The Burr in the Burgh

One reader made a thoughtful comment on one of my previous posts asking me about how I can point my finger at the errorists in other church bodies while my own denomination has plenty of issues as well. His comment was polite, yet challenging. And I thank him for it because I have been thinking about it since then. So I would like to take a moment to get a couple of things off my chest.

• First of all, for the most part, in this blog I post commentary about current events, pop culture, and news from the international church scene. And just as a train wreck will get more coverage than a birth announcement, my commentary probably tends more towards negatives than positives. I don't think I'm a curmudgeon, but if that's how I come across, please grant your indulgence.
  


• Secondly, I certainly do not believe that my church body (the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod) is perfect or free of problems. Oh, we have some doozies! Generally, however, I will refrain from directly addressing specific issues in the LCMS on this blog. For various reasons, I do not believe this blog is the best forum for me to air those matters. But don't think this means I avoid taking a stand when necessary. I do and I have and I will. But probably not on a blog. So when I nag or complain or rebuke others, it is not because I believe I am personally sinless or superior or that my own denomination is perfect.

This website is kind of fun for movie buffs. It's pretty tough, but I did pretty well on the first two rounds. It gives you a couple of obscure shots from a movie and then you have to guess the name of the film.

Peter Akinola is the influential Anglican Primate of Nigeria who has been most outspoken against the Episcopal Church - USA for consecrating an openly homosexual bishop. Now he's at it again, persistent fellow. Apparently, the Church of England passed some goofy rule allowing their gay priests to get married as long as they promise not to have gay sex with their partners. Isn't that one of the stupidest things you've ever heard? Just how do they plan to enforce that? What's the point? Because of such craziness, Archbishop Akinola is recommending that the Church of England be suspended from the Anglican Communion. Just you wait. Soon we'll be hearing people calling him divisive. Here's the article.

Well, I don't know that for certain. Let's put it this way, Brad Pitt and Paramount Pictures are set to make a film entitled, The Year of Living Biblically. The stated premise is that the main character determines to follow all the rules of the Old and New Testaments literally (gasp!). I think it's a fair assumption that this is not going to make people like me look good.

Some grouchy unenlightened commentators are saying this is likely to just be another swipe at conservative Christians. Maybe. But if I were an Orthodox Jew, like say, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I'd definitely be paying attention.

I took the Jewish angle because it is considered suave and fashionable to mock conservative Christians. Jews get slightly more respect nowadays. Of course, if you really want to be the darling of Hollywood, go Buddhist or better yet, adopt the religion of Sheila-ism. You remember that woman named Sheila who made up a new religion entirely based around herself. That's what most of us reeeeaaalllyy are anyway, no matter where we sit on Sunday morning (or Saturday or whatever).

It's a free country. Let them make whatever movie they please. But when a film intentionally mocks a major world religion (mine or yours), I would expect outcry. Didn't Voltair once say, "I may not agree with what you say. . . and if I don't you can expect me bust your chops"? I may not have that quote exactly right.

Hey, I'm no stick in the mud. I can appreciate a certain level of irreverent humor. But making fun of God's Word is dangerous.

I read one report that suggested a movie called something like The Year of Living Koran-ly. Like that would ever happen. But it does. Everytime you see one of those blow-em-up action flicks where the bad guys are Islamic terrorists, you are watching a movie about people who try to live according to the Koran literally. Read it, if you don't believe me.

I was so delighted when I heard a while back that the Anglican officials refused to give permission for Ron Howard to make his newest movie in Westminster Abbey. The Da Vinci Code movie, based on the Dan Brown book of the same name will star Tom Hanks and seems to be nearing completion. Then I read this bit from Mere Comments by James Kushiner.

Apparently, not all Anglicans are willing to turn revisionistic, historically illiterate hacks away from using their church properties to slander Jesus. At least not when 100,000 British pounds come into the picture. Yes, a Rev. Alec Knight has allowed the filmmakers to use Lincoln Cathedral. And, of course, the church will be rewarded handsomely.

