The Burr in the Burgh

My pal, Bunnie Diehl, has graciously tagged me to come up with the best song - and I quote - "in the history of the whole world." You should check out her list. I'd say it's eclectic, but eclecto-freaky is probably more apt. And she said I can name more than one. I'll stick with pop/rock songs. So fasten your seat belts, 'cause here goes nuthin...

• Free Bird by Lynrd Skynrd. Seems an obvious choice, I know. But it still moves me. Get the movie Duets and check out Andre Braugher doing it a' cappella. It's way good.


• Tom's Diner by Suzanne Vega. Always makes me wistful.
  
  
• Don't Bring Me Down by Electric Light Orchestra


• Mr. Blue Sky by Electric Light Orchestra. I really fell for this one watching Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.


• Save Me by Aimee Mann. She almost won the Oscar for this song from the Magnolia soundtrack. We saw her in a live outdoor concert a couple of weeks ago. We had great seats. It was a beautiful evening. And she was incredible. O happy day.


• Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band by the Fab 4. Or Let It Be or Hey Jude or Twist and Shout.
  


• Johnny B Good. The Jimmi Hendrix version. I went to the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame and saw the footage of him playing this and it completely floored me.


• I Got a Woman by Ray Charles. Rent Ray and tell me if you don't think Jamie Fox was so good it's scary.


• Moondance or Domino by Van Morrison. My wife and I often say that we just don't have enough Van Morrison in our life.


• Sunrise by Norah Jones. It really makes me feel like the sun is rising. But I also like her Don't Know Why.


• Train Song by Mindy Smith. Also Come to Jesus. She's got a voice and style that is just warm and comforting.


• I've Been Everywhere by Johnny Cash. I used to hate him. Now I can't get enough of him.


• Who Are You by the Who. Who? Saw them do this at the concert for America in New York after 9/11 and my feet began to dance. All by themselves. It just happened.
  

Well, I could go on and on naming the best songs in the History of the Whole World, but I need to sleep.

That was fun. So now I tag Pastor Tom Chryst, Pastor David Petersen, and Pastor Greg Alms.

Sphere: Related Content

In 1968, Paul Ehrlich wrote a spooky book called The Population Bomb, in which he theorized that, left unchecked, the world's population would increase to a point where it can no longer sustain itself. It sounded reasonable. He predicted that in the 1970s and 80s, hundreds of millions of people would starve to death. Of course, this never happened. Super-sized Americans don't appear to be going hungry. Not that there haven't been famines and people who've starved. But it's not the global pandemic predicted.

While global over-population is a myth, I posit that there IS a population bomb, but the question is "Who is bombing whom?"

I'm here summarizing statistics from a Newsweek article, but don't hold that against me. I've seen this data in numerous places.

Consider this:

* Global fertility rates have dropped in half since 1972, and are continuing to drop
* Estimates are that the world's population will rise from today's 6.4 billion to around 9 billion in 2050. But after that, it will go sharply into decline.
* Birthrates in England, Ireland, Spain, Germany, Italy, Russia and other European countries is well below the rate needed to maintain population. Vladimir Putin has called this a "national crisis."
* The same is true for Japan and other east Asian nations.

* Current population growth in most of Europe - wheresoever it is growing - is due to immigration, a high percentage of which immigrants are Muslims.
* There are some areas which do have a high birthrate. The United Nations projects that the Middle East will double in population over the next 20 years.
* Saudi Arabia has one of the highest fertility rates in the world.

On the basis of this data, I think it's reasonable to fear for the future of what we like to call Western Civilazation.

It's risky to prognosticate, but most will agree that population decline will have serious economic and social repercussions for a country. At the same time, there are radical elements who claim that humanity is a virus and the source of most problems and believe that drastically reducing population is a good idea.

For more information, Charles Colson has an interesting piece here called Wolves in Berlin: Europe's Demographic Crisis.

And I highly recommend looking at the Population Research Institute at www.pop.org (I'm having trouble getting the link to work).

Sphere: Related Content

Forgive the shameless plug. But my wife's latest children's book is now available through Bloomsbury and can be pre-ordered through my Amazon link on the right sidebar. With adorable illustrations from Carol Baicker-McKee, this is a must have for kiddies 1-3 years old.

Sphere: Related Content

I came across the blog of Denyse O'Leary, a journalist based in Toronto, Canada and I encourage you to give it a look. She covers stories on the current scientific controversy between neo-Darwinists and Intelligent Design theorists.

I first noticed her when I read this article from Christianity Today Online about the film entitled, The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe based on the book by philosopher Jay Richards and Iowa State University astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez. Apparently, the Smithsonian Institute had agreed to allow an Intelligent Design organization to show the film, but then tried to renege when the Darwinists complained.

The Intelligent Design (ID) movement is simply the attempt to examine evidence of design in nature, which suggests some higher intelligence behind it all. It seems to me that a fair-minded person in the public square is willing to study all the data and theories regarding the origins of life. If the data and theories are scientific in nature, then they belong in the realm of science (as opposed to philosophy, for instance, though the two may certainly overlap). See my earlier post. ID proponents are, as far as I can tell, asking for the opportunity to enter the debate, to not be silenced merely because they fail to toe the line of neo-darwinist orthodoxy.

Sphere: Related Content

The folks over at Be Strong in the Grace have kindly linked to me several times and today I return the favor. Look over the whole site, but check out this insightful post in particular.

Sometimes folks say they get tired of hearing preachers talk about sin and want to hear more about the love and joy of the Christian life. Now there are certainly some churches that do deliver fire and brimstone without letting the message of God's mercy predominate. And that's not good.

But it's important to point out that the joy of Christianity is only found by first paying attention to the seriousness of our need for God's grace in Christ. A person in a cancer ward might get tired of hearing all about those nasty cancer cells and malignancy and radiation and other such unpleasantness. And he or she might express a preference to hear happy stories about health.

Certainly, we want the patient to experience health, but that won't happen if we downplay the malady. Instead, we want to take an honest hardy approach to facing the disease SO THAT we can get on with the healing. Making light of the cancer won't REALLY lead to health. Only a poor facade. God is going to make you feel good (with the Gospel) but only after making you feel bad (with the Law).

Sphere: Related Content

God Save the Queen!

With deepest heartfelt sympathy, we pray for the families of those killed and injured in today's barbaric murderous attack.

Sphere: Related Content

According to this article from the Seattle Times, the UCC (sometimes thought to stand for "Unitarians Considering Christ") is now, at 1.3 million members, the largest American denomination to officially support gay marriage. But they might not bear that distinction for long. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), 4 or 5 times the size of the UCC, is set to take a similar vote this summer as well.

