The Burr in the Burgh

As part of my preparation for a youth retreat I'm speaking at this weekend in Marshall, Michigan, I've been studying a new book by Jeffrey Overstreet called Through a Screen Darkly. I've long been a reader of his blog.

Yesterday, I read his comments on a film I actually have not seen. It's called Saved! I don't want to remark on the particulars of this film since, as I said, I have not seen it. I have only read and heard about it. The reason I have not seen it is not because I necessarily object to it. I just haven't seen it yet.

If I may, the movie is basically a spoof of the Evangelical Christian subculture as exhibited at a Christian high school. I went to a small Lutheran High School myself and spent a great deal of my teen years going to Youth For Christ camps and events. So I think I probably have a grip on the premise. Being Lutheran, I wasn't ever fully steeped in all the subcultural moves the film probably highlights, but I've been around them plenty.

If you guessed that Saved! elicited a firestorm of protest from Christians, you are dead on. So, once again, I remind you that since I have not seen this particular movie, I won't add to the specific controversy. I have a feeling that I would NOT share the same righteous anger of many of my brothers and sisters about this movie, but I don't know that for sure.

Really, I want to respond to some of the insightful observations that Overstreet makes in this part of his book. He highlights the fact that many Christians consider every poke of fun at the church as a direct attack on God. If I read him correctly, he cautions Christians from being hyper-sensitive to legitimate criticisms offered in the form of satire. It is a healthy thing to know how to laugh at one's own foibles and failings. It shows humility. The wise man, after all, delights when someone corrects him.

Overstreet observes that comedy serves a useful role in society. Even silly screwball farces like
Zoolander or Anchorman serve a purpose beyond mere entertainment by putting light on man's various pretensions in an entertaining way. I am reminded of the classic Saturday Night Live sketch during the presidential debates between Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000. Both candidates were skewered by the show and it was hilarious, not because they were trying to be disrespectful, but because their exaggerated performance was rooted in truth. And it's a testimony to their talent that so many who watched the program recognized its truthfulness, including the advisors to both Gore and Bush.

Let's face it. Christians really are pretty ridiculous at times. I will applaud artists and performers who skillfully pop our balloons from time to time.

I would, however, like to add a couple of cautions. Overstreet recognizes the difference between making fun of Christians and making fun of Christ. While one is acceptable and even welcome, the other is not. Certainly not every protest from the Christians is a result of their being thin-skinned. They may not register their objections in a seemly fashion, but mocking God is a real offense. The Creator does not appreciate having His name abused.

Further, mock the hypocrisies of the Christians. But don't mock the doctrines or beliefs of the Christians. This is a fine line to distinguish at times because so much of what it mock-able in us are the eccentric extremes or deviations we make to the historic creeds of God's people. A bit of fun poking at the ways we express ourselves is at times fitting, but the underlying truths are sacred realities that impart life. Such things deserve a foundation of fear and trembling.

Satire can serve a beneficial function, but it can also be taken too far. I realize that this is subjective. What is "too far" to you, may be appropriately strong to me, but mean-spiritedness does little to advance understanding. It is in this respect, that I find fault with much of what Hollywood produces. While there are notable exceptions, it is generally true that Christians are negatively portrayed in the entertainment media. Are all Christians hypocritical all the time? Are all clergy pedophiles, greedy, insane or dimwitted? And why be one-sided? I don't see many shows or films that ridicule secularism.

I can accept fair critiques that demonstrate the goofs of the Church. But without balance, such comedy strengthens stereotypes. And stereotyping undermines understanding. It effectively kills the thought process.

There's a neat article in the Wall Street Journal about the renewed emphasis on Confession in both Roman Catholic and non-Roman circles. Here it is.

Sometimes when you talk about going to private confession, otherwise conservative Lutherans look at you like you've grown a second nose on your face. It's like they've never heard of such a thing in the Lutheran church, except perhaps in the context of criticizing the Church of Rome.

To a large extent, this confusion arises because of a mistaken view of what private confession is for. It's not a time for God, your pastor, or the church to condemn you. Quite the opposite. It's a time and a means to be set free from condemnation.

The fact is that this is something Martin Luther addresses in the Small Catechism. He says:

"...we receive absolution, that is, forgiveness, from the pastor as from God Himself...."

One of our seminary professors, Rev. John Pless, has this reminder in an excellent article on the topic. Note the very clear instruction from Martin Luther:

Our practice of confession/absolution must grow out of Evangelical-Lutheran theology. "It is taught among us that private absolution should be retained and not allowed to fall into disuse" says Article XI of the Augsburg Confession. Martin Luther was no less adamant in the Large Catechism: "If you are a Christian, you should be glad to run more than a hundred miles for confession, not under compulsion but rather coming and compelling us to offer it...Therefore, when I urge you to go to confession, I am simply urging you to be a Christian" (LC: "A Brief Exhortation to Confession, 30,32, Tappert).

Prof. Pless's excellent article entitled Your Pastor is Not Your Therapist is located here.

