, you will see a review of a new Christian book written by me on this blog. You can never read too many books.

Every now and again I read something that reminds me that all the modern technology and scientific advancement in the world will not save the human race. The Associated Press reports that in a pond near Hamburg, Germany, over 1000 toads have puffed up and popped. Yes, you read it correctly the first time. And the scientists - believe you me - are scratching their heads over this one. They haven't found any unusual bacteria, viruses, funguses or chemicals to explain the phenomenon.

Y'see, it's precisely this sort of thing that shatters my faith in science. Why can't they figure this out? Just when I begin to think, "Hey, we're really something," I hear about a pond full of exploding amphibians. It sounds like a Hollywood-ization of a Biblical plague. I almost expect to see Charlton Heston appear telling me to let his people go.

In 1859, Charles Darwin changed the world by publishing The Origin of Species. The idea of progress was wed with science. The modern era was born. Soon people began to think that if biological organisms evolve and improve with time, then maybe so do whole societies of biological organisms. Propelled by the Industrial Revolution and intoxicated with social Darwinism, the chant was heard, "We're getting better everyday, in every way." Optimism became the mood de jour.

But now there's a new movement afoot. We call it the Intelligent Design movement. These are scientists and scholars who believe that traditional Darwinism is intellectually indefensible in light of current microbiology. Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, has penned a critical text, Darwin's Black Box. His basic thesis is that the more we learn about cellular chemistry, the less a rational person can hold to Darwinist orthodoxies. And everyone knows it. I've heard it said that the only true Darwinists who remain are public high school biology teachers. Great.

This world is more complex than anyone in the 19th century ever dreamed in their wildest opium den intoxications. The more we know, the more we know we don't know. For goodness sake, we can't even explain why some toads pop.

On one other occasion, when mankind was getting a little bit too big for its britches, God garbled their languages to show them what's what. Today, He pops a few toads. I'm convinced that these absurdities serve to remind us that we are not so doggone smart after all. Just be glad they're toads, and not ...say... horses or cows.

But in the meantime, stay away from that pond.

There she goes again. Maureen Dowd, in her April 20th opinion piece in the NY Times, uses the buckshot approach. Can someone tell me what her column is about? I guess if you can't decide whom to criticize today, just blast 'em all. She decided to use her latest entry to slam Pope Benedict again (Bunnie Diehl has a response to Dowd's latest mischief), but I want to look at two particular comments she made last week. My thanks to Mere Comments for bringing this to my attention.

I know Dowd is not the first or only person to point out that Joseph Ratzinger belonged to the Hitler Youth organization as a child. But tell me, what's the purpose of repeating that historical tidbit? Yes, it's accurate. But why keep bringing it up if not to imply that the new Pope is a nazi at heart. How would you like to be judged for everything you did when you were fourteen years old? It's never mentioned that Ratzinger's family were anti-nazi, that all the youth were compelled to join, and that young Joseph eventually went AWOL from the Third Reich's paramilitary.

But I still resent the not-so-subtle implication that the new pope is nazi-ish just because he's a conservative. Having been personally called a nazi myself by the pro-abortionists (smell the irony?) who came to counter-protest a pro-life march I once attended, I can tell you it doesn't feel too good.

People like Dowd keep bringing up his Hitler Youth involvement as a way to smear mud on his name. Nothing more. In the interest of being fair and balanced, I'd like to point out the the Anti-Defamation League graciously applauds the choice of Ratzinger as pope. They state: "We welcome the new Papacy of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger." And add, "Having lived through World War II, Cardinal Ratzinger has great sensitivity to Jewish history and the Holocaust. He has shown this sensitivity countless times, in meetings with Jewish leadership and in important statements condemning anti-Semitism and expressing profound sorrow for the Holocaust." But maybe the ADL is really part of that vast right-wing conspiracy.

Possibly the weirdest label I keep hearing is that Ratzinger is "God's Rottweiler." This is meant to be a put-down, I suppose. This stems from his years as John Paul's chief doctrinal guardian when he didn't shrink from disciplining errant priests. He told American bishops that they should not give communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians. And for this, he is called "God's Rottweiler." I understand that the anything goes crowd will resent the new pope for taking firm moral and doctrinal stands, but don't you think if God has a Rottweiler, you'd best pay attention? Dowd doesn't really think Ratzinger is God's Rottweiler. Anyone who would belittle or mock God's Rottweiler deserves to get bit, or at least barked at. Actually, I think she was just taking the Lord's name in vain.

Former Anglican Archbishop of South Africa, Desmond Tutu, complained on Wednesday that the new pope prefers Christianity to other religions. "God is not a Christian," he says. "Christianity doesn't have the corner on the God market." Huh? Isn't it a little bit ridiculous to blast the pope, of all people, for thinking Christianity is the way to go?

There has been a fair share of handwringing over Benedict's supposed right-wingism. Pat Buchanan has an extremely insightful column on why the worldlings are so upset. You should give it a read.

And does a bear...(well, you know)

Neil Cavuto has an interesting observation about the skewering of Pope Benedict XVI in much of the world press.

I don't understand why so many people are shocked, scandalized and dismayed that the new pope espouses traditional Roman Catholic teaching.

I should make a confession, however. Like his cultured despisers, I would love to see him change a few things. Only, I wouldn't champion the same reforms the press loves to beat with a club. In my view, he should be truly catholic and return the church under his charge to the apostolic gospel his predecessors marred with tradition and faulty interpretation.