The Rev. John Thomas, President of the UCC, thought that it was appropriate the controversial vote took place on July 4th saying that they had "acted courageously to declare freedom." The UCC may consider their "Declaration of Independence" from the immutable law of the Creator to be an act of courage, but it seems foolhardy to me. What kind of church boasts of trashing Scripture as well as disregarding natural law? The reports suggest that some of the more biblically conservative members of the UCC may be taking a hike.

When the British surrendered to the Revolutionary Army in Yorktown, their band played The World Upside Down as they filed past the Americans. Sometimes I think I'm hearing those chords myself.

Sphere: Related Content

According to Rick Warren in his The Purpose Driven Life, many of you do not need any more Bible study. That's what he says on p. 231:

The last thing many believers need today is to go to another Bible study. They already know far more than they are putting into practice. What they need are serving experiences in which they can exercise their spiritual muscles.

I couldn't disagree more. The problem many churches face is not an overload of Biblical knowledge, but a deficit of it.

A person could try to explain comments like this one away by saying, "Well, that's not what he meant. He meant that, essentially, faith without deeds is dead." Even if that were the best construction, it is still at best, a sloppy, misleading statement. All of us are prone to making unpolished statements that we later want to clarify. I understand that. Sometimes conservative Christians are guilty of relentless nit-picking, but the quote above is just one of a thousand examples of Warren putting his foot in his mouth, and one of the more benign examples at that.

Here's one that troubled me even more:

If you want to know how much you matter to God, look at Christ wit his arms outstretched on the cross, saying, 'I love you this much! I'd rather die that live without you.'
God is not a cruel slave driver or a bully who uses brute force to coerce us into submission. He doesn't try to break our will, but woos us to himself so that we might offer ourselves freely to him. - p. 79

There are several different ways that theologians have described the work of Christ upon the cross. These are called the theories of the atonement.

One is the Christus Victor theory. This is the notion that by dying and rising, Christ's main feat was to vanquish the devil. It was a cosmic battle and Christ is the victor.

Another theory is the idea of Forensic Justification. This is the view that the cross is chiefly about God the Father acquitting sinners because Jesus, His Son, took their penalty upon Himself.

And a third theory has been called the Moral Influence theory. This is the belief that the cross is mainly God's way of showing us just how deeply He loves us in the hopes that this display of affection will melt our hearts so that we freely embrace Him.

There is, of course, truth to be found in all of these theories. But of the three listed above, the Moral Influence theory is by far the weakest and least biblically attested. And yet, that is the approach Warren uses in the above citation. God does demonstrate His love by means of the cross, but Jesus' death is not a Hallmark card (caring enough to send the very best). It is a blood sacrifice to appease God's wrath for our sin.

The Purpose Driven Life makes some good observations here and there. But it is not a Christ-centered book. The clear gospel message is barely visible, buried and obscured with the anecdotes, principles for living, and rampant scripture quotations twisted from their context.


P.S.
St. James wrote: Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly (3:1)." Being a pastor of a Christian congregation and writing a book (or blog) puts one in the public eye. Some have said, "Leave the man alone. He meant well. And beside, his book has helped a lot of people." God can use very weak earthen vessels to accomplish His purposes, but that does not excuse a pastor from mis-using and mis-applying Scripture. It would be wrong and pastorally irresponsible not to point errors out.

Sphere: Related Content

HIV-AIDS is a terrible disease. And it is spreading in Africa at an alarming rate. I hope that research will advance to find better treatments and a cure.

That having been said, the President of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Sudan spoke at my church last winter and he alerted us to an equally horrific disease that is much less well publicized. Malaria. He told us that in his country, the UN is reticent to provide assistance for battling malaria because most/all of their attention is on HIV-AIDS. He also informed us that hundreds of children die from malaria in his town every year, but not one has died of AIDS. Clearly, there is a need for helping people with both afflictions.

That is why I was delighted to read this story. President Bush is pledging $1.2 billion for fighting malaria in Africa. Over a million people die every year in Africa from malaria, most of them children.

I feel sympathy for anyone dying from AIDS and believe they should be shown compassion and helped. But frankly, there is a very easy way to prevent the spread of AIDS. It's called chastity. But there is NOTHING you can do in Africa to keep from getting bit by mosquitoes.

Sphere: Related Content

I highly recommend the annual Christian Worldview lectures held at the Schwan Center in Trego, WI every summer. It was a bit inconvenient to get to for me. I drove from Pittsburgh to Cleveland (to get a better flight) and flew into the Twin Cities. Then I rented a car and drove another 2 1/2 hours, in the pitch dark forests of nothern Wisconsin. But it was worth it.

The Schwan Center is a comfortable lodge surrounded by beautiful lakes and woods. I even saw a black bear. The food was exceptional. The speakers were scholarly and their presentations were very informative and beneficial.

If you have questions, put them in the comment box. Here is a brief summary of the lineup I enjoyed:

• Monday - The Confessional and Biblical Worldview (6 hours) by Dr. David Jay Webber of the Lutheran seminary in the Ukraine


• Tuesday - The Church and Science through the Ages: Seven Key Questions from the History of Science (2 hours) by Dr. Ryan MacPherson

Tuesday - The Purpose of Science: Sacred Cow or Sacred Calling? (2 hours) by Dr. Angus Menuge

Tuesday - Teaching Objective Morality to a Postmodern Audience (2 hours) by Dr. MacPherson


• Wednesday - The Crisis of the Constitution: From Biblical Absolutes to Evolutionary Humanism (2 hours) by Dr. John Eidsmoe


• Thursday - The New Polytheism (3 hours) by Dr. Gene Edward Veith

Thursday - Dealing with Constructivism and Pantheism in School Textbooks (3 hours) by Dr. Allen Quist


• Friday - Islam's Unrecognized Threat to Christianity and the West (2 hours) by Dr. Alvin Schmidt

Friday - Religions in America - Where Are We Going? (2 hours) by Dr. Mark Braun

Friday - How Christianity Changed the World (2 hours) by Dr. Alvin Schmidt

Sphere: Related Content

Today, at the worldview conference I am attending this week, Dr. Gene Edward Veith spoke to us about a new book called Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers by Christian Smith and Denton Melinda Lundquist.

It seems that the authors have concluded that the majority of American teens, including those who are active members of conservative churches, basically live by a creed which the authors are calling Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.

The basic tenets of this creed are:

• God created the world.
• God wants us to be good.
• God wants us to be nice.
• The central goal of life is to be happy.
• God does not generally interfere in a person's life - except when one has a problem (this is what I call the Divine AAA Membership).
• And finally, good people go to heaven.

I'm sure that Smith and Lundquist are correct in their assesment of American teenagers. But, with Dr. Veith, I would not limit it to them. I'd say that is how a large percentage of adults think as well.