Even though I started to read Jeffrey Overstreet's Through a Screen Darkly this summer, I had to set it aside for a while. But now I'm enjoying it full speed once again. Right now, I'm about half way through it. I've read a lot of books on movies and religion, but this one stands out so far for it's philosophy of art. This is important stuff.

For various reasons, "conservative" Protestants tend to view all the arts with suspicion. Film is certainly no exception. But what role do the arts play in human life? How is the creative nature of God reflected in man's efforts to create (or "sub-create" as Tolkien would differentiate)? Can we learn anything from art? Does it help us or improve us in any way? Or maybe we should step backwards and ask whether movies qualify as art. What is the difference between entertainment and artwork?

Furthermore, I've also appreciated Overstreet's response to those Christians who criticize - or even condemn - him for recommending or commenting positively on particular films, even for viewing them. I am often asked to speak about movies and Christianity with church youth and I always cover the big three objections to movies from parents: nudity, violence, and profanity. I'll post about that at another time.

A couple of years ago, Bono wrote a riveting short analysis of Elvis Presley for Rolling Stone magazine. Here's a link. I just re-read it myself.

One of Bono's observations reminds me of a book I read about a year ago called:
All Shook Up: How Rock 'n' Roll Changed America (Pivotal Moments in American History)

One of the interesting things about American Rock-n-Roll is the effect it had on race relations.

Bono observes: I recently met with Coretta Scott King, John Lewis and some of the other leaders of the American civil-rights movement, and they reminded me of the cultural apartheid rock & roll was up against. I think the hill they climbed would have been much steeper were it not for the racial inroads black music was making on white pop culture. The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Creedence Clearwater Revival were all introduced to the blues through Elvis. He was already doing what the civil-rights movement was demanding: breaking down barriers. You don’t think of Elvis as political, but that is politics: changing the way people see the world.

Kudos to John Leo for a balanced editorial in the Wall Street Journal. He tackles the thesis of a new book which asserts that today's adults are basically still adolescents who never grew up . . . and that's a bad thing.

At first, I thought I was going to agree with the book and that his essay was a puff piece. But, I think he makes a fair argument that this may not be your grandfather's America - and that's not all bad.

First this very important story out of Norway about the crisis of moose farts. Meanwhile, when was the last time you read an article about the humanitarian crisis in Darfur?

Comment on ELCA’s Action by Dr. Dean O. Wenthe, President
Concordia Theological Seminary

Sacred Scripture is the living voice of Jesus. Here the Risen and Ascended Lord speaks to us through His prophets and apostles. His voice is pure, holy, and healing. He names those evils that consume human lives. He offers Himself as the atoning sacrifice that brings forgiveness and new life.

It is, therefore, simply tragic that the majority at the ELCA Churchwide Assembly, Saturday, August 11, 2007, has refused to discipline those willfully engaged in that which Sacred Scripture identifies as “intrinsically sinful”, namely, homosexual behavior. Such a step is a radical departure from two thousand years of Christian teaching across churches and denominations. A physician can only assist a patient by naming the disease. By denying its existence the physician harms the patient.

Concordia Theological Seminary prepares pastors faithful to Jesus’ living voice in Sacred Scriptures. Pastors who will name the evils and sins that destroy human beings and then present the healing, forgiving, life-giving words of the great, good physician Jesus.

We are grateful for the clear witness of President Gerald B. Kieschnick and the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod in support of Sacred Scripture. It is a privilege to prepare pastors for such a church even as we pray that all may return to, and hear, the pure voice of Jesus and be healed by His presence.

Here we demonstrate the inherent narcissism of blogging, the assumption that anyone "out there" would be interested in my little ol' life and interests.

These are the books I brought with me for vacation to the mountains.

• Your Movie Sucks by Roger Ebert (finished). A compilation of the famed movie critic's most scathing reviews. I don't always agree with Ebert's evaluation, but I always find him interesting. His knowledge of film history is vast. Quite to my surprise, he doesn't hesitate to point out the hypocrisies of those who infuse their films with political correctness.


• Perfume: The Story of a Murderer by Patrick Suskind. My hat is off to John E. Woods for his hypnotic translation. Here is a story about obsession (the psychological state, not the fragrance). Parallels Tolkien's Ring of Power, which obviously parallels the state of original sin. I'm only about 60 pages into it and though beautifully written, I'm actually coming to the opinion that the recent film adaptation may have had more theological complexity and subtlety. But that would have to be credited to the wonderfully expressive face of the chief actor.


• Chuck Klosterman IV: A Decade of Curious People and Dangerous Ideas by Chuck Klosterman. This guy is a great read for those intrigued by all aspects of pop culture. The first hundred or so pages have been mostly music criticism, specifically Heavy Metal. Not my chief area of interest, to be sure, but Klosterman is entertaining. I think the rest of the essays branch away from just music, but so far I'd rather be re-reading his Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs: A Low Culture Manifesto, a book I read while relaxing on a three day train ride across Siberia last summer.