OK, I just got finished watching a report on TV about a newspaper columnist in Los Angeles taking a cheap shot at the Catholic Church in an editorial that really had nothing to do with religion. Many on the left are, frankly, Romo-phobic. That's the only explanation. Anti-Catholicism /Catholic-bashing is perhaps the one form of bigotry still openly permitted in the American public square.

That being said, there are some things about the Roman Catholic Church that I simply don't like (while I truly do love my many RC friends). The things that "the world" hates most about the RC Church are typically NOT what I oppose, however. In fact, the points where the secularists scorn Catholics the most are often the points where I feel the most solidarity with them. Abortion and euthanasia are excellent examples.

And then I see something like the story on ABC's Primetime Live that aired this evening about a church here in Pittsburgh. It seems that a local woman was suffering from a difficult pregnancy and a family member went to a well-known Roman Catholic Church to pray. This particular church is reported to have the largest collection of relics anywhere outside the Vatican. 2500 to be exact.

To make a short story out of it, the broadcast reported that a relic - a bone that may or may not have been part of a particular Christian, long dead - was used to heal this poor woman in the hospital.

Now since relics played a bit of a role in the genesis of the Lutheran Reformation, I am kind of sensitive on this subject. But in the report we heard about how a woman prayed to dead people, rubbed a bone on her belly, saw an apparition and ... experienced a miraculous healing. That's nothing short of voodoo with a Christian gloss. I believe in miracles, but I believe that GOD does them, not Saint Whatshisname or Blessed Whosoever.

I heard not one word about our Lord Jesus Christ. Not one word about God's mercy or His power to heal. Nothing, nada, nihil. Now I can't blame the Church of Rome for the way ABC reported this story. But insofar as Roman Catholics are still encouraged to pray to anyone other than God and insofar as miracles are sought not from God but dead Christians, there is still superstitious mumbo-jumbo alive in the RC Church. And this makes us all look like morons. There are enough issues where the Christian Church must clash with the world already. The cross is a stumbling block. But it irritates me when well-meaning believers do things like this and give outsiders a wholly unnecessary reason to write us off, and in so doing, write God off.

There has been some recent discussion about the nature of the pastoral office around here. It's all good. Another local LCMS pastor, Rev. Don Matzat, asked on his radio show if your pastor is a shepherd or a cowboy. He went on to explain that sometimes pastors lead out in front of the flock. And other times, they get behind and push the sheep like a cowboy. Just because the word "pastor" literally means shepherd doesn't mean that some of us aren't really cowboys at heart.

The shepherd leads in such a way that the sheep hear his voice and want to follow. Why? Because they know he will take them to quiet waters and green grass. The cowboy, on the other hand, has to shout and shove and lash the herd to make it go where he wants it to. I see this really as a distinction between Law and Gospel.

The faithful pastor uses both Law and Gospel. But we motivate Christians to follow Christ not primarily with a whip, not with threats and curses. The sheep might go where they are directed as a result of bullying, but they will hate you for it. The better way - Christ's way - is to lead by offering us His blessing. It's like this. Do you follow Christ because you fear His wrath if you do otherwise? Or do you follow Him out of love, because He calls you gently and offers you good things?

Jesus told Peter to feed the flock. One of my favorite quotes is from C.S. Lewis who said in Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer something like: "Our Lord's charge to Peter was to feed my sheep, not experiment on my rats or teach my dogs new tricks." I find that my brother clergy sometimes forget that Word and Sacrament are the means God has given to grow and build the church. We feel like we must improve on what the church has always known and innovate. Ultimately, it fails us.

After less than two days of deliberation, the Roman College of Cardinals surprised no one by choosing Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, a German, as the new Pontiff. Now he will be known as Pope Benedict XVI.

I think this tells us a great deal about the future direction and current leadership of the Roman Catholic church. If I'm not mistaken, a super-majority of 2/3 plus 1 was required. That a scholarly traditionalist, much like his predecessor, should be so quickly chosen might indicate how conservative the College of Cardinals really is.

Pope Benedict XVI just celebrated his birthday a few days ago. He is 78 which means the College chose a man who will not reign for nearly as long as John Paul II. For the past 20+ years, Ratzinger had been the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, an organization once known as the Inquisition. And he was definitely a hardliner in that role.

Obviously, my personal preference would have been for the College of Cardinals to elect a good solid Lutheran as their head (wink), but since that was never going to happen, Ratzinger is, in my evaluation, as good a man as any.

Sadly, under his watch, it will be very unlikely that any of the substantive differences between Rome and the Reformation will be resolved. But I am at least grateful that this new pope, like the one before him, will champion many critical principles of a historic Christian worldview against post-modern relativism. For instance, we can expect him to be an advocate and defender of the culture of life. In fact, I suspect very little will change under Benedict XVI.

Here is the text of the first public words spoken by Pope Benedict XVI.

They say that imitation is the highest form of flattery. Well, I saw something on Pastor Paul McCain's website that made me giggle and I decided to mimic him and post it here. There is a website called Despair.com. And they sell posters, mugs, etc. that goof on all those inspirational products you see around. They sort of remind me of "Deep Thoughts" by Jack Handy. In case you are wondering, yes, I still like to watch the Three Stooges, the Marx Brothers, and Monty Python. Hey, I know it's immature. But here are a couple of posters from Despair.com.