Except for the first two tenets listed above, none of them are Christian statements. Would it surprise you if I said that the main message of Christianity is not "be nice to people?" It certainly appears that most of the people who actually met Jesus didn't consider Him a nice person. Let's be honest, most of the people who met Jesus found Him offensive. His own disciples were frequently embarrassed by His shocking and unpredictable actions and utterances. If being nice means comporting yourself in such a manner that most people like you, Jesus was not, by that standard, a nice man. And neither are His disciples. Christ warned His hearers to count the cost of following Him for they will be despised by the world even as it despised Him.

The main message of Christianity, you see, is that we are all objects of God's wrath on account of our sin and that God's Son, Jesus, has atoned for our sins so that we may be eternally pardoned. And when this message is communicated, especially the first part, people do not usually thank you for it.

In Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, God's chief interest is to make you happy. The reality is that our greatest happiness is found on the far side of great sorrow. God has to make us unhappy (by revealing the gravity of our sinful condition) before making us truly happy (by absolving us for the sake of Christ). In other words, God has to kill us before He makes us alive.

Sphere: Related Content

Well friends, I write to you from the woods of Northern Wisconsin as I am attending a week-long conference here. Today I heard a stimulating lecture on the Intelligent Design movement (ID) by Dr. Angus Menuge, professor of philosophy at Concordia University, WI. If you've ever heard Dr. Menuge then you know that he is not only very knowledgeable and articulate on this subject but has a lively sense of humor as well.

Dr. Menuge was one of over 15 expert witnesses who talked at the recent hearings in Kansas over the teaching in the public schools of alternative scientific theories about the origin of life. His testimony can be found here.

The Intelligent Design movement is one aspect of the current scientific controversy over Neo-Darwinism. ID, in short, is the scientific recognition of evidence of design in all living organisms. The Neo-Darwinist ideologues refuse to admit that a controversy even exists in spite of a growing body of scholarly literature.

Not long ago, the famous British scientist, Anthony Flew, converted from atheism to theism because, as he himself stated, he determined to follow the evidence wherever it lead him. I applaud his intellectual honesty.

The ID proponents are not asking for the advocacy of any particular religious beliefs in the classroom, only that both sides of this legitimate scientific controversy be presented without bias.

According to Dr. Menuge, one of the individuals at the hearing disapproved of teaching the controversy for fear that it might "confuse" the children. As Dr. Menuge commented, that would be like deciding not to explain the two party political system of American government because it's just too doggone confusing.

Sphere: Related Content

Scientists from Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh announced in a press release last Thursday that adult or post-natal stem cells have the same ability to multiply as embryonic stem cells. This is highly significant because of the moral problems associated with using stem cells from human embryos. Basically, this means that there are no advantages to using embryonic cells over adult cells, as was previously believed, and one would hope that research using the stem cells from human embryos would therefore cease.

One other huge advantage to using adult stem cells is that they can be taken from the patient himself which would eliminate the risk of rejection. Embryonic stem cells are foreign organisms which the patient's immune system would attack.

People in the pro-life movement have opposed embryonic stem cell research on the grounds that is is wrong to kill human beings for the purpose of conducting experiments on them, even if those experiments would ultimately benefit some people.

The conclusion is that in addition to being immoral (which is reason enough to stop), researching therapies using embryonic stem cells offers no unique benefits and may actually be the less effective strategy.

But don't take my word for it. Read this from some of the world's top researchers in the field.

Sphere: Related Content

I knew it!! Tom Cruise is the Sith Lord!! Check this out.

Sphere: Related Content

No. It's not. Not if by natural one means that death is the design of the Creator or that it's what is "supposed" to happen to us and thus OK. Every mourner knows that death is not OK. When God created Adam and Eve in the Garden, it was not His purpose for them to die. Death is a result of our sinfulness (sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned - Romans 5). And that's why we hate it. Because it is un-natural. And I'd suggest that God hates death even more than we do.

Russell Moore over at Mere Comments made me think of this with his post today entitled "Death is Not a Happy Ending." He alerts us to some insightful writing in the latest issue of Presbyterians Pro-Life. He quotes Terry Schlossberg's article about the death of Terri Schiavo. Schlossberg states that the Christian faith

"does not welcome death as a friend or as an escape from the burdens of this life. Scripture speaks of death as the 'last enemy,' that which is overcome by the Savior."

That is certainly true. And though I'm unaware of his personal beliefs, I have always found something appealing in the words of Dylan Thomas as he begged his dying father to fight death rather than accept it: "Do not go gentle into that good night.... Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

The Culture of Death is trying to redefine death, to domesticate it. The Culture of Death believes that death is nature's way of making room for life. The Culture of Death believes that a person's value is determined by his productivity so that when a person becomes a burden or a drain, then he should die. It's a "survival of the fittest" thing.

Of course, one must accept the reality that death is inevitable for all of us (except those alive at the parousia). And there are times when a dying person must be allowed to die - though not because it is his/her "right" but because it has become the lesser evil.

At the same as I say all of that, I confess that by His own dying and rising, our Lord Jesus has transformed death so that for those who are baptized into Christ, death has lost its sting. We are set free from the fear of death and, as the Apostle writes, we do not grieve as the world does.

Even Christians may occasionally contribute to this domestication of death when we emphasize that so-and-so has gone to a better place. That's true. And it is comforting. Jesus told the penitent thief, "Today you shall be with me in Paradise." And St. Paul does write that to be absent from the body is to be with the Lord. But we too often fail to recall the promised resurrection on the Last Day, though we confess it in the creed. Russell Moore is right to point out that "The final hope is to share in Christ's resurrection, and so to overturn the curse of sin and the reign of death."

Sphere: Related Content

I'm so looking forward to this movie. Anyone have an inside line on whether the film is loyal to the book?

Sphere: Related Content

Yesterday, I crossed the 10 thousand point in blog visits. More than 10 thousand in almost exactly three months. According to my stat counter, I currently get an average of around 100 unique visitors each day. That has been slowly on the increase. The only other pattern I have noticed is that my traffic usually drop significantly on Saturdays and Sundays. Thanks for reading and keep coming back!

Sphere: Related Content

For the past two weeks, I have been teaching a Bible class on the Ten Commandments at my congregation. And naturally, one of the first things I wanted to do was address the fact that different groups enumerate the commandments differently. Did you know that Roman Catholics and Lutherans number them one way, the Protestants another, and the Jews yet another? So when people debate whether the Decalogue should be inscribed on civic monuments or displayed in government buildings, they will have to make a decision as to which enumeration to follow. One argument could reasonably be made, I suppose, that by choosing one listing over the others, an endorsement is being made of a specific church or religion.