• Through a Screen Darkly by Jeffrey Overstreet. I've been enjoying Jeffrey's blog on popular culture for several years so I'm looking forward to his first book on religion and movies. His book is subtitled: Looking Closer at Beauty, Truth, and Evil in the Movies.


• Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI. Up to now, the only thing I've read by this pope are homilies and the occasional statement in the press. I am looking forward to this juicy biblical Christology. His opening pages on the values and limitations of the higher critical method of biblical research, particularly how this has impacted the search for the historical Jesus, seem well reasoned and balanced.


• Sophie's Choice by William Styron. Loved the film. Bought the novel on the strong recommendation of a friend.


• Trail of Tears: The Rise and Fall of the Cherokee Nation by John Ehle. Trying to get in touch with my roots.
  

Here is my seminary chapel homily from this morning:

Kramer Chapel Homily
August 2, 2007
Text: Acts 26: 1-23

St. Paul was called before kings and governors to explain himself and defend his apostolic ministry. In so doing, he gives us a very nice summary of what a minister in God’s church is to be about.

He says that God sent him: “To open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God. So that they may receive the forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.”

God-willing, many of you will one day receive a divine call to serve as a pastor to a congregation. In many respects, that is the most gratifying work you will ever do. Not a day passes when I don’t miss some aspect of my parish ministry in Pittsburgh.

You will have your ups and downs, hopefully more ups than downs. The devil, the world and your flesh will try to confuse you. You will come to the point where you enjoy it when people pat you on the back and say, “that sure was a nice sermon pastor,” or “that sure was an interesting bible class pastor.” You will begin to crave their compliments. You will be tempted to insert stories and jokes into your sermons – not because they serve as useful illustrations – but because you know the people will like them. You will seek the approval of men. You will do this because you are sinful and you love it when all people speak well of you.

Over the course of time, you will read books and go to conferences promising to enlighten you with techniques and methods for growing the church, improving stewardship and reaching the lost. The latest ecclesiastical fads will tempt you with promises of success.

You will return to your congregation refreshed and excited and enthusiastic to try out the new things you’ve learned. But for most of you, most of time, there will be very little noticeable long-term effect. Nothing will ever seem to change. Your words will still appear to fall on deaf ears, hence the temptation to liven things up with more cute stories under the pretense that they are useful illustrations.

Very little that is written and said today in the contemporary church scene, very little that is written and said to supposedly help pastors do a better job has anything to do with religion. A lot of it is really, when you boil it down, just management and leadership techniques or applied sociology, psychology or some other social science.

But don’t get me wrong, there is a lot of useful stuff to be learned from the business world and the social sciences. You might gain the ability to use your time more wisely or communicate more effectively and that would be good. But somewhere in the midst of the programs and the movements and the trends, the gospel itself is often obscured or forgotten.

We do what we do because lives depend on it. Faith comes by hearing and how shall they hear without a preacher? We do what we do because people receive the forgiveness of their sins via preaching and sacraments. We do what we do because lives depend on it.

There were times when Jesus was well-liked and popular with the crowds. And there were times when he was not. In is a common sinful reaction to shoot the messenger when the message is unwelcome. I have experienced this and you probably have too.

Did you ever quit a church because the pastor rubbed you the wrong way? Most likely, you sinned for doing so. Pastors are fallible and sinful but their job is to rub you the wrong way. In fact, I am doing my level best up here in the pulpit this morning to offend you. I have to make an effort of this because – as I have often been told – I am a nice person. I’m a nice person and I want you to like me. I don’t like conflict.

But the preacher is not called to be nice. And by nice, I mean someone who is considered harmless or palatable to all people on every occasion. These kind of nice people are palatable, but they are seldom noticeable.

The preacher must never be harmless. God is not harmless. God Word is dangerous. It will hurt you and it will even kill you. It had better. Your preaching had better hurt people from time to time and it had better kill people every time.

This is not an excuse to be a jerk to your people. Don’t leave here saying Stiegemeyer told us to be abrasive jerks. Maybe you are a nice person, harmless. But it’s just as likely that you are already an abrasive jerk. Most likely, you are a little bit of both. You are a sinner, after all. And so am I. Most of you need to sand off your rough edges before you will be fit to serve in the pastoral office. And for all of you, self mortification will be a life-long enterprise.

But if you are not willing to offend people by hammering them with God’s law, then you are in the wrong place today. If you are not willing to lose your friends, to be lonely, to be rejected, to possibly even alienate members of your own family, for the sake of Christ, you should not be a student at this seminary.

In the church, as in the world, the people who control the money often have the most influence. But not over you. Whether it is practical or not, whether it is cost-effective or not, in season and out of season, you speak the message of Jesus Christ. You open the eyes of the blind. You bring people out of darkness into the light. You snatch people from the power of Satan to God.