Sadly, the modern Church of England - as a whole - is not particularly known for its concern for getting the Jesus stuff right, but I was encouraged by a rare bit of backbone shown by the caretakers of Westminster Abbey. [There's the old joke: Why does the bishop lay his hands on the head of the new ordinand? It's easier to remove his spine.] Then I read about this Lincoln Cathedral business. After all, what's integrity when you've got to pay the gas bills each month?

I have read The Da Vinci Code. I have also read other books by Dan Brown. Assuming Ron Howard's film follows the book at all, it will be a horrible movie. It makes me sad, frankly. The people the Church is called to minister to, and the world in which this takes place, is increasingly ignorant of Biblical content. 'Tis a fact. And we're even less well-informed, I think, about the history of Western Civilization. I have spoken to far too many people whose primary (or secondary) source of religious information is T.V. and film. People figure, why do I need to go to Bible study or get my kids involved in church? We go on X-mas and Easter, sorta.

It's one thing to write a novel. It's quite another to write a novel about actual historical subjects without evidence of genuine research and filled with errors any 9th grader a hundred years ago would've been able to spot and then publicly claim to be writing true stuff. Someone said, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Dan Brown is the poster boy for that slogan. He takes a bit of fact and goes bonkers with it. Gee, buy an encyclopedia already.

Y'know those people who watch Battlestar Gallactica on television and soak in its underlying mythology of how ancient space aliens populated the earth and built the pyramids - - and believe it's true? That's what The Da Vinci Code is doing for many people concerning the historical person of Jesus Christ.

This evening, as I was re-reading the post I put up yesterday, it occured to me that one of my comments (at least) was not as clear as it should have been and could be misleading. I wrote:

Or how about when Tom Cruise (whom I believe to be a terrific actor)
lectured America - in a profoundly inarticulate verbal belch - on the validity
of psychiatric medicine?

That was one sentence in a post about celebrities who spout off on subjects they are poorly informed about. But it dawned on me, as I re-read my words, that my statement could be understood to say that Tom Cruise believes in the validity of psychiatric medicine and I think he's an ignoramus for it. The fact is, I intended to convey the opposite.

Tom Cruise, as a devoted Scientologist, thinks that all psychiatric medicine is quakery. As you may know, he got into quite a ridiculous showdown with Matt Lauer on the Today show over the matter. Go here to read the transcript of that broadcast.

You see, I believe that psychiatry - and the use of antidepressant drugs, in particular - have genuine merit. And I criticize Cruise, and all of his Scientology weirdo friends, for trashing it all entirely. That's a dangerous religion, people.

Some will point to the checkered history of psychiatry. Sure, there are plenty of horror tales and examples of cruelty in psychiatry. But the practice of medicine is an art as much as a science. Name one single field of medicine that doesn't have a freaked out past. I'm sure that in a hundred years - when medical knowledge and technology will contain wonders we can't even dream about now - our great-grandchildren will consider us barbarians for allowing surgeons to actually cut on us with knives. Ooooooh!

The brain is an organ of the body. And like all the other organs, it can malfunction, get sick and respond to treatment. It does get a bit tricky, I realize, because we have to deal with the mind/brain connection. Healing of the mind and healing of the brain go hand in hand, but they are not identical. Clearly, I am of the opinion that the Holy Spirit, the sacraments, and trust in the promises of God's Word bring peace and comfort and aid to the troubled mind.

But I am also quite convinced that maladies such as Schizophrenia, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Depression, and others can and do respond to medical treatment, including drugs. I thank God for the ongoing developments in treating mental illnesses just as much as I thank him for the x-ray and the polio vaccine.

I'm not saying a person shouldn't exercise caution before undergoing psychiatric treatment. An individual should read and study up on any medication before they take it, psychiatric or otherwise.

But instead of blasting people for taking such meds, as Cruise did, we - especially we in the church - should show compassion toward the sick and those afflicted with mental illness and support them with our love, prayers and actions.