In my digging, I uncovered an old Washington Post article about this topic. You should give it a look because it shows the three different ways of numbering the commandments. Does this mean there is some kind of discrepancy in God's Word? No. Reading the Biblical accounts in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, one finds that Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Protestants and Jews all have the same commandments. But since the scriptures themselves do not delineate how they should be numbered, there may naturally arise differing listings.

It appears to me that the main difference between the Roman Catholic/Lutheran numbering and the Protestant numbering is that the Calvinists and the more radical reformers wanted to place emphasis on the whole graven image part, presumably to condemn Rome's proclivity for statues. But since the Lutherans, while not praying to the saints, found no objection in 3-dimensional church art, they understood the graven image prohibition as simply part of having no other gods.

I'm most intrigued by the fact that in the Jewish tradition, the first commandment is not a commandment at all, but a statement of gospel: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery." As a Lutheran Christian, I can appreciate that very well. The commands then become less imperative and more indicative. A Christian might understand it this way: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of slavery to sin and the grave by the death and resurrection of my Son, your Lord, Jesus Christ." In that case, the commands become descriptive of how God's children live, not just how they should live or must live. It's a statement of who we are in Christ Jesus. Or as our Lord Himself put it: "You are the light of the world. You are the salt of the earth."

Sphere: Related Content

Here's something clever floating around the blogosphere. Book tag. Bob Waters over at Watersblogged tagged me.

The game is this:

1. Citizen Soldiers by Stephen Ambrose. I always enjoy Ambrose's Word War II books. This one in particular because he highlights the characteristics and virtues that not only make America great, but were the foundation for our victory in that great crusade. An excellent and engaging look at the everyday Americans who saved Western civilization (and France).


2. Tortured for Christ by Richard Wurmbrand. I read this one myself as a teenager. I don't recall it well enough to vouch for all its theology, but it really opened my eyes to what Jesus meant when He said, "Take up your cross and come follow me." As Bonhoeffer famously said, "When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die." Wurmbrand was a Lutheran pastor (Romanian Jewish convert) who was imprisoned and tortured first by the Nazis and then by the Communists. He later testified about his sufferings before the U.S. congress and, when some found his account hard to swallow, he stood up to remove his shirt in that august assembly to reveal his scars. Having been briefly to the Sudan myself and knowing that more Christians were martyred in the 20th century than in the previous 19 combined, I think today's youth need to read this book, or one like it. It's short too.


3. How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) by Ann Coulter. This one is to fulfill the humor requirement. Not only do I think Ann's perspective on politics and culture to be generally very clear-headed, but her acerbic wit slays me. Her bit on Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ is the number one best review essay I saw. She totally gets it. Her understanding of the atonement is refreshingly blunt. I quoted her in a sermon once. Her earlier book, Slander, is good too.


4. Table Talk by Martin Luther. This could also fit under humor, in a pinch. I'd more likely file it under wisdom literature. The Blessed Reformer offers pithy dinnertime comments on theology, marriage, politics, and beer.


5. Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel by C.F.W. Walther. It's a classic. And no one explains this better. Frankly, this book opened Scripture to me unlike anything else before or since.
   


6. Novels no human should fail to read: Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens (substitutionary atonement); Lord of the Flies by William Golding (original sin); 1984 and Animal Farm by George Orwell (the threat of totalitarianism); The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis (Jesus); The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien (friendship); Les Miserables by Victor Hugo (grace); The Telltale Heart short story by Edgar Allen Poe (guilt); Merchant of Venice play by Wm. Shakespeare (mercy); The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath (depression); A Prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving (divine surprise).

The reason I hate making lists like this is because I know full well that five minutes after I post this, ten more books will come to mind. So be forewarned that there may be a sequel.

And now I get to tag someone. Your turn Preachrblog, Confessing Evangelical, and CyberBrethren.

Sphere: Related Content

So, last night I watched a German movie called Run Lola Run from 1999 starring Franka Potente (who was with Matt Damon in the Bourne movies). It's a clever film about how the outcome of one's life can often depend on the minor details.

The plot is simple. Lola gets a panicked phone call from her boyfriend, Manni, who says he's going to die in 20 minutes unless he comes up with 100,000 deutsche marks. It turns out he was supposed to deliver the money to a gangster promptly at noon, but on his way to the meeting point, he'd been scared off the subway by the sight of two police officers. In his fright, he left the bag of cash on the train where it was purloined by a homeless man. Now Manni is convinced that the bad guy will suspect him of stealing the money and will certainly kill him unless Lola can help him. His other option, he figures, would be to rob a bank before 12 o'clock. The rest of the film shows Lola frantically running from one point in the city to another to come up with the cash Manni needs.

What makes this interesting is that the film tells the story three times with three very different outcomes, all depending on the smallest of details. It's very creative, edited like a rock video, and surprisingly entertaining.

Another film that covers the same motif is Sliding Doors with Gwyneth Paltrow. Two stories are told with the same characters and the same setup, but one detail early on totally changes the way things unfold.

It reminds me of a science fiction short story I read a long time ago (Asimov?) about a man who invents time travel and goes back to the age of the dinosaurs. While there, he accidentally kills a single insect, but that minor incident alters all of human history. I don't buy the evolutionary premise, but the idea is intriguing.

For instance, in college I used to go on Monday nights to sing hymns and read scriptures at a local nursing home. One night, a friend of a friend was visiting from out of state. If I'd missed going just that one time, I might never have met my wife, my son would never have been born and who knows how many other things would be different?

In our Gospel reading yesterday, from Matthew 10, Jesus told His disciples that their Heavenly Father governs the life of every sparrow and has numbered the very hairs on their heads. It's comforting to know that our benevolent God has the details in control.

Sphere: Related Content

Something quick for Father's Day. Check out these two posts from Pr. Paul McCain:

Post 1 Why Dad is So Important

Post 2 The Truth About Men and Church

Sphere: Related Content

Not if you belong to the United Church of Christ, apparantly. The UCC (sometimes facetiously called Unitarians Considering Christ) is about to debate a resolution on this very matter.

For two millenia, whatever Christians may have disagreed on, everyone would have at least been willing to say that Jesus is Lord. Some "conservative" UCC pastors have submitted a resolution to their July denominational meeting which affirms this traditional bedrock belief and requires all clergy to accept it. This may seem like a no-brainer to you and me, but some observers say they think the measure will fail.

This boils down to whether the clergy in the UCC believe that Jesus is God or not. Apparantly many of them do not.

See here for details.

Russell Moore over at Mere Comments summed it up eloquently: Still, it is sad to know that in the United Church of Christ Arius would be considered a moderate.