And you will find that many people, even many every-Sunday-church people, prefer the darkness to the light. They don’t think of it this way, but they prefer to be under the power of Satan than under the power of God. And that’s because Satan markets himself as your best and truest friend. Satan never asks you to do anything that you don’t want to do. He never places unreasonable demands on you or tells you to do things that are hard. He only wants you to be comfortable and happy. “Hey Jesus, you’re hungry. Turn these stones to bread. I’m just looking out for you.” Satan will tell you things you want to hear. He will make you laugh. He will make you happy. He will promise you the world. And unlike God with his impossible demands, Satan will accept you just the way you are…. Or so goes the illusion.

Be like St. Paul, who in turn, was like the Lord Jesus. Go out there and hurt people. Bend them; break them; pommel them with the hammer of God’s Law. But only after beating yourself to a pulp beforehand. You must hurt them in order to heal them. You must kill them in order for the power of God to move through your ministry to raise them back to life again.

I am here to tell you that not one of us deserves to be called a pastor in God’s church. And I will go even one step further. Not one of us is fit to be called a child of God.

But I am also here to say that you have been died for. God is reconciled to sinners by the blood of Jesus. And that is true of me, of you and every man, woman and child you will ever be privileged to meet. Don’t try to impress people with your skills. Don’t try to win them over with your fabulous personalities. Tell them that they have been liberated from the bondage which keeps them from being truly human. Tell them that they have been emancipated from their sins. Tell them that they will rise from the dead by the power of Christ.

We do what we do – not for the glory and the money and the chicks. We do what we do because lives depend on it. In Jesus’ name. Amen.

300 came out on DVD today, the new film based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller. It's a pretty riveting action film inspired by the ancient battle between 300 Spartans and about 80 zillion Persians.

As much as I enjoy the film with it's stylish action sequences, a better rendition of the story is the novel by Steven Pressfield: Gates of Fire: An Epic Novel of the Battle of Thermopylae.

Nonetheless, one of the things that amazes me with the film is the striking portrayal of bad king Xerxes. Has there ever been a more Satanic character in two dimensions?

Just like Ol' Scratch himself, Xerxes sets himself forward as your greatest friend. He just wants you to be happy, to experience the pleasures forbidden by your cruel vindictive god. To Leonides, you can be king; you can rule the world; you can have terrific wealth. Only bow down to me.

Higher Things 2007
Text: Matthew 28:1-8 (Eastertide theme)

Your sins tangle you in the web of death. You think you can get away with it, but you cannot. You think no one will know, but God sees everything. You have convinced yourself that it’s not that big a deal to look at pornography. You think it’s OK to mock the weirdoes at school. You love buying clothes at the mall more than you love receiving the Eucharist at church.

Sin is like tar. Once you get a spot on your hands, there is nothing you can do to wipe it off. In fact, the more you try to wipe it off, the more you’re going to just spread it around all over yourself. You cannot justify yourselves before God. All of your acts of piety, your good deeds and your sweetness are not enough to make you right with God. And the more you attempt to please God and hide your sin, the dirtier and filthier you will become.

Sin is like manure on a baloney sandwich. It doesn’t matter if you just have a little teensy piece of dog manure on the bread. The whole thing is ruined. You can’t eat that thing because the whole thing is contaminated.

So often we try to appease our consciences by comparing ourselves to other human beings. Well, my sins are small compared to that guy! The problem is that when judging you, God does not compare you to that guy. He compares you to His Son. And by that standard, we all fall short.

When it come right down to it, you’re a mess. And so am I. But it’s worse that we tend to want to believe. Like the knight in The Quest for the Holy Grail, we are spouting a fountain of blood and try to make light of it saying, “It’s only a flesh wound.”

Your problem is not that you are sick It’s not that you are weak. It’s not that you are out-of-harmony with the universe. It’s not that there’s a tiny speck of manure on your sandwich. The problem is that you are contaminated. The problem is that all of us are out favor with God on account of our sinfulness. All of us are spiritually dead without Jesus Christ.

A really big problem calls for a really big solution. People that fail to understand the seriousness of their sin also fail to realize the seriousness of God’s love. Our savior is not small. He is not weak. He is not trivial. He is not one hour of your week. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. He is the beginner and finisher of our salvation.

The most important thing in life is not your shoes, your hair, your grades, your pimples, your sex appeal or the plastic golden trophies on your shelf. The most important thing is that you, sinner, have been baptized into Jesus Christ. And in that baptism, God Almighty bestowed on you all the blessing and benefits of the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

On the cross, the Father heaped all of the manure of your sin, all of your secrets and all of your hidden faults and piled on the head or His Son, so that on the cross, God looked at Jesus and said, “You disgust me. You repulse me. You nauseate me. I hate you.” And the sky went dark and the earth shook and the curtain in the Temple tore from top to bottom. And the only truly good man who ever lived bowed his head and died.

Probably all of you have been to the funeral of someone you knew, at least once or twice. In most modern cemeteries, people put big heavy granite or marble headstones on top of the graves. They are called headstones. Did you ever wonder why they do that?

