The Burr in the Burgh

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.

Michael Yon is a journalist travelling with American soldiers in Iraq. You should click here to read what he writes about the Muslims who are intentionally killing Iraqi children and using them as shields and doing it in the name of their false god. Jesus talked about men who would do evil and think they were doing God a favor. Their god is the devil.

Yon also writes how the children in Iraq LOVE the American soldiers. He says that they come running filled with excitement when they hear the tanks rumbling the same way American children run when they hear the bell of the neighborhood ice cream man. And the soldiers are sadly forced to tell the children to stay back. Why? Because the evil ones they are fighting use the children as shields and have killed many.

Yep, you read that correctly. A Danish Lutheran pastor was under scrutiny by his ecclesiastical supervisors, apparently, for denying the afterlife and the resurrection. He is also quoted as saying that there is no "heavenly God."

William Shakespeare said that not everything that glitters (he actually wrote "glisters") is gold. Likewise, not everyone who calls himself a "Lutheran" is one. Not everyone who calls himself a follower of Christ is one either. Jesus said that on the last day there will be many who say, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out devils and perform many miracles?" And He will say to them, "I never knew you. Depart from me you evildoers."

One Danish bishop said that although he disagrees with this pastor's views there should be room for him in Denmark's state church. Are there no limits to diversity of belief in the Lutheran Church in Denmark?

My understanding of what makes a person a Lutheran is not merely his heritage but that he or she believes that the Holy Scripture are the inerrant Word of God and the Book of Concord of 1580 is a faithful and true exposition of the Scriptures.

Hat tip to Rev. Paul McCain for his analysis of an Associated Press story dated May 29.

Question: What was the number one song on the U.S. pop charts the day I was born (June 16, 1969)?

Go here to see what was the top of the pops on your birthday.

Hat tip to: Territorial Bloggings

Today I saw a photo that made me cry. It was of an American soldier, Major Mark Bieger, holding and hugging a little dead Iraqi girl that the animals we are fighting murdered. A Muslim suicide bomber decided to attack our troops at the exact moment when about twenty children were crowding around them.

I have asked the journalist, Michael Yon, for his permission to include the photo (and maybe others) on my blog. But here is a link to his site. You should read it and scroll down to view his pictures of the Iraqi children. I was literally brought to tears. They are beautiful. Looking at his site only made me want to go there myself. At 35, I'm too old to enlist, even as a chaplain (I think), but only a stone could look at these images and not want to do something to help them.

Tomorrow I will be writing checks to Operation Iraqi Children and Wounded Warrior Project as my way of honoring our brave service men and women on Memorial Day weekend. Another excellent charity is Ollie North's Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund. They provide college financial aid for children of our soldiers who've died or been permanently disabled.

Many of you will get a three day weekend for Memorial Day. And some of you will have picnics and have fun and drink beer with your friends. Think of those who cannot be with their families because they are serving their nation and take AT LEAST the price of a case of beer and give to these worthy causes.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin, one of my new favorite people.

The Gitmo prisoner who'd originally accused his captors of flushing the Koran in a toilet as a means of intimidation has now recanted. At least that's what the Pentagon now says. I noticed that yesterday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette top front-page headline was about supposed FBI corroboration of the original claim. Today's headline was about Bolton, but a smaller headline - still front page and above the fold - did at least allude to this new information.

Hugh Hewitt, in his important new book Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That's Changing Your World, says that mainstream media (MSM) is increasingly impotent. News cycles are not 24 hours, but 15 seconds or less. So while I knew about the Pentagon's latest claim yesterday from scanning the blogosphere, this morning's paper includes an editorial by E.J. Dionne Jr. based on the now irrelevant FBI documents released yesterday. Hewitt offers the frankly indisputable argument that blogging makes the morning paper taste like day-old bread (and the news weeklies like stale week-old hot dog buns - And not the kind you keep around to make into homemade croutons either).

Of course, I realize the Pentagon could be lying, but who should I give the benefit of a doubt to? The Pentagon or Al Quaeda?

Don't like the news? Wait five minutes. It may well change again.