If you, or someone in your family, is mentally ill (or you suspect may be), let me tell you about an excellent organization whose work I highly champion. It's called the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. They are a wonderful source of information, direction and support, not just for those with mental illness, but for their family and friends as well.

[Warning: Glaring generalization ahead] Most of the time, when I hear celebrities commenting on religion or ethics, I know I'm going to need to crack open another bottle of Pepcid AC. Even if I kinda like the person, I frequently wince on account of their breathtaking ignorance of the subjects they choose to comment on. I know this will be a splash of cold water for some, but having your face on GQ or Seventeen doesn't make one an authority on the crisis in the Sudan, epidemiology, or bio-ethics. I'm no expert on most of that stuff either, but I hope I generally know when to plug the hole in my face. One gets the impression that most celebrity Mensa candidates wouldn't know an ebola virus if it challenged them to an arm wrestle. Take for instance, the lovely and talented young actress, Scarlet Johansonn who recently opined that fetal stem cell research is necessary so that we can find cures for such scourges against humanity as polio, etc. Huh? Polio is under control, my dear, and no one had to carve up fetuses to do it. (On that, check out the recent research from Pittsburgh's Children's Hospital which shows that adult, or post-natal, stem cells are as useful for medical research as fetal stem cells.)

Or how about when Tom Cruise (whom I believe to be a terrific actor) lectured America - in a profoundly inarticulate verbal belch - on the validity of psychiatric medicine? This is the guy who believes that the source of all our problems is that we're all infected with spiritual cooties from ancient space aliens. He's not in the best position to call anyone a quack.

Everyone has a right to his or her opinions and I am an ardent believer in freedom of speech. But that is not to excuse pomposity, an inflated sense of self-importance or grinding stubborn ignorance.

My dad used to tell me that it is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt. I've said and done enough stupid things myself to see his point.

[Alert: Refreshing exception ahead] While bags and bags of Hollywood celebrity types are too pampered and self-indulgent to form a meaningful sentence on their own, there are refreshiing exceptions. Readers of this blog have seen my relatively high regard for Bono, the lead singer of perhaps the most famous rock band in action today, U2. Now there is a man who has held AIDS babies and slept beneath mosquito netting.

Christianity Today has given us these excerpts of an interview he did some time ago. You must go here too, while you're at it. And though I don't agree with everything he says, I am pleased to know that at least one hugely influential celebrity is more than chrome-plated faddish activism. His positions on religion and human care go beyond deciding which color of ribbon to wear on his Armani tuxedo to the Wolfgang Puck after-party.

I believe Bono has some truly lucid insights on the person of Jesus Christ and His work as Savior. He seems to have a very accurate and personal understanding of the atonement and his thoughts on Karma vs. Grace sound a lot like, in my vocabulary, Law and Gospel. In fact, some of his comments in this interview are 10 times better than the flacid drivel most American preachers drool out every Lord's day. Take two and half minutes and read it. He even does a bit of C.S. Lewis.

Now I'm not recommending we give the man a blue-ribbon for Lutheran orthodoxy in every point, but I'm certain there has never been a more serious thinking or theologically articulate rock star in the "history of the whole world" (as Bunnie Diehl likes to say). Now that is a celebrity that I'd love to have a beer or three with sometime . . . oh, and Mel too.

Friend and fellow Lutheran blogger, Bunnie Diehl, has made an excellent point here. She cites an article by Matt Kaufman at Boundless magazine. Basically, the point is that if the country is so clearly pro-abortion, as the prophets of death proclaim, then why are they so worried that Roe v. Wade will be overturned? As Kaufman explains it, a reversal of Roe v. Wade would only re-grant the individual states the right to enact their own abortion laws. So what does NARAL have to worry about? If their analysis of the population's views is correct, then reversing Roe v. Wade should have little or no effect on the actual availability of abortion. Unless, of course, the constantly touted statistics about how much Americans love abortion are skewed and misleading. I propose that underneath their bluster, the death merchants realize that the American people would prefer there to be much greater restictions on abortion rights . . . if actually given a say in the matter.