We think of these probably as just a way for us to mark the spot or a way to remember the deceased. Some historians think, however, that the practice of placing heavy marble or granite stones over the head of the dead person dates back to pagan origins when people were afraid of ghosts. They thought that placing a big rock at the head of the grave would pin the spirit of the dead person in his grave so he would follow them home and haunt them.

But I am here to tell you today that no one on heaven or earth, no angels or demons, no man or woman, no authority, power or dominion will be able to keep you pinned in your graves at the Day of Lord’s return. There will come a day, sooner or maybe later, but it will come when our dear Lord Jesus Christ will reappear in glory surrounded by angels and He will speak your name. And at that moment, if you are in the grave at the time, your body will be restored to life and you will rise again. Not green and maggot ridden like a Hollywood zombie with bits of flesh hanging down in quivering strips. But fully restored and more than that. You will be glorified.

So, to hell with the devil and his accusations!! He has no claim on you. You have been baptized into Jesus Christ. The very life of God is pulsating in your veins and corpuscles transforming you into the magnificent creature God the Creator intend you to be.

I have no particular wish to die, but I look forward to the day of my resurrection, the day when my baptism will be fulfilled. But until that hour, fix your hopes on Jesus Christ. Don’t let the devil fool you into thinking you are worthless. Because of all that Jesus has accomplished, you are precious in God’s sight. He will not treat you as your sins deserve. Left to yourself, your life is like manure on a baloney sandwich, contaminated through and through. But in Jesus Christ, you are pure gold – no, more than that, you are the sons of God. In Jesus’ name. Amen.

In certain circles (namely, the circles in which I circulate) the theological discipline of apologetics often gets a bad rap. Some belittle the whole apologetic enterprise saying, "you can't argue someone into faith." Thus many confessional Lutherans ignore apologetics and the field is over-run by modern Evangelicals (Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, etc.) We Lutherans have some hearty influence in the field, however, namely John Warwick Montgomery and Paul Maier, but these are few and far between.

If apologetics is the enterprise of forming systematic arguments to defend one's beliefs, then confessional Lutherans do this all the time - only they do to it towards fellow Lutherans and other Christians. Polemics has a noble and oft-abused history in the Christian family.

There is a screaming need for intelligent Lutheran Christians to apply themselves anew to the enterprise of apologetics towards non-Christians. We need to overcome our allergy to human reason and construct cogent arguments to defend our teachings against objections. Yes, Luther once called reason a whore because he was reacting against the excesses of Scholastic medieval writers. But he also acknowledged that reason can serve theology when enlightened by the Spirit (cf. Table Talk).

You can't argue someone into the Faith, to be sure. There is a distinction between apologetics and proclamation. For many, the one must precede the other. I agree that it is dangerous sin to make reason a master over divine revelation. But what about the many areas of conversation that are located just outside the perimeter of divine revelation? And that support the claims of the Church?

Most faithful pastors do the apologetics I'm talking about nearly every day. That is, if they engage in conversations with unbelievers about God or matters of the spirit.

In 1948, Alfred Hitchcock directed the unusual thriller Rope starring Jimmy Steward and Farley Granger.

I say "unusual" because it is not typical for Hollywood to include drawn out philosophical reflections in its productions.

Entirely played out in two rooms of a single apartment, the opening scene shows two men at the final moments of strangling a third man to death.

Brandon and Philip are the two spoiled urbane collegians who are playing a game, performing an experiment, and, I suppose, attempting to realize their destiny.

Jimmy Stewart plays a former professor, still much admired by the boys for his unorthodox views.

Essentially, the drama revolves around Brandon's and Philip's avant garde ethical viewpoint. Patterned after the famous case of Leopold and Loeb, the two young men set out to commit the "perfect" murder just because they could. But they could not. And did not. They were caught.

I don't quite know enough about Friedrich Nietzsche to be the judge, but the film's two protagonists - especially Brandon - purport to embody the German philosopher's idea of the ubermensch.

To be plain, Nietzsche believed that traditional Christian morality was generally demeaning to man. Since "God is dead", (as he would say), why should men bridle their instincts, denying themselves terrific pleasure and reward to assuage a fictional deity?

For Nietzsche, might makes right. The one who has the power to enforce his will upon others is the best one. He spoke of the "superman" who would not grovel or cater to the heavenlies but who would assert himself.

Brandon certainly understood himself as the ubermensch. In his mind, murdering a cohort whom he considered an inferior was justified. Sort of a variation on Darwin's natural selection.

Ideas do have consequence.

cf. Rope: Nietzsche and the Art of Murder; Hitchcock and Philosophy (Popular Culture and Philosophy)

Erin Bode is a young woman who looks like Michelle Pfeiffer and sings like Nora Jones. She has also recently partnered with the Lutheran Church (MS) World Relief to assist poor girls in South Africa. Go here to see what I mean. You will like it. And purchase the CD. Do it because the music is terrific. Do it because the proceeds assist these young people in such need.