Sphere: Related Content

Today, Scott Edmund Stiegemeyer (the first) turned 36 years young. I know; I know. You can hardly believe that I'm that old. I get that a lot. I was most recently carded at a restaurant less than twelve months ago. So although it absolutely positively stretches the limits of credulity, I am 36 years old today. And luvin it.

Actually, as I think about it, I really think of myself as nothing more than an overgrown teenager... for better or worse. I still like rock-n-roll (my son tells me to TURN THAT MUSIC DOWN). I still enjoy many of the same types of movies, television and books that I did when I was 16. Of course, at that age, I was an avid reader of theology and history.

Here's what I did:

• My wonderful wife and son took me down to the Three Rivers Arts Festival. I love that kind of stuff and bought a silver bracelet for my wonderful wife. We're planning to go back down in a couple of days to hear Aimee Mann.
  
  
• We went to my son's baseball game. He got a double, a ground out, a walk, and a strike out. He mostly played 3rd base and had a good throw to 2nd getting out a runner. His team won. Two wondeful people from my congregation showed up to cheer for my son. It was great to see you Joy and John.


• My wonderful wife and son took me to dinner after the game to Nakama, a Japanese steakhouse where I had miso soup, salad, hibachi shrimp appetizer, rice, veggies, filet mignon, and two glasses of my favorit beer: Guiness stout.


• Got home around 10 p.m. and opened gifts. A lovely day.

One major highlight: Eating deep fried Oreo cookies and a deep fried Twinkie at the Art Festival. Ain't life grand?

Sphere: Related Content

You have to admit that this is a pretty ridiculous headline: Terri Schiavo Autopsy: Manner of Death Undetermined. Again, I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure we do know the cause of her death. Maybe being denied food and water for two weeks had something to do with it.

Michelle Malkin, once more, sheds light on a cloudy subject. She writes, "Terri Schiavo, a profoundly disabled woman who was not terminally ill and who had an army of family members ready to care for her for the rest of her natural life, succumbed to forced dehydration at the hands of her spouse-in-name-only.

We know she died of dehydration. And we know that she was severely brain damaged. What the 39 page autopsy did not answer is what caused Terri Schiavo to collapse 15 years ago. We will probably never know that.

The autopsy does not tell us what degree of awareness Terri experienced. But some will ask, "wasn't she a vegetable?" Experts have reminded us that an autopsy cannot determine the existence of PVS.

Supporters of Michael Schiavo now mock those "extreme right-wingers" who wanted to keep Terri alive. I guess they forgot about the legions of lefty Democrats who also defended her life such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Joseph Lieberman, Nat Hentoff, Lanny Davis, and Alan Dershowitz. Only extremist left-wingers think this was a right/left debate.

Some good thoughtful comments from Captain's Quarters, who wrote:

Terri had never requested to die, not with any transparency or formality. All we had for witnesses on her state of mind was a husband who waited until after he had won a substantial lawsuit to recall a conversation in which Terri made an offhand comment about not wanting to live on a respirator, and two of his relatives who corroborated him. The husband had a conflict of interest in the matter, having started a new relationship with another woman and fathering two children. On the other side, Terri's parents and siblings were willing to take over her medical care and the responsibility for its costs.

Amd most of all, as the coroner affirmed yesterday, Terri was not dying.

Despite all of this, Florida decided that it would deliberately kill Terri on the basis of her husband's wishes, without any living will or formal indication of her state of mind....

And when the state decides to kill someone who isn't dying on their own -- as opposed to stopping artificial breathing/cardiac support for those who lack any ability to survive without it -- it should have more substantial oversight before doing so, and it should have more to rely on than an estranged husband's belated recollection of a superficial, general conversation as its basis.

Why do you suppose 26 national disability rights organizations spoke in favor of preserving Terri's life? Because, if we don't check ourselves, this really can become a slippery slope.

Other good insightful commentary can be found at Polipundit and Gatewaypundit.

Sphere: Related Content

Y'know what? Terri Schiavo died of ... drum roll ... DEHYDRATION. The announcement was made today that she had severe brain damage - which we already knew.

Look here to read the official autopsy report. It's in pdf.

The report does specify that Terri's brain was quite atrophied. I'm not a doctor, but I wonder how much of that may have been the result of dehydration.

In any case, I don't see how this news changes the moral status of what was done to Mrs. Schiavo. As Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life states, Terri didn't die of an atrophied brain. She died of the atrophied compassion of her husband.

We'll hear a lot, I'm betting, about the Persistent Vegetative State (PVS). Lifesitenews.com reports that, "In a March 31 article in MedPage Today, Dr. Michael De Georgia, head of the neurology/neurosurgery intensive care unit at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, warned his readers against a PVS diagnosis, saying that it "cannot be confirmed by autopsy." Dr. Mouhammed Kabbani, a neurologist at the University of Missouri, concurred, saying "an autopsy can show the degree of brain damage and how much brain tissue survived the injury", but that "it cannot by any means tell about the patient's clinical status."

Again, remember that the dear woman was not brain dead. She was not dying (anymore than any of us). She was not in pain. No machines were keeping her alive artificially. She was severely brain damaged. I'm glad we got that cleared up.

Thanks to prolifeblogs.com for reporting on this.

Sphere: Related Content

In England, a man named Leslie Burke, is suing the government to ensure that they will not withhold food and water should he need it administered through a tube. Did you catch that? This man is concerned that his doctors will dehydrate him against his wishes. You see, the government's point is that it is just too doggone expensive to keep all these hopeless patients alive. Mr. Burke is currently able to feed himself, but his health condition is such that he may well need a feeding tube. And he is afraid the tax-supported National Health Service will kill him. I wonder what would have ever given him that idea. The terrifying thing is that the British government is fighting him over this. Apparantly, they would like to reserve the right to starve him to death - against his wishes - if he becomes a burden on the taxpayers.

Michael Schiavo argued for the right to murder his wife and it was granted. He wanted Terri to have the "right" to die. Well, what many Americans refuse to see is that the line between "right" to die and "duty" to die is imperceptibly fine. Today, we say we want to kill the hopeless cases for their own good. Tomorrow, we will say we want to kill the hopeless cases for OUR own good.

Read the article here. Thanks to Michelle Malkin for pointing this story out.

Sphere: Related Content

I have always been a fan of U2 as a rock band. They've been at this for over 20 years and still put out consistently awesome music. Some of their songs are the greatest rock-n-roll songs ever penned. Can I get an Amen?!