Hat Tip to Michelle Malkin.

The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis are wonderful fantasy stories written for children, but enjoyable for adults as well. I loved reading them as a young person, but I think I've loved them even more sharing them with my son. We've read and re-read them together. Go to my Chronicles of Narnia Amazon.com link on the right of my blog if you have never read them.

Lewis wrote The Chronicles as allegories (sort of like extended parables) to illustrate basic tenets of the Christian faith. He once said that since people have little interest in Christian doctrine these days, you sometimes have to smuggle it in to them. And that's what he does.

The Chronicles of Narnia are really seven books. Originally, the first book was "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." Disney is about to release Lion as a movie this December. Here is the first glimpse of its preview:

Lion in Quicktime

Viewing Options at "Coming Soon"

The Narnia Movie website

Thanks to Beggars All for bringing this to my attention.

I've been hearing and reading certain dismayed braying over the alleged incident of U.S. interrogators in Guantanemo Bay flushing the Quran in a toilet.

It's wrong to desecrate religious symbols and texts... unless they're Christian, of course. In that case, it's not only acceptable. It's hip. If you want to, for instance, immerse a crucifix in a jar of urine or smear elephant dung on a picture of the Virgin Mary, that's not disrespect. That's art. (What're you, some kind of Cretan?) The taxpayers will give you big dollars too.

When the Baptist church in Danieltown, NC put this message on their church sign "The Koran Needs to Be Flushed," it raised a ruckus. One local college professor criticized the Baptists for their "intolerance" and "aggressive disrespect for other citizens' deeply held views." I hope he complained about the NEA funded projects I mentioned above.

Call me nuts, but sometimes I detect a double-standard. When you bash Christianity, it's free speech. When you bash Islam, it's a hate crime. Personally, I think we should ALL be nicer. But there is that whole Voltaire thing about not agreeing with what you say though defending to the death your right to say it. (I'd previously attributed that saying to Patrick Henry, but now I think I was in error and that it was actually Voltaire.)

The top cleric in Saudi Arabia, one Grand Mufti Adul-Aziz al-Sheik, said, "We condemn and denounce this criminal act against Muslims' most sacred item." Is that the same guy who called fire and brimstone down on those Palestinians who used pages from the Bible as toilet paper while violating the Church of the Holy Nativity in Bethlehem three years ago? I guess not.

And for the record, we should note that the government of Saudi Arabia routinely burns Bibles whenever such contraband is uncovered. In late April, 40 Pakistani Christians living near Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, were arrested for "trying to spread their poisonous religious beliefs to others through the distribution of books and pamphlets." Apparantly, Christians are supposed to respect Islam, but the favor need not be returned.

Trashing someone's sacred book is not torture. It's not illegal (in America, that is). It might even be an effective interrogation technique. I don't know if the Newsweek account is true. Probably, it's not. But if they did do it, the Saudi cleric is wrong. It wasn't criminal. It was just rude.

Someone just alerted me to a stunning website called By the Fireplace - An Online Library. It's got 1710 books and 1193 short stories by 287 authors. All in the public domain. There are some outstanding classics such as:

The Last of the Mohicans by James Fenimore Cooper
The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde
Animal Farm by George Orwell
And dozens of hilarious Wooster and Jeeves books by P.G. Wodehouse

Dozens of science fiction novels by H.G. Wells, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Jules Verne, and Jack London.

Short stories by O Henry, H.G. Wells, Jack London, Mark Twain, Edgar Allen Poe (including my favorites, The Cask of Amontillado and The Tell-Tale Heart) and many others.

Plays by Ibsen, Moliere, Chekhov (including my favorite Uncle Vanya), 4 Greek comedies by Aristophenes, and almost 40 masterpieces by the bard himself, Wm. Shakespeare.

The incredible poetry section includes: Beowulf, The Divine Comedy by Dante, Homer's Odyssey and selections from Emily Dickenson

Non-fiction from Martin Luther, St. Augustine, and G.K. Chesterton

Oh great! Just what I needed. Another reason to sit for hours in front of the computer.