There has been a lot of press recently about a statement from the Bishop of Rome about how people are saved. First of all, I think it's important to note that Benedict XVI has said nothing new here. I continue to be amazed, frankly, that there are so many people who are surprised when the pope teaches Roman Catholic doctrine. Oh, and I just learned that the Dalai Lama thinks like a Buddhist too!

Regardless of what you've heard, the pope did not say that all non-Catholics are going to hell. What he said, as I understand it, is that Lutherans and Protestants are not the church, properly understood.

I disagree, of course. Who is the Church? Where is it to be found? Lutherans believe that the Church is the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are administered according to the Gospel. (Augsburg Confession Article VII).

I agree with the pope that there is only one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Our Lord did not establish multiple entities to represent Him, nor are there multiple paths to enlightenment. There is only one true church.

I will go further. Outside of the church, it is not possible to be saved. I don't accept the notion of "anonymous Christians" which some Roman theologians have posited. That is the idea that people of non-Christian belief systems might be saved by Christ even if they don't know his name or confess Him as Lord.

So to be saved, one must be in the Church of Jesus Christ. I simply do not equate the Church of Jesus Christ with any single existing institutional denomination.

A major part of the problem is the pope's misunderstanding of apostolic succession. The Apostle's Creed refers to the church as apostolic. That is to say that it is built upon the foundation of the apostles (and prophets) with Jesus Christ as the cornerstone. But in what sense is the church apostolic? Is the important thing that one can demonstrate a physical laying on of hands from one to the next for eons? Rather, isn't it the man who teaches the doctrine of the apostles who is their rightful successor whether he is in the physical lineage or not?

Consider what Jesus says in John 8 about who are the true sons of Abraham. In opposition to the pharisees, Jesus said that the sons of Abraham are those who hold the faith of Abraham, not simply those biologically descended from his loins.

I went with a couple of chums last night to a late showing of 1408, the current film based on a story by Stephen King. It starred John Cusack, one of my all-time favorite actors.

I really appreciate a well-written ghost story. This one was better than average but not stellar. A good ghost story always begs these two questions:

- Is there life beyond death?
- Is there a God and does He love or hate us?

I liked 1408 not only because it was a moderately scary flick, but because it did grapple with those two questions pretty effectively. Of course, most ghost stories fall very short of giving complete and correct answers but in an aggressively atheistic and materialistic cultural context, the questions themselves may represent progress.

Yesterday, I finished reading A Father's Story by the father of serial murderer Jeffrey Dahmer, Lionel Dahmer. I found it enlightening. Parents look at their children and hope for the best for their future. To what extent, if any, should responsibility (blame?) fall to the parents for the crimes of the children? One of the things that I found most interesting in Mr. Dahmer's book is the degree to which it was an examination of himself. The apple never falls too far from the tree. Not to say that Mr. Lionel Dahmer ever committed the particular atrocities of his son. But the author reveals that his own quirks, failings, weaknesses and flaws are present in seed form in his son. As he put it (I may not have the quote exact), he put his hand on the handle of the door to the room which Jeffrey entered.

Was Jeffrey genetically predisposed to become a murderer? From his father's account, I'd say most likely. But that's not such a stretch really. I think everyone is capable, under certain circumstances, to commit murder. Are our genes our destiny? I'm not saying that. Yet just as some people are naturally more sensitive, others "naturally" lack empathy.

What Jeffrey did, however, goes well beyond merely killing human beings. Perhaps his perversions defy explanation. One of the rationalizations that I find objectionable is when people label such people "monsters." Jeffrey Dahmer was no monster. He was a man. A man who felt, willed, loved, and performed monstrous things. Is there a qualitative difference between Jeffrey Dahmer and you? Certainly a difference in degree, but in quality? Have you never hated another or wished someone dead? Have you never treated people like they are your possessions? Have you never - in pain or anger or sorrow - tortured the innocents? By your words? Your actions or inactions? Ah. Maybe we have all grasped the handle to the door of the room Jeffrey entered.

Now I'm reading a brilliant text by Mikal Gilmore, brother of killer Gary Gilmore, called Shot in the Heart. Mikal is a writer by profession and what a skillfully woven narrative he offers! Whereas Mr. Dahmer focused upon the genetic conveyance of evil (if you will), Mikal Gilmore seems to be looking at the entrenched patterns of violence in family systems. He looks much further into his family tree to see how close the apples fall. And this is a guy with a bizarre and terrible tale to tell.

I can never just read one book at a time. Lately I've been reading:

From my interest in movies:

Yesterday, after the church council picnic, I finished The Three Stooges: An Illustrated History, From Amalgamated Morons to American Icons. Loved it. Next I'll take up my biography of Laurel and Hardy.

The Kill Bill Diary: The Making of a Tarantino Classic as Seen Through the Eyes of a Screen Legend by David Carradine

Forensic Science of CSI by Katherine Ramsland

The Human Predator: A Historical Chronicle of Serial Murder and Forensic Investigation by Katherine Ramsland

Inside the Minds of Serial Killers: Why They Kill by Katherine Ramsland

A Father's Story by Lionel Dahmer, the father of Jeffrey Dahmer. I just started this yesterday.