An article at FoxNews.com addresses a disturbing trend in wedding vows. It appears that instead of the traditional 'Til death do us part," some couples today are opting for these much less permanent-sounding alternatives:

• "For as long as we continue to love each other."
  
• "For as long as our time shall last."
  
• "For as long as we are together."
  

If you want to go that route, why prettify the language? Why not just say what you really mean? "Until I get sick of you," or "Until someone better comes along," or "As long as I'm not bored, inconvenienced, or unhappy."

Marriage is a life-long union of one man and one woman. Divorce happens and I understand that. That is evidence of the brokenness of creation. All of us children of Adam are sinful and do sinful things. In some circumstances, divorce may actually be the lesser of two evils. It can be very complicated. Divorce, when it happens in the church, should be addressed with loving application of Law and Gospel (Call to repentance and Absolution). Compassion must be shown to those whose hearts, lives and homes are broken. But to begin your life together publicly acknowledging that "hey, we're gonna give it a shot, but this gig may not work out y'know," is insane. What kind of commitment is that?

Human marriage is an image of the relationship between Christ and His Bride, the Holy Church. If I look in a carnival mirror, my face may be all elongated and distorted in funny ways. But thankfully, that's not how I really am. Honest. Human marriage, after being expelled from Eden, is sadly often a warped reflection of the beautiful thing it is meant to display.

What would our Lord's wedding vows sound like? "I will love you with an everlasting love," or "I'll stick this out until someone with shaplier legs saunters by?"

David Mills, over at Mere Comments, reminds us of a very important principle in this illuminating post: that it matters how we say what we say. If words are units of thought, then the word choices one makes presumably reflect particular ideas.

He cites two Associated Press articles from August 3, 2005.

"A 13-year-old giant panda gave birth to a cub at San Diego Zoo, but a second
baby died in the womb, officials said Wednesday."--Associated Press, Aug. 3


"A cancer-ravaged woman robbed of consciousness by a stroke has given birth after being kept on life support for three months to give her fetus extra time to develop."--Associated Press, Aug. 3

A number of years ago, I read the book by Dr. Jean Garton called Who Broke the Baby? It opened my eyes to the importance of the language we choose to employ, particularly in controversial debates.

So am I pro-life or anti-abortion? Actually, I am both. But being pro-life includes so much more than just being opposed to abortion. Is it a fetus or a baby? It's both, but to exclusively use the word "fetus" for a pre-born child when the common parlance would be to call it a baby (as the panda story demonstrates) is to reflect a certain bias.

This is also why we should call the process of baby-making procreation rather than reproduction. The first term suggests the miracle of life, that a man and a woman participate in God's creation of a new human being. The second term is about production. A baby is a product. It brings to mind assembly lines and heavy industry.

A few days ago, I posted on the mega-church phenom. Then I noticed that Darrell, over at Southern Conservative, posted this very interesting bit on his and his wife's experiences. He was kind enough to link to me, so I thought the least I could do would be to return the favor. I want you read what he writes so that you won't think my post was just the product of a grumpy Lutheran pastor. Oh, I may be a Mr. Cranky-Pants every once in a while, but not this time.

This is bad news from the Sudan. Check out the story here. As many of you may know, I have had an interest in the Sudan for a number of years now. My good friend, Rev. Andrew Elisa, is the head pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Sudan. And I was privileged to go on a short-term mission trip to Yambio and Baguga in February 2004.

Dr. John Garang was killed earlier this week in a helicopter crash. Garang was the leader of the Sudanese People's Libertaion Movement (SPLM) and its military arm, the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA).

For 21 years, the Sudan has been engaged in civil war. The militantly Islamic government in Khartoum tried to implement sharia law on all of the people of the Sudan. The majority of the people in the southern part of the country are Christians or animists and resisted the forced islamization.

