The Burr in the Burgh

Now this is an idea invented with me in mind. A remote control operated by remote.

Even aside from the obvious moral problems of using human embryos for slice-and-dice research, do we really want lawmakers to earmark millions or billions of tax dollars for research that has yielded no benefit or hope for benefit?

See here.

Other research has shown that stem cells taken from umbilical cords and even cellulite (of which there is no shortage in the US presently), are far more promising. Ah, but that doesn't exalt the liberal sacrament of abortion, so who cares?

It seems the majority of movie critics - not exactly supernovas of Christian apologetics - don't like Ron Howard's blasphemous movie. Go here to see what I mean.

My favorite quote so far is from John Beifuss of a Memphis paper: "You know a movie's a dud when even its self-flagellating albino killer monk isn't any fun."

Of course a close runner-up would be this searing evaluation by David Faraci: "Retarded, ridiculous and crushingly dull."

I guess I can think of a better way to blow 8 bucks. You?

You think the earth suffers from over population? Most people do think so. But ask them why and they won't be able to give you any data to support their view. And that's because there isn't any. The earth is not over populated and isn't even close, nor will it likely ever be.

If all 6.4 billion citizens of the planet were stood next to one another, they could all fit in the city limits of Houston, Tx, with room to spare. If you gave ever single inhabitant of earth the space of a small apartment, all 6.4 billion could easily fit in the state of Texas.

The point is: there is plenty of room. The earth is a pretty big place. Related to my last post, I recognize that we have a responsibility to wisely manage our natural resources, a duty that becomes increasingly important as the population increases. But you can ignore the earth-worshippers and abortion activists that want to slow or even reverse human population growth. Their argument is nothing but a sham.

Check this out.

And this.

In this week's issue of WORLD magazine, Gene Edward Veith has a characteristically clear-headed column, this one on how Christianity relates to the environmental movement.

Many conservative Christians avoid environmental discussions, mainly because it seems that the movement is controlled by extremists and weirdos. At times, it is hard to distinguish between Greens and neo-pagans, Wiccans, and Gaia worshippers.

Some in the environmental movement nowadays are even calling the human race a plague or virus on the earth and call for mass extermination.

In spite of the far-left hegemony of the movement, traditionalist Christians shouldn't allow their pendulum to swing too far the other direction. Just because some liberal mainline Protestants are indulging in New Agey eco-spirituality, doesn't mean that we should comfortably ignore legitimate ecological concerns.

Indeed the human race is the pinnacle of creation and of infinitely greater value than spotted owls or harp seals. And indeed God did grant mankind dominion over the earth. But this does not give us permission to be lousy stewards of what God provides through the natural world. It is a sin to waste what God, in His generous goodness, has given us to use. And it is a sin for us to carelessly destroy anything which God has made.

We don't have to worship dirt or hug trees in order to be careful managers or stewards of the earth's resources. Avoiding both extremes, Christian piety knows how to enjoy God's creation, assert the unique dignity of man in the natural realm, while wisely using all things in service to neighbor. As Veith conclude his article, "to conserve is a fitting goal for conservatives."

Read his commentary here.

A new movie is on the way about Mary, Joseph and the baby Jesus. It's to be called Nativity and will be released this coming December.

To the left is the young New Zealender girl, Keisha Castle-Hughes, who was nominated for an Oscar for Whale Rider. She is playing Mary.

The initial reports are that the movie will be a respectful telling of the story of Mary in Nazareth, her betrothal to Joseph, the visit of the angel Gabriel, Mary's visit to Elizabeth, the Roman census and the journey to Bethelem, the birth of Christ, the visit of the wise men, and the flight to Egypt to escape Herod's wrath. It appears that the script is faithful to the Gospel narratives and fills in certain narrative blanks with pious tradition.

I am anxious to read more. This could be a wonderful film for the Christmas season or another hotbed of religious controversy. The information available suggests it'll be more the former than the latter.

Check out more here.

UPDATE: I've seen the film and comment on it here.

Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO has this interview with historian Dr. Paul Maier. It's worth your attention.

This is a very perceptive article from USA Today. While probing the New Age religiosity of Winfrey and her Joel Osteen-like evangel, cultural observers are quoted who see Miss Winfrey as contemporary America's leading guru and pastor.

I found it interesting that one of the specific examples the article cited was the prayer service held in Yankee's Stadium shortly at 9/11, a pan-religious service over which Winfrey presided.

On yesterday's post regarding the movie United 93, a friend left a simple comment. I said people should go see the film and he asked why. Here is what I wrote in response:

Pastor Peperkorn,
Fair Question. First, it's a powerful and moving story. But I don't think I've ever seen a movie about such a topic that was so detached and w/o commentary. It's like you're just standing there witnessing what's going on. None of the people seem like actors at all. It is nothing like any Hollywood film I've ever seen. Almost documentary-like. Without all the cinematic tricks to manipulate your emotions, you are left to react purely to the events. I think it's masterfully done, frankly.