I'm not feeling like Mr. Creative today so I thought I'd just point you to some interesting stuff I've bumped into lately:

• Two new Lutheran blogs on my blogroll. Incarnatus Est by Pr. Greg Alms. He's new so not lots there yet, but he is posting some pretty insightful theology. And CyberStones by the meek, soft-spoken, ever winsome rose petal, Pr. David Petersen. He'd be alright if he'd ever stop beating around the bush and just say what's on his mind, geesh!

• In honor of yesterday being Trinity Sunday, here is a nice essay by Dr. David Webber on the filioque clause of the Nicene Creed. He offers a Lutheran perspective on the controversy.
  

• As the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) moves toward ordaining practicing homosexuals and blessing homosexual unions this summer, you'll be reading a lot more stories like this one. Pastors, congregations and individual laypeople are gonna bail out. And if it doesn't happen this summer, it will soon enough. With the ELCA's low view of the authority of Scripture, there's really nothing to prevent it. They'll just keep "studying" the issue until they come up with the answer they want.

• Dr. Gene Veith's review of Star Wars: The Revenge of the Sith. You should subscribe to WORLD magazine, if for no other reason, to read Dr. Veith's culture reviews and columns each week.

• Roman Catholic priest denies communion to supporters of homosexuality. He did the right thing. According to St. Paul, if an unrepentant person communes, he is eating and drinking God's judgment onto himself.
  

The son of one of my parishoners is serving his country with the USMC in Iraq. Here's wishing a happy birthday to Jesse Macklin. May the holy angels guard you in all your ways.

Or maybe I should have entitled this piece, "The Media's Intolerable Arrogance."

By now, everyone has heard about the Newsweek story that claimed that some of the U.S. interrogators at Gitmo flushed a Koran down the toilet in order to rattle their detainees. When this story broke internationally, there were anti-American riots and upwards of 20 people were crushed or trampled to death. And now Newsweek is retracting their story claiming that their anonymous source cannot be sure the allegation is factual.

In the Washington Post's coverage of the Newsweek disgrace, they report: "The intensity of the anti-American riots, fueled in part by outraged Muslim clerics and radio broadcasts by elements of the ousted Taliban regime, took many Western analysts by surprise (emphasis added)."

And all I can say to that is, "WHAT??!!" Who exactly was surprised that reports of desecrating the Koran would foment riots? Muslims view the Koran as sacred, as the very words of God. All Muslims are taught to treat the book with the utmost respect. Christians in Muslim countries are even advised not to place their Bibles on the floor because no Muslim would do that to the Koran and if a Christian has such low respect for his sacred text, it would convince them that Christians don't take their faith very seriously. In some Islamic countries desecrating the Koran is a crime punishable by death. And many Western analysts were surprised?!

That would be comparable to me shouting "FIRE!!" into a crowded theater and later saying I was surprised to have caused such a panic. I might be forgiven for the ruckus if my warning were based on fact, if the theater truly were burning. But if I carelessly hit the alarm and were thus responsible for the ensuing havoc and admitted later that I really had no evidence that the theater was on fire, I ought to be penalized.

The problem, as I see it, is that many of those who are reporting on Islam don't know much about it. In fact, the mammoth ignorance of religion by those who report on it is, at times, frankly staggering.

Newsweek Editor, Mark Whitaker said: "I suppose you could say we should have foreseen the consequences of the report, but we didn't." Y'think?

You can rest assured that once I actually view the final chapter of George Lucas' magnum opus, I will post my review here. I haven't seen it yet, but I am almost done reading a book based on the screenplay to my 9-year-old son, so I have seen it in my mind's eye.

I usually appreciate everything Fredrica Mathewes-Green writes and lately she's been doing movie reviews for National Review Online. Her reviews are always very well-written. I enjoy her's more than anyone else's. Sometimes I enjoy her reviews more than I enjoy the movies themselves.

Here is her take on The Revenge of the Sith.

I am usually reading at least two or three books at the same time. I'm not boasting. In fact, I consider this one of my flaws (though not one of the greater ones). I typically have one religious book at hand as well as one work of fiction. Occasionally, I may also be into something political or a biography. I wish I could focus my attention on one thing at a time, but alas, I cannot.