With help from U.S. special envoy, John Danforth, a long overdue peace agreement was signed in January. Part of the deal was that Garang would become the Vice President of the whole country and in 6 years a vote would be taken to determine whether the Sudan would remain one united nation or become two separate entities.

Garang's death is being called a tragic accident and that is probably the case. But since numerous attempts have been made on his life, his supporters were initially crying foul. Terrible riots followed in Khartoum, leaving many dead.

Please pray for peace in the Sudan. And pray for the persecuted Christians there and in many places around the globe.

The prophet Isaiah knew what he was talking about when he penned the words above in Isaiah 53:6. I came across a story that is a couple of weeks old by now, so maybe you've read it, but I thought it merited some further attention.

Somewhere in Turkey, while the sheep-herders were doing lunch, one of the sheep munched and grazed himself up to the edge of a ravine and then over the edge. He fell to his death. But the thing about sheep is that they are natural followers. So one after another, the sheep followed the animals before them. And this continued until 1500 sheep went off the cliff. Hundreds died. Many of the later ones survived on account of the cushiony soft bed of wool that was formed.

Sheep tend to wander, not always paying attention to where they're going, simply going after the next tuft of grass and following the herd. In what sense, then, are we like sheep? Maybe in the sense that we are governed more by our appetites than by the voice of the Shepherd or good reasoning. Maybe in the sense that we tend to define what's right or wrong by the standards of our society. And certainly in the sense that we will plummet to our destruction, by our own fault... without the intervention of a Good Shepherd, that is.

So I stumbled on this article today about Japanese scientists who have created the most life-like human-looking robot yet. Several times throughout the article, it says something like, "one day, we'll have androids that will fool us into thinking they're human." And all I could think of to respond was, "Why in the world would we want that!?" Robots don't have to fool us into thinking they are alive in order to perform the typical mundane or dangerous tasks or to rove across the surface of Mars.

Might there be some beneficial uses for a life-like android? Sure. Spies might use them to infiltrate cells of bad guys. They'd make swell decoys for the military. I'm sure perverts could come up with something. And the late night talk show host prospects are enormous!

But do you really want to live in a world where you can't easily be certain if the person you are speaking to, working under or flirting with isn't a machine?!

Long ago, some people thought they were pretty smart and determined to demonstrate their genius by building a tower to the heavens. "Let us make a name for ourselves," they said. The pagan Greeks called this kind of pride hubris. It always leads to tragedy. In Genesis 11, God confused the language of the people in the land of Shinar to derail their grandiose schemes. It seems to me that - at times - modern science doesn't know when to stop. Life-like androids may not quite raise the ethical questions of cloning or genetic engineering, but like all the best sci-fi movies prove: The wise man is cautious in the realm of science. Not everything that can be done, should be done. You can never predict all the outcomes of your inventions.

Clint Rainey is a journalism student at the University of Texas. His piece for Dallasnews.com on the inadequacy of megachurches is on the mark. He decries the Church Growthy lust for razzle-dazzle, all in the name of being "seeker sensitive." Mr. Rainey questions what the mega-churches are trying to attract seekers to. Certainly not religion. Certainly not doctrine. Certainly not objective truth. Certainly not Jesus. Rather than having seeker-sensitive buildings, services, programs, music, and kitsch, let's try being seeker-sensitive Christians he advises. There's a kernel of wisdom in that, yes?

I would add that instead of being seeker-sensitive, let's be genuinely warm, honest, welcoming Christian people who focus on the cross and, as a church, embody the Spirit of God. Then he who seeks, will have something worth finding.

I'll probably get in trouble for saying this and maybe it's just me, but in my experience (and I say this often), the Christians who yammer the most about reaching the lost and want to use every trendy gimmick to do it, those that belong to the Church-of-What's-Happenin-Now, are just not that nice. At least not to me. While the stodgy, stuffy, sticks-in-the-mud I like to hang out with are quite warm and genuine. At least I know what they think.