Julie and I went to see United 93 this evening. It's a must-see.

I am currently studying a little book by Paul Althaus called The Ethics of Martin Luther. It's sort of a companion to Althaus's better known The Theology of Martin Luther. As far as I can tell, the ethics book is out-of-print. Maybe Concordia Publishing House could get the rights to republish it.

Just for fun, here are some jottings just from my first page of notes:

• ...Justification through faith alone is of fundamental significance for the proper understanding and realization of the ethical life (xix)


• No man ever surrenders his heart to the will of God as completely as the command of God requires


• "A man may do many good things but still not be a good man, because his heart is never pure but always divided and enslaved in sin." (4)


• "A good conscience is not the product but the source of the Christian ethos." (5)


• Sin contaminates everything we do, even our outwardly good works.


• "our activity is really good in God's judgment only if we act with the right feelings and attitude toward God." (7)
  


• A deed may be "good" on the surface in that it is obedience to a divine command and serves the neighbor. But if it is done in unfaith, it is sin before God.


• "A work may be very ethical in terms of its substance even thought it is done in unfaith; if so, it is sin in God's judgment (Romans 14:23)." (8)


• "In the ethical sense my action is good if done in response to God's command. In the meta-ethical sense, my action is good, despite its constant impurity, because of God's act of justification." (7)
  


• "Thus Christian activity is good, despite all the sinfulness that remains within us, because it is done in faith." (8)


• "The Holy Spirit is restless in us and cannot remain idle; and as a result, the Christian is also not idle but is rather filled with energy and acts in such a way that he pleases God." (12)
  

Aardvark Alley is one of my favorite Lutheran blogs. I check it daily.

I have recently been notified that I have been designated a winner of the highly prestigious and widely coveted Golden Aardvark award for two of my recent posts. Go here to check it out.

Well, it's finally getting put together. We are Concordia Lutheran Church in the borough of Brentwood, Pittsburgh, Pa. Go to concordiabrentwood.org.

Darrell, over at SouthCon, says it best. Go here.

Wanna read retired Episcopal Bishop John Spong's 12 Theses for reforming Christianity, go here. Thanks Dr. Veith.

In the current issue of Leadership journal, there is an interview with megachurch pastor, Andy Stanley, who happens also to be the son of well-known radio preacher Dr. Charles Stanley.

I wonder if it's just a coincidence that he talks about pastors as shepherds since tomorrow is Good Shepherd Sunday in our lectionary (John 10).



Here is the pertinent quote:

Should we stop talking about pastors as "shepherds"?

Absolutely. That word needs to go away. Jesus talked about shepherds because there was one over there in a pasture he could point to. But to bring in that imagery today and say, "Pastor, you're the shepherd of the flock," no. I never seen (sic) a flock. I've never spent five minutes with a shepherd. It was culturally relevant in the time of Jesus, but it's not culturally relevant any more.

The rest of the interview is him describing the office of the ministry purely in business terms. According to him, the old pastor as shepherd model is outdated, culturally irrelavant, and should be supplanted. So if Jesus were around today, he wouldn't have said, "I am the good shepherd," but what? I am the good CEO? I am the good administrator? And whereas he told Peter to "feed my lambs," today he'd say what? Build my team? Grow my organization?

Incidentally, this reminds me of the C.S. Lewis quote from his Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer where he says that Christ told Peter to "feed my sheep," not "experiment on my rats" or "teach my dogs new tricks."

If you erase the image of shepherd from the biblical teaching on the pastoral ministry and substitute it with purely business related motifs, you come up with a quite different animal. And it alters the nature and office of Jesus Christ, our Good Shepherd.


Two thoughts:

• Pay attention to what kind of books your pastor reads. If he does not read, encourage him to do so. The congregation should expect their pastors to be bookish and scholarly. Not nerdy or geeky or socially inept. Nor neglecting his other duties. But as St. Paul stated, "apt to teach." When your pastor spends an afternoon reading and mulling over a text of theology, he is not relaxing. He is not wasting time. He is working. Studying is working. But what does he read? Check his bookshelves, if you can. My point is this. Andy Stanley said that the only books he reads are "business and history." History, I get. And business, OK. But that is it? What about books of doctrine, biblical studies, apologetics, church history, current events, etc.? What about fine works of literature, old and new?
  
  
• Pay attention to your pastor's vocabulary. When he speaks, is it the language of business/management that you hear primarily? Or the lingo of the behavioral sciences? Or is it biblical and theological?
  

I'm not saying that using vocabulary from other disciplines is necessarily bad or wrong. And I'm definitely not in favor of archaic haughty church-speak that no one understands. In the balance, it is a fact that God's Church has its own vocabulary and ways of defining things. We must not be shy about that. But at the same time that we speak God's Word accurately and faithfully, we can learn to do so in a down-to-earth manner. Just as you are what you eat, to a great extent you are what you read. And how we speak - especially when it comes to God, His Christ and the salvation of sinners - truly shapes and determines (not merely reflects) how we think.




Sphere: Related Content