The two book occupying my mind at the moment are:

Journey Back to Eden: My Life and Times Among the Desert Fathers by Mark Gruber

The author is an American Benedictine monk who teaches anthropology at St. Vincent College in Latrobe, PA. For his doctoral research, he spent a year or so visiting and living in Coptic monasteries in the Sahara desert. This wonderful book was the result. It is his log of his time in Egypt.

Personally, one of my great desires is to visit Egypt and at least see the types of ancient desert monasteries he writes about. He focuses on the liturgical life of the Coptic monks, their forms of piety, and some of their theological reflections on sin, temptation, and grace. He gives insights into their cycles of fasting and feasting, their austerity, and their tremendous joy under hardship. He noted that Coptic monks are quite a bit more rigorous than Western monks. For instance, they go to pray for up to six hours at a time, standing, singing the entire psalter every day. He tells of attending a Christmas Eve service that lasted from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m.

I have often been intrigued by the life of the Christian churches in Muslim countries. Christians in Egypt are a despised minority, though they probably fare somewhat better than in many other countries in the region.


Windswept House: A Vatican Novel by Malachi Martin

This is the second time I've read this fascinating and exciting book. Malachi Martin, now deceased, once worked closely with Pope John XXIII at the Vatican, so he is well acquainted with life in that most rarified of settings.

I was previously blown away by his documentary dramatization of several true modern case studies of demonic possession and their exorcisms in his work: Hostage to the Devil. That's well worth reading too, as long as you don't mind being completely freaked out.

Windswept House is what I would call a Vatican thriller. The halls of Vatican City become the battleground between good and evil, boiling over and scalding characters and settings around the world. It could have been re-titled Satan at St. Peter's. In a near apocalyptic drama, Martin uses the occasion to comment sagely on real spiritual issues undermining the Roman Catholic Church (and the rest of us too). It's fiction. . . I think. A real page-turner.

Question: What's your favorite television theme song?

Some people collect stamps or desiccated insect carcasses to pass the time. Not me. No sir. I just blew the last 40 minutes listening to the most awesomest T.V. theme songs of all time. Check this out baby!

So what's yours? And don't give me something obvious like Cheers or Welcome Back Kotter. Surpise me!!

Rev. Tom Chryst has offered this marvelous service.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A free service with which you can submit your Lutheran Blog listing.

Guidelines:
Lutheran Blog Directory will list blogs pertaining to Lutheranism.

Personal blogs are welcome from clergy and lay alike, but content should reflect a Lutheran perspective.

Sites listed should be blogs. Church websites, and other site formats will not be listed.

All blogs submitted must be approved by the webmaster. I reserve the right to refuse listing for any reason.

Please feel free to link to us, and tell your Lutheran blogging friends!

If you have questions, comments, or complaints, contact me:
Rev. Tom Chryst, Owner: tomchryst@yahoo.com

Today, a Lutheran pastor asked me about a movie I had recently recommended, The Addiction, so I decided to post a comment about it.

I’m not a film critic and I don’t particularly fancy horror films, but I did become intrigued by the genre after being assigned to write an article for Higher Things magazine. I found that there are some distinctly biblical notions underlying many of the better horror movies. I know that might sound strange to some, but it’s true. Check out my previous post to read where I’m coming from.

The Addiction is a vampire movie, pure and simple. I stand by my recommendation, but with this word of caution: It is a gory movie and has some quite unpleasant scenes. The fact that it is black and white helps a bit. But the easily rattled may want to stay away.

The vampire motif is the film's way of portraying Original Sin. The disposition of fallen man toward evil is a bit like an addiction, a craving that must be fed. One of the reasons I recommend the picture is because it does not buy at all into this modernist notion that people are good. Enlightenment optimism regarding man's nature is simply not borne out in our experience.