SUCCESS: Some People Dream of Success, While Other People Live to Crush Those Dreams.

POTENTIAL: Not Everyone Gets To Be An Astronaut When They Grow Up.

MOTIVATION: If A Pretty Poster and A Cute Saying Are All It Takes To Motivate You, You Probably Have a Very Easy Job. The Kind Robots Will Be Doing Soon.

Today we read from the Gospel of John, chapter 10. Jesus identifies himself as our Good Shepherd. I believe that our relative unfamiliarity with sheep and shepherding has contributed to people's inaccurate perceptions of what God is like and how He relates to us.

Apart from being guided by Scripture, folks conceptualize God according to what they do know. I suggest that two common models for God nowadays are God as Boss and God as Psychotherapist.

Your boss is a person whose role it is always to evaluate you by your performance. And he compensates you according to that evaluation. A boss is a person who is concerned first and foremost about the bottom line, who judges success on the basis of dollar signs, numerical growth, and good PR. At least that’s how many people think of their bosses and unfortunately that’s how many people think of God.

Or is God more like a psychotherapist? According to that frame of mind, God’s main job is to help us with our problems, to make us feel better about ourselves, to give us tools to improve our interpersonal relationships. And make no mistake, God does help us with our problems and all that and He does give us comfort and peace and a healthy understanding of our value. But God is not the spiritual equivalent of a hot tub who simply wants to massage our tired and aching emotions. I’m not putting down therapists or hot tubs, only saying that there is much more to God than that.

What do shepherds do? They feed the flock and defend it from wolves and bears. They lead the flock to greener pastures. And, if necessary, the good shepherd gives his life to save the sheep. This is how God relates to us. And Jesus continues to shepherd His flock through His appointed undershepherds who feed the lambs with words of reconciliation and forgiveness and defend them from spiritual predators.

I got this idea from Bunnie Diehl, another Lutheran blogger. Here are some songs I never get tired of listening to. What about you? Or "yinz" as they say here in da burgh... sort of the rust belt version of y'all.

Polyester Bride - Liz Phair
Don't Know Why - Norah Jones
Ghost of Stephen Foster - Squirrel Nut Zippers
Goodnight Moon - Shivaree
Train Song - Mindy Smith
A Satisfied Mind - Johnny Cash
The Man Comes Around - Johnny Cash
Battle Without Honor or Humanity - Tomoyasu Hotei
Symphony No. 9 - Ludwig van Beethoven
Come to Jesus - Mindy Smith
I Am a Man of Constant Sorrow - Soggy Bottom Boys
Hey Jude - The Beatles
I Envy the Wind - Lucinda Williams
Few and Far Between - Shannon Curfman
You Wouldn't Like Me - Teagan and Sara
Save Me - Aimee Mann
Spiderweb - No Doubt
Letter to the President - Hawk Nelson
Free Bird - Lynyrd Skynyrd
everything by Good Brother Earl

It concerns me that folks, especially in the US, spend so much time looking at two-dimensional images on screens and so little time interacting verbally with texts or other humans. This is especially detrimental for small children. Many Christian parents think that television is only objectionable if the content is indecent or anti-biblical. Actually, for small children still developing neurologically, the medium is just as harmful as the messages. Scientific studies have shown that when a person views the rapidly flashing lights on a screen, it puts their brains into low gear. It's not just daytime soaps that turn your brain to mush. It's Sesame Street and religious broadcasting as well. Small children who do not experience adequate verbal interaction (talking on TV does not count), fail to develop their brains to their fullest potential. This shows up later on as inability to process written texts properly. And a reduced ability to communicate ideas coherently.

I believe it is Ken Myers in his book, "All God's Children and Blue Sueds Shoes," who argues that visual images deal with the passions. They work on one emotionally, whereas words deal with one's reason. This is extremely important for the life and mission of the Christian church. While the visual arts have always had an important role in Christendom (particularly in the East), Christianity is predominantly a word-based faith. God spoke creation into existence. His word/logos became flesh and dwelt among us. And now faith comes by hearing the message, the news, the good word. If a person knows nothing about Jesus, I can show him a painting of the crucifixion and it may move him sub-rationally, but he won't know what it means. He won't understand that we sinners are declared righteous in the sight of God on account of the oblation made by Jesus until I explain it to him...using words.

An excellent new-ish book on the subject is "The Vanishing Word: The Veneration of Visual Imagery in the Post-Modern World" by Arthur W. Hunt III. And here is a cool article to whet the appetite: "How the Bombarding Images of TV Culture Undermine the Power of Words" by Douglas R. Groothuis.

The media has been reporting, or at least implying, that WORD-FM talk show host Marty Minto was specifically fired because he questioned the eternal whereabouts of the pope. I believe this to be sensationalistic. I was not a huge fan of his show, but I wish him only the best. As a pastor I believe it is vital that we understand the important doctrinal distinctions which sadly divide the church today. So I support any Christian who is able to appreciate those distinctions. Glossing over the truth for the sake of "getting along" is not ultimately helping anyone. But In the interest of accuracy, we should hesitate to latch on to everything we hear on the TV. Below is the press release issued today by the General Manager of WORD-FM.


************************************************************************************
PITTSBURGH, APRIL 14, 2005 -- The decision to release Mr. Marty Minto was made well before the death of the Pope was in the news. He was released because he was unnecessarily alienating our audience.