For those of you cave dwellers who don't know, Bono is the name of the charismatic frontman of the Irish musical group. Some days I want to be Bono. And it's not because he's one of the most famous pop culture icons in the world, singing in one of the most talented and successful bands of all time (although I could probably get used to that). And it's not just because I sincerely admire his work on behalf of the poor in Africa. Many celebrities adopt pet social causes, but usually their ignorance does more harm than good (see Laura Ingraham's book "Shut Up and Sing"). But Bono is different. He's the real deal in my book. In my humble opinion, President Bush should try to pull some strings to get Bono put in charge of the U.N. (sorry Kofi).

The main reason I want to be Bono is because he's a good writer. He truly has a way with words (forget for a moment his accidental use of the f-word at the Grammys). Words are my life and my livelihood. I'm a professional communicator. And I strive to express classic timeless truths in fresh attention-grabbing verbiage. If I could say what I want to say with the panache of Bono, I'd be thrilled.

The first time I read some of Bono's prose was when Rolling Stone magazine had a special issue a while back on the 100 greatest rock-n-roll artists. They had current blockbusting stars write articles about other blockbusting stars and Bono wrote the page on Elvis Presley. And Bono's ability to paint a portrait of another man's soul using text is unsurpassed. Let me tell you that I read that whole issue, all 100 articles, and no one came close to Bono's craftsmanship as a writer.

The second time I read Bono's prose was in an issue of Modern Reformation (unfortunately I couldn't find a web link [c'mon Mikey!]) when they published something he'd written about the Psalms. The theme of that particular issue was the role of sorrow in the Christian life and contra contemporary happy-clappy praise music, Bono's article on psalms of lament nailed the truth square on the head. This guy gets it. And frankly, anyone who can get himself published in both Rolling Stone and Modern Reformation must be AWESOME. George W. Bush is someone I'd like to have a beer with (though he doesn't drink) and Bono is someone I'd drink a Guiness with and smoke clove cigarettes.

Every once in a while you hear rumors of Bono's Christian faith, but his many charitable works notwithstanding, I hadn't seen a lot of evidence for this myself. Until today, ten minutes ago, in fact. Jeffrey Overstreet's Blog, Looking Closer Journal, has a terrific excerpt from a newish book of published interviews with the Irish songster. The book is called Bono in Conversation and I've just added it to my already freakishly long must-read list.

I don't vouch for Bono's orthodoxy regarding every article of Christian doctrine. But go to Overstreets blog (HERE) and tell me that Bono's defense of the gospel is not clear, articulate and persuasive. Absolutely fabulous. He and Mel Gibson need to do lunch and I'd give my right pinky to be a fly on that wall.

Sphere: Related Content

Father John Parker of Holy Ascension Orthodox Church (OCA) was recently asked to give a benediction at the graduation of the Medical University of South Carolina. But when the school officials found out that Fr. Parker was planning to say a Christian prayer (gasp!), they un-invited him, ironically, in the name of tolerance. Read more here.

Imagine the arrogance it takes to ask a Christian cleric to pray while insisting that he make no mention of his God. There is no generic god. The only God that exists is the Holy Trinity, confessed by Father Parker. To ask him to pray without mentioning Jesus or the Trinity would be asking him to break the First Commandment.

Fr. Parker says it best, "Slowly, like the proverbial frog in the kettle, we are being taught that it is the pinnacle of erudition and public good to believe anything, but it is indeed the nadir, not to mention simply dangerous and offensive, to believe something."

Sphere: Related Content

When a dioceses of the Episcopal Church -USA consecrated an openly gay man as their bishop, Anglican leaders in Africa raised a protest. Now, in spite of the fact that the U.S. church grants up to 70% of the financial support for many Anglican ministries in Africa, the more biblically conservative bishops south of the Eqautor are saying, "no thanks." Look here for more info. I applaud their integrity and courage.

Their point is that the Episcopal Church-USA has disgraced the gospel of Jesus Christ by blessing something which God has not blessed. The African bishops have sharply rebuked their American colleagues and feel it would be hypocritical to then accept their money. It is encouraging to note that the more conservative parishes and dioceses in the EC-USA are helping to take up the slack, though it remains, to date, only a drop in the bucket.

Sphere: Related Content

Dave Schiflett has written a book with this jarringly straightforward title, Exodus: Why Americans are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity. I haven't read it yet, but I'm gonna.

From the description on Amazon, it reminds me of a book I did read a couple of years ago called, The New Faithful: Why Young Adults Are Embracing Christian Orthodoxy, by Colleen Carroll. Both authors demonstrate that liberal churches in America are - on the whole - dying out while conservative churches are growing. They argue that this is because people who bother to go to church generally prefer to go somewhere that has definite ideas about doctrines and morals.

Schiflett's article on the same topic at National Review Online is a must-read. It's God-Lite Doesn't Cut It. Go there as soon as you finish reading the Burr.

Conservative believers can't gloat, but should see this as a warning to resist the temptation to loosen up and water down their absolutes.

Personally, I'm glad liberal churches are dying. The wider church will be the stronger for it. The "God-Lite" they offer may taste great, but it is definitely less filling.

Sphere: Related Content

Thanks to John H over at Confessing Evangelical for pointing this out. It's another whopper post from Mere Comments of Touchstone. And I will long be grateful for that wonderful snippet from George Herbert.

As a parish pastor who routinely preaches at least once a week, often more frequently, I will say that preaching proper sermons is always a challenge. I would even say that sermon preparation is about 90% of what I do. Oh, don't misunderstand, I visit the shut-ins, teach catechism and attend meetings too. But the more I do this, the more I find that all of that is sermon preparation as well in the sense that it prepares the preacher - if that makes any sense.

The pastor is called to construct faithful, biblical, Christ-centered, Law/Gospel sermons which are skillfully applied to the hearers. But the longer I preach, the more I believe it is important to do the above in a way that people can actually comprehend. Correctness is often easier to achieve that clarity.

Sphere: Related Content

Pastor David Petersen over at Cyberstones posted on this subject a couple of days ago.

I STILL have not yet seen Star Wars: Episode III, but I'm getting closer. We just re-watched Episode II this evening. And I felt that I needed to see that again first. Now we're in business.

Episode III has raised questions about whether young children should see such a violent film. It is rated PG-13, I believe, for that reason. The parents of a child are generally the best ones to discern what a child could/should view. But I agree with the post from Touchstone's blog, Mere Comments, to which Pr. Petersen refers. Though the writer, Russel Moore, is referring to Star Wars, he could just as well have been writing about The Lord of the Rings, Braveheart, The Passion of the Christ and numerous other films.

The point is that violence is not always a bad thing. In line with the whole feminization of the church critique, contemporary folk keep trying to re-imagine God as a tree-hugging hippie peacenik, when the reality is that God is not a pacifist.

Now here's the part where I put in the expected caveats about God's truest nature being one of love and mercy, not judgment and wrath. And I'm not trying to be flippant. I believe that wholeheartedly. I also believe it was good and right for God to command the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites, for Elijah to butcher the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel, for David to slay and behead Goliath, etc.