Don’t misunderstand, human nature is essentially good. If I said otherwise, I’d be accusing God of creating something evil. Even more, I’d be saying that God Himself is evil. We were created in the image and likeness of God after all. But since our first parents took the forbidden fruit, our pristine human nature has been corrupted. Now, as St. Augustine said, "Non posse non peccare," (“We are not able not to sin.”)

And that is what this movie is about. Why is that beneficial to the cause of Christ? Because we live in a society that is in denial. By failing to recognize our corruption for what it is, we fail to understand our need for a savior. As long as I can remain even the slightest bit optimistic about myself then I will not seek Christ. Martin Luther once said, “It is certain that man must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ (Heidelberg Theses).” To recognize your need is the first step toward recovery.

Members of my congregation, Concordia Lutheran Church, and I marched today to raise funds for the Pregnancy Resource Center of the South Hills here in Pittsburgh. This is an outstanding organization which provides services for women in crisis, considering abortion, and in need of guidance and help.

[The beautiful banner you see above was made by Debbie Malenky.]

Am I speaking in tongues? No. The above word (Paraskevidekatriaphobia) refers to the irrational fear of Friday 13th. Today was mostly over before I realized that it is the loathsome date. And I’m not particularly worried. Nothing bad has happened. I have read that the fear of this date is still quite common. Can anyone offer an explanation for this?

I think it is bizarre that many modern people eschew Christianity (organized religion) because they find the story of the Israelites crossing the parted sea, the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus difficult to digest and yet they wouldn’t schedule their wedding on Friday 13th. Many office buildings don’t have a 13th floor (which is silly because calling the floor after the 12th the 14th doesn’t mean it’s not still the 13th floor). How many people do you know who believe unquestioningly in space aliens in area 51, ESP, and ghosts but think Christianity is for little kids and old women? It simply demonstrates that human beings are insatiably religious. The trouble is that we prefer the weird, exotic and ridiculous to the much more familiar Christian orthodoxy.

I'm sure that you, like I, have used light sabers in a variety of ways. Slicing bagels. Heating coffee. Lighting your cigar. Even trimming hedges. Haven't you ever wondered exactly how these useful tools work? The answer can be found here. Hat tip to The Terrible Swede.

A flea and a fly in a flue
Were imprisoned, so what could they do?
Said the fly, "Let us flee!"
"Let us fly!" said the flea!
So they flew through a flaw in the flue.
-Ogden Nash

I love the STAR WARS movies. I think I like them even more than my nine-year-old son and that's saying a lot. But don't we need to keep a distinction between Christian worship and cinema? Check this out. And this.

What does the Force have to do with the Holy Spirit? What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?

I believe there are many times when Christians can and should use the products of popular culture in order to "build bridges" and begin to communicate the message of Jesus Christ. Paul in Acts 17 is the perfect example. In preaching to Athenian philosophers, the apostle quotes pagan Greek poets in order to make a point, to gain a hearing. He spoke their cultural language. And this lead to proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus - at which point, of course, he lost most of his audience.

And that's not the only instance where he does that. In 1 Corinthians 15:33, St. Paul quotes from the Greek comedy Thais written by Menander. Obviously, the apostle saw or read the play and knew it well enough to quote it. That's like me using a quote from Forest Gump or Spiderman or Lord of the Rings in a sermon. It's like refering to American Idol or CSI:Miami. Or a familiar song from the radio. I do that all the time. Some people like it. Some people don't.

Based on the way Jesus used irony and humor and examples from daily life, I don't doubt that He might draw illustrations from STAR WARS if He gave His Sermon on the Mount today. But would he have St. Peter dress in a wookie suit, charge people to watch a film in worship, base sermons on major concepts of the movie, and suggest that the Bible is irrelevant? No. Jar Jar might, but Jesus wouldn't. Every bad thing is really just a good thing gone too far.

To their credit, the folks at Epic Church did alter their website blurb. It originally said, "No long boring sermons filled with Biblical terminology you don't understand, just messages that relate to real issues in your life!" Call me wacky, but I believe the Bible is relevant. Yes, we need to be careful of cliche preaching and over-use of jargon that the unchurched are not familiar with, but we can't encourage the notion that the Bible doesn't speak to real life human needs.