Through 101.5 WORD FM, we want to provide our audience with radio that is uplifting, redemptive and honoring of our listeners’ values. This theme runs through our national ministry programs and should be reflected in our locally produced shows as well.
Mr. Minto’s show did not fulfill that need for our audience.

There have been some interesting studies recently about why most contemporary American churches have significantly more women on Sunday morning than men. A book published several years ago generated a lot of interest in the question. Leon Podles wrote "The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity." Now there is "Why Men Hate Going to Church" by David Murrow. I have not yet read either so I can't comment too much, but I admit the thesis interests me. Pastor Todd Wilken, in his Issues, Etc. Journal , wrote a very helpful article on the subject, but that is not, as far as I can tell, available on the net. But I suppose if you contacted him and asked for the most recent issue, you could still get a copy. If he still has them, you can get one for free. You really ought to.

I am not one who spends a lot of time, in the pulpit or out, talking about homosexuality. Some churches seem to talk about little else. Just do a google of the word "homosexuality" and nearly any major American denomination and see how many tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of hits you get.

But when I see a major news headline "Lutheran Bishops Mull Allowing Gay Clergy," I feel forced to say something. Though this particular article does differentiate the major American Lutheran denominations and clarifies that the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is not the church body that is discussing gay clergy and gay marriage, it doesn't do so until the very last sentence of the article. Many readers will not get that far.

I do not support allowing gay clergy, as the article puts it, and I'll tell you why. But first, I want to be quite clear about what I am NOT saying. I am NOT saying that I hate anyone. I am NOT saying that I think I am better than anyone. I am NOT in favor of discrimation against homosexuals in terms of civil rights. I am NOT even saying that people who struggle with homosexuality can't be fine Christians. So hear me out.

I AM saying that homosexual attraction and practice is sinful. And I am saying that the Christian Church has no right to condone it. Like Martin Luther, our conscience is bound by the Word of God. One does not have to rely on Old Testament Jewish prohibitions to make the case. The New Testament likewise explicitly condemns homosexual behavior.

I've heard some argue that "well, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality." And my response is, "true, but He didn't say anything about date rape, necrophilia or cannibalism either. Does that mean we can put those on the table as well?" Theirs is an argument from silence, which is the weakest possible argument one can make. Jesus did not say anything directly about homosexuality, but a man that Jesus personally called to be his spokesman, Paul of Tarsus, did. Cf. Romans 1:26,27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10.

Some will further argue that homosexuality isn't wrong because it doesn't hurt anybody. Well, that is a premise with which I do not agree. A recent article in the Christian Research Journal (Vol.27/No.6/2005) by Frank Turek ably demonstrates the harm homosexual practice causes to individuals, families and societies. Some of his arguments are stronger than others, but all of them need to at least be considered.

Homosexuality is contrary to the will and design of the Creator. Occasionally, the point is offered that people are born gay. First, there is no evidence of that, though many assume there is. No gay gene has been identified that I am aware of. And even if it could be shown to be a genetic trait, that does not mean that it is good or helpful or the will of the Creator. All sorts of bad things are genetically determined or predisposed: cystic fibrosis, obesity, breast cancer, violent behavior and so on. If I were a Darwinist, espousing the survival-of-the-fittest doctrine, I would think a gay gene to be a harmful mutation that endangers the species. All of that is evidence that God's good creation has been thoroughly corrupted and no one is exempt. The will of the Creator in this case can be discerned by looking at the creation itself. Arguing from design, our sexual organs are fashioned for heterosexual relations. Not otherwise.

All that having been said, it's necessary to remember that heterosexuals are guilty of thoughts, attitudes and behaviors which are just as sexually immoral. And let's not forget that gossip is a sin. As is pride, hatred and sloth. In fact, every one of us stands condemned before God by our sins.

And thankfully, the good news is that the death of Jesus upon the cross was sufficient to pay for all our sins, indeed the sins of the world. So I welcome all who are penitent, no matter what particular sin they struggle against. The rub is when we decide to call evil good and good evil, to upgrade our particular peccadillos from sin to acceptable alternative. We can't give any person's perversities a pass just because it's fashionable at the time, no matter what they are. God is offended by our sins whether we are or not. And by glazing over the offense of God for this or that, we deprive the individual of an opportunity to be reconciled to his Heavenly Father. And how loving is that?

I'm certainly no expert on the Church of Rome or Vatican politics. But like almost everyone else, I can't help but cast my prediction for who will be elected the next pontiff. According to WORLD magazine, there are 117 voting cardinals from 52 countries. All but two or three of them were placed into office by John Paul II. About half of them are from Europe (58). And there are as many cardinals in Italy (20) as in Germany (6), Spain (6), France (5) and Poland (3) combined.

Based on those figures, some are predicting the next pope will be European, and quite likely an Italian. Karol Wojtyla was the first non-Italian pope in close to 600 years. There is some logic to selecting an Italian as pope. After all, he is the Bishop of ROME.

But he is also seen as the head of all the catholic church worldwide. And since the Catholic Church in Western Europe is fading rapidly, along with all other Christian bodies due to secular materialism and, ironically, a re-surgence of good ol' fashioned paganism. It seems that many NW Europeans are saying, "Just Gimme that Old Time Religion." They're becoming Wiccans and neo-pagans.