There's a war taking place that's more dangerous than the War on Terror. And that's because our biggest foe is not Osama bin Laden. It's the dragon, the ancient serpent, the accuser of the brethren, the adversary, the father of lies, the lord of the flies, the proto-murderer himself. And he hates you royally and is prowling like a lion seeking whom he may devour. And frankly, I'm glad that God is not taking the win-win approach with Satan. It's the ultimate all or nothing battle between good and evil, though the victory is not in doubt. It's a certainty, even a present reality. And every well-told story of good defeating evil is, at its best, an echo of the one true myth.

Sphere: Related Content

Or as I like to call it, America's salvation of Western Civilization (and France).

I should have posted this yesterday, but better late than never.

I admire the men and women of our armed forces who serve, sacrifice and suffer for their country. May God bless America!

Everyone should go get and read Stephen Ambrose's books (their Amazon links on the sidebar):

D-Day: June 6, 1944: The Climactic Battle of WWII
Band of Brothers
Citizen Soldier

I also direct your attention to Michelle Malkin's website for this set of links honoring this historic date.

Sphere: Related Content

In recent posts, I have directed you to journalist Michael Yon's website where he shows moving photos of our American troop interacting with and helping Iraqi children. He is the one who said that the joy the children exhibit when a U.S. military vehicle rolls into town is comparable how an American child reacts when he hears the jingling bell of the ice cream man.

Then I discovered the blog of 2nd Lieutenant Shawn Richardson. Below are some of his photographs. I thank him for his devoted service and for giving me permission to post his photos on my blog.

Sphere: Related Content

Sphere: Related Content

Sphere: Related Content

Sphere: Related Content

Sphere: Related Content

Sphere: Related Content

Sphere: Related Content

Sphere: Related Content

Sphere: Related Content

A friend of mine, Darren Eliker, who has an excellent way with words, offers his thoughts below on The Revenge of the Sith. I still have not seen the film, but once I do I will add my own reactions. I just thought Darren's observations were interesting and needed to be shared.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Last weekend my wife and I caught the final episode of the Star Wars sextology (yes that is a word and get your mind out of the gutter), the ‘Revenge of the Sith’.

George Lucas has left an impact upon the way we watch films in a way few others have. He may not be a prolific director like his friend Steven Spielberg, but it’s Lucas’ groundbreaking strides in the realm of special effects that have made way for all of the incredible CGI graphics and THX technology used in most films today. Watch the credits of major blockbusters and you’ll probably find Skywalker Sound or Lucasfilm Ltd listed.

Lucas is not a great director. He’s a good storyteller and a very good merchandiser. He’s created an indelible mythos that has captivated minds young and old around the world by a galaxy far, far away. But he’s at his best when he steps away from the work and lets someone else direct. That’s what made the second film ‘Empire Strikes Back’ arguably the best in the series. It’s also what makes ‘Revenge of the Sith’ a tedious and rather boring conclusion to the Star Wars saga.

The story of Star Wars is important and personal for Lucas, and this is what keeps him from getting out of his own way. While Spielberg churns out picture after picture, Lucas labors for years over each release. He’s too careful, too precious with it. It was the reason why the first Star Wars almost failed before it began. The stars of that movie know well the pressure Lucas brought to the set with almost catastrophic results.

There were things to admire about ‘Sith’. The effects are breathtaking. Especially at the beginning. But the problem with effects is that they can overwhelm a film to the point where they become monotonous. So much is going on that the eye focuses on nothing and everything at once.

I’m also convinced that much of what is likeable about this film is due mainly to the nostalgia of the characters created in the first and second movies. Sith is mainly a movie that ends with a beginning. Our delight is in watching the characters become who they are when we first saw them years and years ago.

Lucas is at his worst getting a performance out of an actor. A good director knows how to get a performance out of a bad actor…except perhaps Hayden Christensen (Anakin Skywalker) who is probably hopeless. But Lucas seems to excel at making good actors look bad. How can someone as talented as Samuel Jackson or even Jimmy Smits come off with as much personality as a cardboard cutout? You know it’s reached a new low when Yoda’s performance beats out the real live people.

Lucas lucked out with Ford, Fisher, and Hammill because they created a chemistry together that made Star Wars a success in spite of their director.

Where Lucas fails the most are in pivotal scenes such as Anakin’s final capitulation to the Dark Side of the Force. It’s all too easy. One might say George ‘gave into the dark side’ in creating those scenes. There is little to care about.

And as if the overweening effects, bad performances, and melodramatic turning points weren’t enough, Lucas adds a certain level of moralizing, which is out of place. It comes off as social commentary by the director rather than organic beliefs of the characters.

One such example film critic Michael Medved and I both noticed, is when Anakin (now Vader) is in a ferocious light-saber battle with Obi Wan and delivers the line, “If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy.” To which Obi Wan responds, “Only the Sith deal in absolutes.” Well aside from the petty political message it’s attempting to send, it is a totally incongruous point that is at odds with itself. Lucas is of the generation that is uncomfortable with hard and fast ideas of right and wrong, while at the same time his movies are all about right and wrong. But I guess the prerogative of preaching is reserved to those like the more enlightened Lucas.

The statement “Only the Sith deal in absolutes” is itself an absolute statement. The character goes on a few lines later to say that the Emperor who Vader has sold out to is ‘altogether evil’. Whoa! Sounds pretty absolutist to me. If you don’t believe in absolutes, Obi, what exactly are you planning on doing with that light saber? In fact, it’s a belief that is completely contrary to the whole world of good and evil that Star Wars represents.

In the end, ‘Sith’ is not the film it might have been. Weighed down by technology, low-level performances, and an ideology at odds with itself, ‘Revenge of the Sith’ only serves to create a cosmic dissonance of galactic proportions.

Sphere: Related Content

I almost classified this one under the "no comment" section, but I guess just the fact that I'm putting it here is a comment of some sort.

The latest news from Athens. The Greek Orthodox Church recently declared that men who desire to enter the priesthood from other professions are welcome to apply...unless they are politicians, gynecologists, actors, coroners, lawyers, soldiers or wine-shop employees. Welcome are bee-keepers, candle makers, and cobblers. (I'm not making this up). Apparantly the listed professions are "unsuitable" for future clergymen.

I don't get it. Is the suggestion that all politicians are dishonest? Or that there is something lewd in being a gynecologist? As I see it, there are very few professions which are inherently wicked. Prostitution, for instance. In most other cases, it depends upon the individual. If a man should be disqualified purely on the basis of his former profession, then maybe Jesus shouldn't have chosen a tax collector (St. Matthew) to be one of the big twelve.

