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.