The Catholic Church is experiencing tremendous growth, however, in other parts of the world: East Asia, Latin America and Africa.

With all that in mind, I think they will select Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria. Let me tell you why:

• He's 72 years old which means he is unlikely to serve for anywhere nearly as long as his predecessor. The scuttlebutt is that that is something the College of Cardinals will take into consideration.

• He's got a lot of personality and humor, much like John Paul. I see him interviewed frequently on EWTN and he has a lot of charisma. Like they say about George W. Bush, he's probably someone you'd like to have a beer with (though I suspect Bush doesn't drink).

• He's described as a die-hard theological conservative who's not shy about speaking out. Again, not unlike JP2. For many, this is a plus, but it could work against him as well.

• Here is the tipping point for me. He's from a Muslim country and served for almost 20 years as the Vatican's chief liason with Muslims. In 1978, the College of Cardinals went against long-established practice and very shrewdly chose a Pole. In the height of the Cold War, to select someone from an Eastern Bloc country had a powerful impact in undermining Soviet communism. Today, the counterpart may be seen as the War on Terror. It is just possible that the same shrewdness may lead these men to elect an expert in Islam who has had many years dealing with Islamic leaders and comes from an Islamic country. Mark my words.

• And finally, name recognition. To be elected pope, a super majority is going to be needed, unless they stalemate for a while in which case the conditions are loosened. But since many of these Cardinals are from poor remote places, they might not all know each other personally very well. So a well-known person has an advantage. Arinze is widely travelled and known far beyond his native land.

I must confess that I am in love . . . with this book! "The Fire and the Staff" by Pastor Klemet Preus has some excellent observations about how doctrine and life fit together. Here are just a couple of snippets to hopefully whet your appetite.

FAITH: PASSIVE OR ACTIVE?
You have one faith, not two faiths. Faith is both passive and active. Christians need to be able to tell the difference between faith as it is passive and faith as it is active.

Faith simply receives all the gracious promises and blessings of God. Faith is passive. It does nothing. It offers nothing. It contributes nothing. It's like the bag of the trick-or-treater. Our Confessions say, "To have faith is to desire and to receive the offered promise of the forgiveness of sins and justification."

Preus gives a cute illustration of going out on Halloween as a child and losing all his candy through a hole in his bag. The application he makes is that faith is the bag that catches the treat. But you are never focusing on the bag itself, but on what is inside the bag, what the bag receives. The Christian doesn't point the microscope at his faith, but on what faith receives, namely Christ.

We are saved by faith alone, but faith is never alone. Good works always follow true saving faith. Faith is always accompanied by love and hope. We should never imagine that there is such a thing as a faith that can exist and remain alongside an evil intention to sin. So faith always produces works. Faith is always active. Luther says taht faith is always 'a living, busy, active, mighty thing, this faith. It is impossible for it not to be doing good works incessantly."


FAITH AND GOOD WORKS
"Good works are not an option. Nor are they, strictly speaking, a requirement. We do them spontaneously out of faith. Someone needs to make a bumper sticker that says, "Good works happen." You don't have to demand them anymore than you demand the sun to shine or the tide to rise. It is the nature of faith to produce good works. Yet we are saved without them."

Or maybe we should entitle this one: "He got what he deserved."

Watched "Ray" the other night. Then watched it again the next night. Ray Charles was no paragon of moral virtue, but his music was outa sight. This bio-pic is probably 60% music and it was pure Ray Charles, starting from his crooning days in the late 40s, through his country vibe, and his R&B/Gospel blend that became his distinction. I didn't realize I was such a Ray Charles fan until I saw this movie. And Jamie Foxx, the actor playing the lead role, was definitley in the zone.

Here's what I'm looking forward to in the cineplex in coming months:

May - Star Wars 3 or 6 or whatever. "The Revenge of the Sith." I know, I should have grown out of this stuff, but can I help it if a big part of me is still nine years old? It was the last day of school in 1977, finishing the 3rd grade, when my mom and dad surprised me and picked me and took me to see the original Star Wars in downtown Kansas City, MO. It was at one of those old-timey movie palaces still in use at the time with chandeliers and velvet curtains and such. Besides, this gives me and the resident nine-year old boy something to talk about.

Summer - War of the Worlds. I loved the 1950s original and just recently saw it again. A couple of years ago, I read a bunch of the novels of H.G. Wells. "The Invisible Man," "The Island of Dr. Moreau," "The Time Machine," and "The War of the Worlds." I've also always been intrigued by the scare caused by the radio broadcast Orson Wells did in 1938.

Sometime - King Kong. Peter Jackson, the director who did such a magnificent job with the Tolkien trilogy is back at it. I dig the original with Fay Wray, but hated the 1970s remake. This one looks promising.

December - The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. I've been told that this will be of the same production quality as the "Lord of the Rings" and that it will not try to water down the Christian imagery. The Chronicles of Narnia are some of my favorite books and have often been adapted for the screen, never well, in my opinion.

One of my flaws (some would say, "one of his 'many' flaws") is that I can never just read one book at a time. So here are a few of the things percolating in my brain lately:

"State of Fear" by Michael Crichton - One of my favorite sci-fi authors. Also one of the most successful authors of all time. Did you know he created the TV show "ER?" His newest book is a story that takes you from the courtrooms and boardrooms of Los Angeles to the jungles of Indonesia to the glacial plains of Antarctica. Crichton's book is fiction, but it addresses real issues. The baddies are eco-terrorists and ... lawyers. So you think you know what global warming is? Crichton's research and footnotes may give you something new to ruminate.