The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't

Philemon: A theological Exposition of Sacred Scripture (Concordia Commentary) by Dr. John Nordling, one of our crackerjack New Testament gurus.

Friends, the past two weeks have seen the 9th annual successful Christ Academy for high school men considering the pastoral ministry. It's been a crazy busy two weeks.

Why would actress Cameron Diaz want a handbag emblazoned with Maoist slogans? This is fashion? And then to insensitively wear it while touring Peru, a land where Maoist ideologues murdered tens of thousands. Why not just wear a "Go Hitler!" sweatshirt in Jerusalem or a "Pol Pot Is My Homeboy" baseball cap in Cambodia? Even if Diaz was truly clueless, her handlers should have caught this.... No, wearing a Mao Zedong handbag is just evil.

A man named Scott Diekmann contacted me today to inform me of his group's website called Sound Witness. I haven't had the chance to look at their material yet, so please don't assume I agree with every jot and tittle. However, just from my quick glance, it looks to me like these guys have something helpful to offer. I encourage you to take a look at their material. I'm particularly interesting in the article on the emerging church movement.

I've enjoyed Peggy Noonan's political writing for a long time. Here is her analysis of The Sopranos.

Like many Americans watching television on Sunday night at around 10 p.m., I yelled, "What?! What happened?!" At first, I thought my TV fritzed out on me. But a split second later it hit me and then waves of disappointment washed over me.

There is an internet debate over whether David Chase is brilliant or took the coward's way out. I think Chase is a brilliant coward. I can't blame him, but I will never forgive him. What a lousy stunt!? But still, it makes perfect sense.

Like many others, I am sad to say goodbye to America's most likable sociopath. For a series that was known both for its subtlety and its coarseness, perhaps the best end is no ending at all. The very last sound were these words to a Journey power ballad: "Don't stop." And then it stopped. All too abruptly.

Did it stop or didn't it? We'll never know. There were indications that something was about to happen. And then nothing did. But isn't that how life is? Are all the plot strings in your life tightly knotted at the end?

The episode made the point that life is like sitting in a rocking chair. It's a lot of work, but you don't go anywhere. After all the gore, bodily and emotional, we're right where we started. Tony goes right back to episode 1, season 1 with A.J.'s therapist. And just as the first season ended with a family meal, so the finale. Like men lost in the woods, we tend to go in circles. Has any progress been made?

The Sopranos gave us insight into the meaning of life. No, really. I mean that. When the other FBI agent told Agent Harris about Phil Leotardo's demise, Harris smacked the table with glee saying, "We're gonna win this thing." We're disgusted that he responded to the murder of a human being as if his favorite team just scored in a close championship match. Life is no game. But which fan of the show did not have the exact same reaction internally? Just like Harris caught himself, we have to ask, "why do I like this stuff?" What does that say about me?

The biggest question on everyone's mind was who will get whacked in the end? Will Tony finally get his due? The foreshadowing intentionally misled us. Bobby in the boat with Tony opined that you never see it coming when the bullet with your name on it comes knocking. Maybe, he said, it just all goes black. So isn't the conclusion obvious to you now? Chase didn't whack Tony. Whether he knows it or not, he whacked us.

David Klinghoffer clarifies the Iowa State University flap over denying tenure to highly accomplished astronomer, Guillermo Gonzalez, because he harbors unpopular views in this Daily Standard article. It seems that every outrageous theory is defensible in today's academia as long as you don't ever imply a supreme intelligence behind the origin of the planet.

Anyone care to opine about the... uh... unexpected ending to television's most talked about series? Join the blog-versation. Leave your comments. I'll chime in later. Spoilers allowed.

The Scriptures teach: "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22)." I couldn't help but notice the significance of blood in the temple ritual of the Mayans in the movie Apocalypto. One telling scene has a warrior returning with captives to be sacrificed at the temple. The priest stops him before he sets foot on the most holy place. And the warrior, understanding the problem, cuts his hand with a knife and sprinkles his blood upon the stones before taking a step. I can't say whether the Gibson film accurately represents the theology of ancient Mayan religion, but I am fascinated that so many pagan belief systems understand the principle of cleansing with blood.

Very cool interactive picture here.

Our little buddy was confirmed at Redeemer a couple of weeks ago. I was grateful that Pastor Petersen allowed me to participate as we blessed those little rascals.

The rite of Confirmation is kind of a slippery thing in Lutheran practice. We don't recognize it as a divinely instituted thing but a human tradition that has merit.

Lutherans are not uniform in how we practice confirmation or even in its purpose. Many American Lutherans treat confirmation as a pre-requisite for receiving the Holy Communion. The most common age for confirmation is after 8th grade. Others do early communion and still confirm at age 13 or 14.

The rite itself is not the main thing either. The heart of it is the time spent (often 2 years) in instruction. Many churches still use Martin Luther's Small Catechism as the basic text other than Holy Scripture. The rite is a blessing but is most significant in that it leads to their first communion (the highest blessing).