And "Join the Rebellion" is a terrible motto for a church. The apostles weren't the rebels. Everyone else was. Let's keep this straight. Christianity is not a rebel movement. We are not rebelling against the devil. The devil and the world are rebelling against God and His Church. Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers," not "blessed are the insurgents."

I know the dear well-meaning Christians at Epic Church think they are being edgy and inviting people to swim against the mainstream. But face it, tying your religion in to the biggest pop culture phenom of the year is hardly the way to invite people to a life of dying to self.

My fellow blogsters Bunnie Diehl and Pastor Jeff Warner have good stuff to say too.

In Iraq, a 1400 year old custom of Shi'ite Muslims has seen a resurgence: Temporary Marriage. Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, had outlawed this practice, but now it's back in vogue. The way it works is this. If a man sees a woman he wants to have sex with, he "marries" her for an hour or a night or a couple of days. He then has sex with her. And he pays her for it. Naturally, there are some restrictions. She must be unmarried at the time. A married man can do this, but a married woman cannot. A widow is good. A virgin is OK as long as her father consents. They say they do this to cut down on promiscuity. After all, it's not fornication if she's your wife - even if only for the hour. I'm not making this up. (I mentioned this practice in a class I was teaching 6 months ago, and people laughed. I think some thought I was kidding.) The other reason they say they do this is so that widows can make money and provide for themselves. I'll make an outrageous suggestion. If we're concerned about the plight of widows and orphans, why not just GIVE them the money?

Today, we had a congregational one-day retreat on the topic of vocation. That's "vOcation," not "vAcation." All of us have various vocations or callings from God. For instance, I have a divine call to be a pastor. But I am also called by God to be a husband, a father, a son, a citizen, a neighbor, etc. And each person's various vocations have particular functions and responsibilities. Martin Luther's "Table of Duties" in his Small Catechism spells this out quite well.

Each one of us is a "mask of God" as, through us, the Creator continues to sustain His creation. How does God take care of you in the world? Through the farmer who grows your food. Through the grocer who stocks and sells you your food. Through the policeman who protects your life and property. Through doctors and nurses who treat you when you are sick. Through your pastor who applies God's Word to you. And so forth.

Our relationship toward God is defined by faith, the passive reception of God's gifts through His Son: namely, forgiveness of sins, life and salvation. Our relationship toward our neighbor is defined by love, expressed through good works. God uses your good deeds, as you faithfully fulfill your vocations, to sustain those around you. God, after all, does not need your good works. But your neighbor does.

Hearty thanks to Rev. Mark Sell, book editor at Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, MO.

I'm taller than Pastor Sell.

Rev. Mark Sell, retreat leader, man-o-God, cool-shirt-wearing, super book dude

Just because I dig cats...

The ancient Christian Church grew by leaps and bounds on account of the sword. Of course, the sword was aimed AT the Christians, not BY them. Yes, that's right, in the first 3 centuries after Christ's ascension, the Church was hotly persecuted, first by the majority of the Sanhedrin, then by the Romans (and other sundry lovelies). The second century theologian, Tertullian, once said that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.

But the persecution of Christianity is not just an ancient phenomenon. More believers were killed in the 20th century on account of Christ than in the previous 19 combined.

I guess one of the things that concerns me is that not only do most people ignore the plight of persecuted Christians, but many of us refuse to acknowledge one of the chief sources of this strife: the Muslim world. That's why I am very cautious about this new movie on the crusades, "The Kingdom of Heaven." From what I have read thus far, it is revisionistic and soaked in political correctness. WORLD magazine has a good piece on it. And so does columnist Debbie Schlussel. If you only read one thing today (other than the Burr), read Schlussel's article.

I'm not defending the crusades or the acts of the crusaders. The fact of the matter is, insofar as they were guilty of rape, murder and theft, they were acting contrary to the faith of the New Testament. Never once does Jesus Christ or St. Paul urge their followers to take arms. The same cannot be said about Mohammed or the Koran. The ancient church was badly battered by their opponents, even as Jesus had foretold, but they didn't raise militias. They endured their sufferings, mirroring their Savior, with strength supplied by God.