In Lutheranism, we commonly speak about the doctrine of vocation. And this is the biblical notion that God uses us as His instruments for preserving His creation. Not only did God create the world we inhabit, but He continues to bless and keep it. Believe it or not, but God uses politicians, lawyers, gynecologists, coroners, soldiers, actors, and even wineshop employees as the means to serve your needs. And he uses you to serve theirs. We are flawed utensils, to be sure. Poorly tuned instruments. But each person should view his daily work, his ordinary responsibilities, his mundane tasks, his station in life, as a divine calling to serve his neighbor.

When I read about this in an Australian paper, I thought it must be one of those satire publications like The Onion. But it's reported in the Greek news too. I'm still not sure if it's real.

Sphere: Related Content

I've only been at this new hobby for about two months and have recently stumbled across several blog sites full of helpful hints. So if you are just starting out, give these a peek:

• Basic definitions from Technorati. Start here.


• "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Blogging But Were Afraid to Ask." SimonWorld has this slightly tongue-in-cheek yet extremely helpful list of suggestions.


• Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost has these six helpful pages for beginning bloggers.


• Before You Begin
• The Beginning Blogger's Toolbox
  
• How to Become an A-List Blogger
  
• The Art of Marketing Your Blog
• Owning a Micro-Niche
• Three Essentials of Blog Design
  



• Harvey of Bad Example gives 12 steps to better blogging.
• And here he has a good guide to comments.
• And here is how he recommends "fighting invisibility."
  


• John Hawkins at Right Wing News offers these three cardinal sins of blogging.


• Adrian Warnock at UK Evangelical Blog has this five part series on How to Be a Successful Blogger: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
  

Sphere: Related Content

St. John's church in Cardiff, Wales has opened a Pandora's box that they won't be able to close. Supposedly in order to attract people to attend their services, they have installed wireless computer networking equipment to make it easier for people to use their personal laptops to retrieve e-mail or surf the net. Check here and here.

All the minister asks is that folks keep it quiet during worship services. Here's the quote that slays me: "I have no problem with people quietly sending an email or surfing the Internet in church, as long as they respect the church."

That's like saying it's OK to watch TV while your spouse is trying to talk to you, just so long as you respect marriage. Duh! The very act of composing e-mail to your uncle Henry or surfing the internet, viewing who knows what, while the Word of God is being proclaimed or the Holy Eucharist is being administered is the very definition of NOT respecting the church. Why isn't this obvious to everyone?

Technology is great, but can't a person get away from the world for even one hour to hear the Gospel?? Jesus said if you will not forsake all for Him, you cannot be His disciple. And some folks can't even disconnect long enough to sing a few hymns and say a few prayers. Gee, I'm glad God doesn't ask for our undivided attention while the flogging and crucifixion of His Son is being proclaimed.

I'm with those four churches in Monterrey, Mexico who have installed cell phone jammers so that people in their building are unable to receive a signal. It used to be the biggest distraction one had to tolerate during the sermon was a crying baby, but now the words of Jesus have to compete with a sudden burst of "Who Let the Dogs Out?"

Thanks to Bunnie Diehl for the story.

Sphere: Related Content

Yesterday, the family and I happened to catch not one, but two movies. It was a day off school, you see. But don't think we observed our Memorial Day only with self indulgence. Earlier in the day we visited the Soldiers and Sailors Museum for a patriotic celebration.

• The Pacifier starring Vin Diesel was playing at the local dollar theater. And let me say that I thought it was a terrific family film. I enjoyed it A LOT. Admittedly, I'm kind of a Vin Diesel fan already because Saving Private Ryan is one of my all time faves.

• Why I liked it: No cursing (that I can recall). It was clean. It was very pro-family. And I would say that it was pro-military too. And it was funny, with a decent story and enjoyable characters. Occasionally, over-the-top silliness, but that's OK.
  

• Criticisms: A bit too much diaper humor. Gets a laugh the first time, maybe, but then after that it just reveals the laziness of the writers. Y'know, whenever you get stumped, just throw in another poop joke.
  
  And I suppose some might suggest that the subplot with the oldest boy is a subtle attempt to encourage acceptance of homosexuality, as was purported for Shark Tale. And that may well have been the producer's intent, but it could also just be a way to encourage the audience to accept that people are different and have different likes and dislikes. I guess I'm just not in the mood today to find a cultural boogeyman behind every bush.



• I, Robot with Will Smith. Watched on DVD. Second time for me. Not really based on the Isaac Asimov collection of stories of the same name, only "suggested" by it.


• Why I liked it: Awesome action sequences and special effects. Good story. And Will Smith remains an outstanding action movie hero but has something Arnold and Sylvester could never quite achieve, and that is humor. Bruce Willis is another one who can deliver in the rough-and-tumble department and still also deliver a funny line.

Another thing the movie did well, in my opinion, was to illustrate the classic Science Fiction theme that technology dehumanizes us. There's a note of warning in there somewhere. (It's ironic that I'm stating that on a blog.)


• Criticisms: Bad language all over the place.

I don't know if this is so much a criticism as an observation. The movie had almost no connection, plot-wise, to the Asimov book it was named for. However, the three laws of robotics which play a central role in the film do come from Asimov. Overall, a good flick.

Sphere: Related Content

In the media, Islam has been called the religion of peace. I suppose destroying all the infidels is one way towards creating harmony.

Here's an excerpt from a "sermon" delivered by Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris on Palestinian television. I've talked about this general issue with Christian leaders and laity I know in Muslim countries and they agree that any Americans who think this "sermon" represents a small lunatic fringe is living with their heads in the sand. When my son was three years old, he believed that if he covered his eyes with his hands, it made the person he'd be looking at disappear. It just seems to me that there are a lot of people who think that if they don't think about this, it won't become a problem. Denial is not just a river in Egypt. It's a state of mind.

Jesus said, "I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world (Joh 16:33)." True peace is only available in Jesus Christ. He alone has reconciled sinners to the Heavenly Father.

I tip my hat to The Volokh Conspiracy.

Sphere: Related Content

Michael Yon is a journalist travelling with American soldiers in Iraq. You should click here to read what he writes about the Muslims who are intentionally killing Iraqi children and using them as shields and doing it in the name of their false god. Jesus talked about men who would do evil and think they were doing God a favor. Their god is the devil.

Yon also writes how the children in Iraq LOVE the American soldiers. He says that they come running filled with excitement when they hear the tanks rumbling the same way American children run when they hear the bell of the neighborhood ice cream man. And the soldiers are sadly forced to tell the children to stay back. Why? Because the evil ones they are fighting use the children as shields and have killed many.

Sphere: Related Content