"Son of Laughter" by Frederick Buechner - A novelization of the biblical story of Jacob, the patriarch. I am usually pretty cautious toward novels based on stories from the Bible. A lot of the time, they introduce too much speculation, interpretation, and revisionism. But this one is exceptional. I find that Buechner is very respectful of the subject matter and the authority of Scripture, while at the same time fleshing out these familiar characters and stories in fresh and interesting ways.

"The Fire and the Staff" by Klemet I. Preus - The subtitle of this awesome book is "Lutheran Theology in Practice." I sincerely wish this new tome from CPH had been available while I was still a seminarian. Pastor Preus writes about Lutheran doctrine and practice in a very down-to-earth manner, sprinkling in a healthy dose of illustrations and personal anecdotes. He is also quite humorous at times. But this isn't just a book for pastors. Nosireebob. I wish everyone would sit down to relax with a nice glass of Pinot Noir in one hand and "The Fire and the Staff" in the other.

What I wish I were reading right now:
"Eats, Shoots and Leaves" by Lynne Truss - I just keep on checking this out from the library but just never seem to get around to it. The reviews have been intriguing, including my wife's. I enjoy these kind of books. Books about language, grammar, and punctuation. Sounds dry, but there are some lovely texts out there.

Along a similar line, I recommend "Sin and Syntax: How to Craft Wickedly Effective Prose" by Constance Hale.

So many books, so little time. It grieves me that our culture is becoming a-literate. We can read, but we don't.

I'm not biased or anything, but I want to heartily plug the latest children's book by Julie Stiegemeyer, married to some clown named "Scott." It's a very colorful picture book called "Bright Easter Day" for kids approx. 5-9 years. It's just the latest in my wife's growing list of outstanding Christian materials for children and families from Concordia Publishing House. In coming months, you will also be able to find 2 new books from secular publishing houses.

Conservative and traditionalist Christians are often criticized for making a fuss over their doctrinal distinctives. Admittedly, we can sometimes be obnoxious. There's no excuse for that, but frankly, anytime a person takes a stand, no matter how sweetly, it is likely to offend someone else.

Yesterday, while sitting in one of my new favorite haunts, the newly opened Caribou Coffee here in Brentwood, I read an article on witchcraft in Christian Research Journal. The author made an interesting point. He wrote: "There are similarities between flour and ricin. They both are made from plants; they both are white powders; but it is not their similarities that are interesting or important, it is their differences. One promotes life and the other effects death....I am only trying to show that with some issues the differences can be just as important, if not more so, than the similarities."

He's talking about people of different religions. But here's my point. Even within the Christian world, there are significant differences of belief. These are not unimportant. While it is true that some Christians fail to take seriously what various churches have in common, it is equally true that some Christians fail to take seriously the important differences which unfortunately divide us.

Here is the original uncondensed version of an article I wrote for Higher Things magazine.

“Who will deliver me from this body of death… (Romans 7:24)?”

Your biggest problem is not your zitty face. It’s not your love life or lack thereof. It’s not even Osama bin Laden and his band of merry terrorists. Your biggest problem is that you are going to die. Yes, the latest scientific findings have confirmed it. 1 out of every 1 person dies. You are dust and to dust you shall return.

As people have pondered the grave through the eons, they have imagined all sorts of specters, ghouls and goblins. As they have considered what lies beyond, they have dreamt of worlds and powers that chill the bone. Those with more active imaginations have conjured spooky campfire stories which have been handed down and modified through generations. And these eerie visions can now be projected on screens large and small.


The horror movie usually deals with one or two basic primeval themes. Evil and Death. And of course, these two go together like Barne’s & Noble or macaroni and cheese. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20). Good horror movies grapple with that reality and express something true, even if unpleasant.

For whatever reason, scary movies are very popular, especially with young audiences. The scarier the better. The popularity of vampire movies, for instance, makes sense to Christians. After all, life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11). But some of the most spooky movies today don’t rely on gross out gore-fests or gotcha tactics that make you jump out of your seat. They don’t have to. Movies like The Ring and, to a lesser extent, The Grudge, get the job done with creepy nightmarish images.

Others terrify us with tales from real life, even if slightly exaggerated. The Exorcist, for instance, still lives on as a classic of the genre. Maybe the jaded audiences of today aren’t likely to faint and vomit in the aisles or run out the theaters for the nearest church as was reported when it first came out in 1973. But one of the reasons it remains so effective is because it is loosely based on a true story. Stuff like this happens in real life. And certainly, the scenes of demonic possession in the New Testament are horrifying (Matt 8:28-33; Mark 5:1-5; Luke 9:38-42).

Christians can make two mistakes: think about the devil too little and think about him too much. We should take the devil seriously, but not too seriously. There is only one Almighty. Satan is strong, but Jesus is stronger.

Why does the New Testament tell us about people who are demon possessed and have super-human strength and have convulsions and froth at the mouth? Not to revel in the occult, but to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus Christ. And some of the better horror movies, though perhaps not intentionally Christian, still leave the viewer with the idea that priests and crucifixes and churches counter the devil. What is the remedy for being demon-possessed? God. If they don’t get the answers 100% correct, at least they’re pointing in the right direction.

