The Burr in the Burgh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Basic definitions from Technorati. Start here.


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


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


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



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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to Bunnie Diehl for the story.

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

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

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

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



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


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

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


• Criticisms: Bad language all over the place.

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

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

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

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

I tip my hat to The Volokh Conspiracy.