The point is that the mega-church movement, in addition to being impersonal, is shallow. A mile wide and a nanometer deep. Offering feel-good self-improvement with a glossy spiritual veneer. Mr. Rainey criticizes the boomer generation responsible for mega-church-mania, saying they seek after "stuff" and "things" when they come to church. It's a generalization, to be sure, but I think he's right. I hope Mr. Rainey is equally correct in his assessment of his own generation, one that is coming to church, insofar as it does come to church, looking for "meaning."

Oh, just read his article.

Today is our 15th wedding anniversary. And a grand decade-and-a-half it's been. To celebrate I took my lovely bride out to eat at an elegant Spanish restaurant I know. It's called Mallorca and is on the southside area of town. The food is outstanding and the service is second-to-none. I asked one of our servers where she was from; the accent was unfamiliar to me. Portugal, she says.

After dinner, we headed over to the new movie theater nearby to see Batman Begins. I wanted to see War of the Worlds but that would've gotten us home too late for the babysitter. However, both of us liked Batman more than we thought we would.

Weakness: Katie Holmes. I'm sorry; I'm sure she's a very nice person and is talented, to be sure. But she just didn't convince me that she was one of the lonely fighters for goodness in Gotham City. Too young or too cute or something. Not strong enough.

Strengths: The rest of the cast. Morgan Freeman is still probably one of the best actors in the history of the whole world. Michael Caine is another sure hit, in my book. Liam Neeson, another favorite. And Gary Oldman, gotta love im. He probably played the best Dracula in the history of the whole world.

Mr. Christian Bales did a fine job. Nice steely gaze he's got going on there. Needs to work on the other 35 zillion facial expressions though. Nonetheless, he's done Batman better than anyone else I've ever seen.

I applaud the writers and director for getting away from the Willie Wonka-ness of Tim Burton which was turning the series into nothing but camp. Each episode was getting more embarrassing than the last. The spooky creepiness does it better justice, I say. But then again, I'm partial to spooky creepy things in general. [I also like my beer, coffee, and chocolate to be dark and bitter to match my persona.]

It can't be easy to make a comic book superhero movie that works. If I put on a cape and a mask, you'd laugh your heads off. But this film, like few others, makes the absurd believable. Huzzah for that!

One of the fun-est things I did while working as a seminary recruitment officer back in the olden days was make a sidetrip to Tombstone, Arizona. I'd been in Tucson meeting with prospective students at a Lutheran church when I noticed the famed Western town nearby on the map. I had a half day I could afford to kill so I hustled on down there.

For reasons I cannot quite identify, I have long been fascinated with the legendary gunfight at the OK corral where Wyatt Earp, his brothers and Doc Holliday whooped the Clanton boys. So the opportunity to walk those same dusty streets was too good to pass up. I was not disappointed. The route there was right through the deadest and hottest desert I'd ever been in. This was before I had a cell phone and I actually got a bit nervous on that lonely road. If my car were to stall, I pictured myself becoming buzzard bait.

The first thing I did was visit the cemetery on Boot Hill, hoping to read some of the famously funny epitaphs. One said:

Here lies Lester Moore
Four slugs from a .44
No Les no More

Re-read that once or twice until the macabre humor of it dawns on you. I was also struck by the great number of Chinese buried there, railroad workers I'd imagine. And the high number of infants and very small children.

Oh, I did a few other touristy things. Had a snort at one of the local watering holes. Saw the presumed site of the OK Corral and watched a re-enactment of the gunfight.

This all comes to mind again because I re-watched the movie Tombstone from the early 90s starring Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer, plus an unmistakable Billy Bob Thornton in a throwaway role. There've been better Westerns than this. And those are not my favorite actors (though I do confess that Kilmer should've gotten an Oscar for his Doc Holliday). It's moderately accurate historically, however and not un-entertaining.

Why I am writing this? I'm curious. What is it about gunfighting, bloodlusting murderers like Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday (or Tony Soprano for that matter) that makes them almost iconic figures for Americans? It's not the classic good vs. evil dynamic because these yahoos were every bit as vicious as anyone they ever felled. Maybe it's just the testosterone effect.