A lot of modern people tend to be too optimistic about human nature. Is man basically good or basically evil? Is a checkerboard a white field with black squares or a black field with white squares?

Let’s answer those questions with another question: What would you do if you believed you couldn’t be caught? How would you behave if there were no consequences for your actions? This is the theme considered in H.G. Wells’ novel, The Invisible Man. We read about a decent fellow who turns into a barbarian and steals, lies and murders to achieve his personal aims. Or maybe he was always the barbarian. Maybe he was always a thief, liar and murderer in his heart, but it was only when he became invisible and so could not be caught that he acted out on his deepest urges. Kevin Bacon’s movie, The Hollow Man is a modern day telling of that same story. In neither case is the ending very happy. It actually is a good thing that we don’t act out our fantasies. The fear of getting caught serves a good purpose. The Law is a curb. God’s commandments and our fear of being punished for breaking them keep us from going too far off course. William Golding’s novel, The Lord of the Flies, is another excellent example of what happens when all governing authority is removed.

The freaky black-and-white vampire flick The Addiction is explicitly Christian (and unbelievably gross). One vampire says, “We’re not evil because of the evil we do, but we do evil because we are evil.” And the film makes it veeeerrryyy clear that Christ’s body broken and blood shed are the only answer. This horror movie has more truth than many liberal Christians who think the world is essentially rosy.

Some of the most terrifying films are not those that have ghosts, demons, or weird Stephen King plot twists, but rather those that deal with the evil that men do. From Hell with Johnny Depp and Heather Graham is a fictionalized telling of the true crime story of Jack the Ripper. The famous 19th century serial murderer of London signed his letters to the police “from hell.” Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs and John Doe, the killer in Seven with Brad Pitt and Gwyneth Paltrow are, in some ways, scarier than vampires and haunted houses because the villains are mere men, not monsters. Every day, American soccer moms will slit their babies’ throats and social misfits will rape strangers in parking garages. Hollywood doesn’t have to make this stuff up. Just Google “Jeffrey Dahmer” sometime to see how depraved real human beings can become. The people least likely to believe that man is basically good are prison guards, FBI homicide investigators and LCMS pastors. Why? “There is no one who does good, not even one (Romans 3:12).”

Sometimes horror movies can serve a wholesome purpose by pointing out something that should be obvious. There is evil in the world. This has to be pointed out because our world is so perverted that it calls good evil and evil good. We’re at the point where many can’t even tell the difference between the two. Evil has to be exposed for what it is. “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them (Ephesians 5:11).”

In addition to treating sin and evil as being real, good horror movies question the meaning of death and eternal life. Ghosts. Zombies. Vampires. Laboratory monsters created from stolen corpses. There must be a way to overcome the grave. And there is. But science won’t do it. Neither will witchcraft or magic. Jesus said,"I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live (John 11:25).”

Of course, the typical guy or gal in the theater is not looking for religion. A lot of moviegoers go to horror flicks for the same reason some people like roller coasters. The exhilarating adrenaline rush induced by fear. It’s a charge.

Many, maybe most, horror movies at your local Cineplex are a waste of time. A lot of them do glorify sex and violence … or violent sex. And anything that glamorizes Satanism or the occult is dangerous. But when you are alone and the room is quiet, remember that Jesus Christ is the antidote to death. He is the unstoppable force bashing into that heretofore immovable wall.

SKRACK! FZZAK! FWOOSH! ZARK! And BAM! BAM! BAM!

“Crazy curmudgeons Batman! Higher Things magazine is doing a piece on comic books. What does this mean?”

“Don’t fear, Robin. All the forces of goodness and justice have to stick together in this world,” responded the dark knight.

Ever since Superman made his 1938 debut in Action Comics #1, comic book superheroes have been a major feature in American pop culture. Consider movies and television, for instance. Comic book superheroes, old and new, have been translated to the big screen in such examples as: Superman, Batman, Daredevil, Punisher, Hulk, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, X-Men, Spiderman and Hellboy. Most recently, I heard a vague rumor that the Fantastic Four movie will be released 295 days and 9 hours from the time I’m writing this article.

But even with all that eye-candy to look at on the screen, the good ol’ fashioned printed page is where it all began, and according to many fans, where it still works the best. For a long time, movie special effects were so primitive that two-dimensional illustrations were simply far more impressive. And though computer graphics have made almost anything possible on-screen, seeing real live human beings dressed in superhero costumes can brink on the edge of silliness. But on the printed page, it still works.

While comic book superheroes come in a wide variety of forms, there are generalizations that could be made about them as a whole. Usually you have a pretty ordinary person who one way or another acquires special abilities which leads them to fight crime, defend the weak, and just basically set wrongs right.

The X-Men are human mutants with extraordinary powers such as being able to control the weather, pass through solid objects, spontaneously heal, read minds or transport from place to place instantaneously. Spiderman is just an ordinary teenager who gets bitten by a radioactive spider and gains spider-like abilities. He can scale smooth surfaces, possesses a heightened sense of danger, and has remarkable strength and agility. Batman has no superpowers. Instead he relies on his superior scientific knowledge, technology, physical strength and detective skills.

Superman, a.k.a. the Man of Steel, a.k.a. Clark Kent, is the exception. He’s not an ordinary human being at all. In fact, he’s not a human being. He’s an alien from the planet Krypton who was sent here as an infant to escape his home planet’s destruction.