Study the history objectively. In the sixth century, Turkey, the Middle East, northern and eastern Africa, were all heavily Christianized. Within a century or two of Mohammed's birth, his armies had overtaken all these lands. And now they remain the hottest beds of persecution toward Christians and Jews. People forget that Spain was dominated by Islamic occupiers for 800 years. Even in the 16th century, Muslim armies were advancing against Vienna. Dr. Alvin Schmidt records the details of violent Islamic expansion in his book, "The Great Divide." This article from Issues, Etc. gives a pithy summary.

So if you go see "Kingdom of Heaven," please consider doing a bit of study first so your brain won't be confused by the dis-information. Better yet, don't go see it. And keep the iconography in mind. The symbol for Christianity is the cross, the sign of one Divine Man's suffering for the sins of all. The symbol for Islam is the scimatar, a means of inflicting suffering upon all. Hmmmm...

Since everyone on earth (and then some) has read Warren's book, it is necessary to offer some reactions. Actually, not everyone has read it, because I have not. But you probably have. Go to the Preachrblog to find some thoughtful, well-crafted responses by pastors, theologians and laypeople. I don't know about you, but I find meaning for my life in what Christ has done for me, not what I do for Him.

If anyone is interested in listening to Christ-centered, unashamedly Lutheran radio, I have a couple of recommendations for you.

First of all, check us out at "Let's Talk About Jesus." That's the Sunday night radio program on which I am a regular guest with host, Rev. Don Matzat, aired here in Pittsburgh on WORD-FM.

And secondly, I will be interviewed next Wednesday (May 11) from 5:00-5:30 p.m. eastern, on the KFUO radio program "Issues, Etc." in St. Louis about my recent article in Higher Things magazine on the topic of horror movies.

Since I am new to blogging, I have been amazed by some of the awesome Lutheran blogs that are out there. I encourage you to check out the links I post to the right. But here are a few recent highlights:

• Pastor Tom Chryst in Racine, WI over at Preachrblog posts some very edifying sermons and original hymns he has written. I keep meaning to ask his permission to use his hymns in our worship service here. And he said some nice things about the Burr.


• Seminarian Steve Parks over at Sceleratissimus Lutheranus has been writing some interesting things about Mormonism.


• Pastor Jack Kozak from Akron, OH has a very cleverly titled blog: Pastor Kozak. I giggled furiously reading his "Latin You Can Use."
  

I am a pastor with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. That is the particular denomination of American Lutheranism I belong to. Our church body holds to a classic traditional view of the authority of Scripture. When I post things (like below) about other churches, it is not my way of gloating or trying to look superior. We have our troubles as well. But these are significant events in the life of the Church-at-large and I believe we need to be aware of them.

Six priests in the Episcopal Church-USA, of the Diocese of Connecticut, are being threatened by their bishop with suspension. For what heresy or which manifest immoral failing are their ministries in jeopardy? They are redirecting their financial giving away from the diocese to protest the recent consecration of Gene Robinson, an openly homosexual man, as bishop of New Hampshire. The six priests in Connecticut are also seeking to come under different ecclesiastical supervision since their bishop was one who voted in favor of Robinson's promotion. The controversial new openly gay bishop has severely strained the unity of the worldwide Anglican communion as African and other third-world bishops, typically more biblically conservative, objected to his consecration. My observation (correct me if I'm wrong) is that within Western Anglicanism, everything is tolerated except disobeying your ecclesiastical supervisor. There is already widespread doctrinal chaos in the EC-USA and seldom is a whimper heard about that. But once a few priests reject the authority of their bishop, then look out. The post-modern church doesn't bother itself much with doctrine, only authority and power.

World magazine, a publication you should all subscribe to, covers this story.

As a parish pastor, I never "feel" more like a shepherd than when a member of my flock is dying.

It is a holy and solemn vocation to be able to give comfort to the dying man and his family from the Word of God at times when all other helpers fail.