I like the way our congregation does it. As both a pastor and a parent, I strongly prefer earlier communion. I cannot justify making our young people wait until they are 14 years old before allowing them to receive the benefits of Christ's Supper.

I agree with the notion that a person should receive basic instruction in the Christian faith before being admitted to the altar. But waiting until a child is a teenager, arguably the most difficult period of their young lives and the time when they are most likely to rebel and question their faith, before giving them the Body and Blood of Christ seems strange.

Tomorrow (June 1), seminarian Jason Braaten will become the Reverend Jason Braaten. Jason is the latest addition to our Seminary Admission staff.

We had a bit of a surprise luncheon for him in the office. Thanks to all who helped.

He'll try to tell you that the pink feather boa is mine, but don't you believe it.

The second picture is of our Admission Officers. Going left to right, there is me, Jason, Martin Luther, Phil Zielinski, Tom Zimmerman and John Dreyer (the eligible bachelor among us). Not pictured are the ladies. Why didn't we get a shot of them? Pat Painter, Marsha Zimmerman and Cheri Shoemaker. Also not pictured are the three student workers: Brian German, Tony Oliphant, and Tim Storck.

I direct you to a fascinating review of The Lives of Others by Barbara Nicolosi. She makes an interesting argument for why Hollywood has made so many movies about the Nazi atrocities but so few about the appalling stories of the Soviets or modern communists in Cuba, China or North Korea.

I just added The Lives of Others to my Blockbuster Online list.

In my last post, I recommended Apocalypto, while warning that it is not for the squeamish. It's a great film and I firmly believe, as I said, that if this had been directed by anyone besides Mel Gibson, it would have been hailed as a masterpiece by Hollywood elites and critics alike.

It is simply a gorgeous movie. It's a feast for the eyes. The story is simple but very effectively told. Since the whole movie is in the Yucatec language, Gibson keeps the dialogue to a minimum. It takes special skill to tell a story without having character dialog or narration to explain things. They say a story-teller should "show" and not "tell." Gibson is the master at that. And to truly appreciate the complexity of the story, you must watch the movie at least twice. The subtleties of the story arc were much more appreciated by me the second time.

Certainly one of the reasons that the politically correct thought police disliked Apocalypto is that it is unabashedly pro-colonial. While the Europeans have very little screen time, they are arguably the most important characters in the film. The Spaniards bringing Christianity to the shores of paganism truly are the deus ex machina. The Mayans are portrayed as a society destroying itself, curved inward, unable to suppress the corruption from within. Just when hope is lost, the saviors arrive. This makes every new beginning possible.

In spite of their many scientific and cultural accomplishments, the ancient Mayans were brutal and savage to an extreme. I'm not saying that classic European society was violence-free, but the values and worldview of Christianity shaped Western culture to make it the great and wonderful phenomena it has been, extolling liberty, justice, knowledge, beauty and faith - in short, the peak of civilization.

But what about the much ballyhooed degree of violence? The gore-hounds surely will not be disappointed. People do get hurt and people do die. And it doesn't always happen off-screen. And it is seldom pretty. So for a society that prefers to paint our dead to appear alive and hire strangers to wash and dress our deceased for us, this will shock. But I don't see how Gibson could have shown the peril of the characters' world without revealing injury and death convincingly.

I finally watched Mel Gibson's Apocalypto last night. I'd easily give it 5 stars out of 5. It's an excellent film, though not for the squeamish.

The reviews had made such a big deal out of the violence and gore that I was reticent to see it. But I'm convinced that the movie reviewers who criticized it for that reason either don't see very many movies or still want to grind an ax against Gibson for his Jesus movie. It's not that intense, not compared to others that get critical raves.

Actually, the violence it contains seemed anything but exploitive. I'd say it was necessary to the narrative.

Apocalypto is simply the work of a cinematic genius. The story is powerful, the characters intriguing, and the action is non-stop. Very exciting. Also very beautiful. Gibson captures the sights, sounds, smells and tastes of humanity at a basic level.

If you want to learn something, if you want to feel excitement, if you want to dip your toe into an alien world while sitting safely in your pajamas, rent Apocalypto tonight.

The critics were mixed in their evaluations. Many of them overflowed with praise. Others claimed to be repulsed. I think this reviewer is correct in saying that if any other director had made this movie, the others would be tripping over themselves to honor it. But because Mel Gibson made a powerful film about Jesus (the most offensive man who ever lived), they can't tolerate anything he does.

Is this the biggest pig you've ever seen? Go here.

We've all seen the Hollywood personalities addicted to cosmetic surgery. It weirds me out to see Burt Reynolds or Joan Rivers these days. They look like they're made of wax.

At least Joan Rivers is honest about it. In this telling article, she reveals that many entertainers are actually filled with self-loathing.

What are your thoughts about cosmetic surgery? I'm not talking about reparative plastic procedures for someone with an injury or malformity. I'm referring to purely elective procedures that people have in order to enhance or improve their appearance.