Probably very few comic book writers are trying to convey any overtly Christian themes. In fact, a case could be made that they contain many elements which go counter to the Christian faith (ie. bad language, graphic violence, titillating sexuality, rebellious attitudes, a fascination with the occult). There is some truth to that argument, but as is often the case, there is also something more. At the risk of sounding like I’m trying to stretch my point too far, I would like to highlight some features of some comic books that, surprisingly, resemble basic Christian teachings.

First, the comic book superhero world has a strong sense of right and wrong. Justice is possible. Moral outrage is admirable.

Secondly, while a few superhero types walk around in costume (ie. the Fantastic Four), most of them want to keep their identities secret. Their powers are hidden by their everyday ordinariness. And they only reveal themselves when it becomes necessary. This should ring a little bit familiar to Christians Who worship a God who routinely hides His glory in humble forms – in the flesh of a Man, in bread and wine – and Who cloaks His majesty in human weakness.

Thirdly, the overarching theme is that the superheroes have a mission, a duty to fulfill. They realize that they have been given unique gifts and that it would be wrong to use them for personal gain. The great line from the first Spiderman movie put it this way: “In this world, with great power comes great responsibility.” Jesus expresses a similar idea: “To whom much is given, much shall be required.” In our world where people live to serve only themselves, comic books have caught a whiff of this counter-cultural theme that runs through the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Fourthly, a lot of these characters are misunderstood and even persecuted by the very people they are trying to help. Similarly, Christ tells his followers that the world will not accept them any more than it accepted Him. They will be hated and rejected for doing good. But we don’t respond in kind. We respond to hatred with love, to evil with good.

And finally, young people are attracted to comic books for many reasons, not the least of which is their desire to believe that there is something, Someone, who is larger than life, Someone with terrific powers who – though appearances may deceive – is going to be there for us when we need Him most.

I can sympathize with this longing. I share it. Many comic books are quite offensive, to be sure. Many others are quite fun, but it all boils down to something very serious. Our need for a savior, a champion who can overthrow every foe for us. Superman may be faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. But he’s only fiction. When you put the comic books down, look at the real live God-Man, Jesus Christ, who can save us and has, in fact, already done so.

I disagreed with Pope John Paul II on important doctrinal matters. Otherwise, I would be a Roman Catholic instead of a Lutheran. However, with the passing of this giant figure of the 20th century, I must confess that I had long held a certain admiration for him. For the bulk of his papacy - until poor health overtook him - he was dynamic, outgoing and winsome. Yet, he was a firm traditionalist who sought to guard the church as well as advance it. I respect that. And who could not be impressed with a man who survived an assassin's bullet and visited the malefactor in prison to offer his forgiveness?

It seems to me that there were three, maybe four, great individuals who were chiefly responsible for the demise of the Soviet Union. Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorbechev, and John Paul II (Margaret Thatcher too). People don't always realize the impact it made on the shape of the world to elect a Polish (Easter bloc) pope during the Cold War.

One of the chief reasons I have long been an admirer of this pope has been his clear, steadfast and articulate defense of the sanctity of human life. Wasn't it he who coined the terms "culture of death" and "culture of life" which politicians have used in campaign speeches and presidential inaugurations and which have been, amazingly, so much on the lips of the media with the recent torturous murder of Terri Schiavo?

My confession of a certain admiration for the deceased pontiff (God rest him) doesn't mean I'm a Romanizing Lutheran. The doctrinal differences between Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism are still very significant. I'd be the last person to sweep this under the rug for the sake of togetherness.

I recall attending an ecumenical gathering one time in Fort Wayne, IN. There were three speakers: Kurt Marquart (of the LC-MS), a theologian from the ELCA whose name I honestly cannot recall, and Cardinal Edward Cassidy, the Vatican's chief ecumenical officer at the time. And honestly, I thought that, of the three, Marquart and Cassidy were much more on the same page regarding the ecumenical task. The ELCA guy, as I recall, gave a bland talk about love and unity and other etheric abstractions. Both Marquart and Cassidy said, in their own ways, that unity of belief is the basis for true unity in the church. The ELCA guy seemed to want to blur doctrinal distinctives, to focus on the lowest common denominators, for the sake of some institutional oneness. Boy, was he out of touch. The LCMS and the Vatican were both saying that day that we can't ignore our differences. True unity springs from having a united confession of faith...and we don't. But we should prayerfully and humbly strive for that via dialogue and debate.

My favorite Biblical verse regarding ecumenism is 1 Corinthian 1:10. "I appeal to you , brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought."

One of my parishoners referred me to this very informative article from the New York Times about the processes involved in the selection of the new Bishop of Rome. You will have to register, but it's free, easy and worthwhile.

Rev. Gerald Kieschnick, president of the LCMS, had this to say about the death today of the Bishop of Rome.

You can download two free lectures here from the Teaching Company. One is entitled, "How to Elect a Pope?' and the other is "Papal Elections: Then and Now." The lecturer is an expert in Medieval studies who teaches at Notre Dame University. I don't vouch for the content or opinions in these lectures. I just thought it might be interesting in light of the current pontiff's serious illness.

Meanwhile, I continue to pray for John Paul II. He has been a very significant figure in the 20th century and a key player in the unraveling of soviet communism. His pro-life writings have made a profound impact.