Y'know, if I put up a sign in the front yard saying, "The Antidote for Death - Free - Inquire Within," or a full page ad in USA Today that announced,"New Discovery - Fountain of Youth Is Real - Phone 555-xxxx," people would be pounding on my door. The phone would never stop ringing.

But isn't that precisely what Christ's Holy Church does present to the world? The antidote to death. The source of eternal health. People will chase every bizarre promise. They will spare no effort or expense to achieve immortality by the craziest means. We live in strange days when the thing which gives real abundant life is scorned and all that brings death is embraced.

Dr. Alvin Schmidt writes really awesome books. You may note that I have several of them highlighted along the right edge of my blog.

But I've noticed that one of his books is now travelling under a new name and that's why I felt the need to highlight it. I've probably recommended his "Under the Influence" around 100 times since I purchased and read it a couple of years ago. While that title is cute, the new title maybe does a little better job of explaining what it's about. Now it's called "How Christianity Changed the World."

Schmidt is a sociologist and a historian as well as a theologian. So he cruises through the two millenia since the birth of Christ and demonstrates the ways in which Christianity has positively impacted every civilization in which its presence has become prominent. A couple of years ago, I preached a Christmas Eve sermon that I entitled "What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?" and Dr. Schmidt's book gave me some good illustrative material. You need to read it. And you each need to convince at least one other person to read it, yhear?

Hoorah! I've been accepted as a book reviewer for Mind & Media. Check it out. Periodically, you will see a review of a new Christian book written by me on this blog. You can never read too many books.

Every now and again I read something that reminds me that all the modern technology and scientific advancement in the world will not save the human race. The Associated Press reports that in a pond near Hamburg, Germany, over 1000 toads have puffed up and popped. Yes, you read it correctly the first time. And the scientists - believe you me - are scratching their heads over this one. They haven't found any unusual bacteria, viruses, funguses or chemicals to explain the phenomenon.

Y'see, it's precisely this sort of thing that shatters my faith in science. Why can't they figure this out? Just when I begin to think, "Hey, we're really something," I hear about a pond full of exploding amphibians. It sounds like a Hollywood-ization of a Biblical plague. I almost expect to see Charlton Heston appear telling me to let his people go.

In 1859, Charles Darwin changed the world by publishing The Origin of Species. The idea of progress was wed with science. The modern era was born. Soon people began to think that if biological organisms evolve and improve with time, then maybe so do whole societies of biological organisms. Propelled by the Industrial Revolution and intoxicated with social Darwinism, the chant was heard, "We're getting better everyday, in every way." Optimism became the mood de jour.

But now there's a new movement afoot. We call it the Intelligent Design movement. These are scientists and scholars who believe that traditional Darwinism is intellectually indefensible in light of current microbiology. Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, has penned a critical text, Darwin's Black Box. His basic thesis is that the more we learn about cellular chemistry, the less a rational person can hold to Darwinist orthodoxies. And everyone knows it. I've heard it said that the only true Darwinists who remain are public high school biology teachers. Great.

This world is more complex than anyone in the 19th century ever dreamed in their wildest opium den intoxications. The more we know, the more we know we don't know. For goodness sake, we can't even explain why some toads pop.

On one other occasion, when mankind was getting a little bit too big for its britches, God garbled their languages to show them what's what. Today, He pops a few toads. I'm convinced that these absurdities serve to remind us that we are not so doggone smart after all. Just be glad they're toads, and not ...say... horses or cows.

But in the meantime, stay away from that pond.

There she goes again. Maureen Dowd, in her April 20th opinion piece in the NY Times, uses the buckshot approach. Can someone tell me what her column is about? I guess if you can't decide whom to criticize today, just blast 'em all. She decided to use her latest entry to slam Pope Benedict again (Bunnie Diehl has a response to Dowd's latest mischief), but I want to look at two particular comments she made last week. My thanks to Mere Comments for bringing this to my attention.

I know Dowd is not the first or only person to point out that Joseph Ratzinger belonged to the Hitler Youth organization as a child. But tell me, what's the purpose of repeating that historical tidbit? Yes, it's accurate. But why keep bringing it up if not to imply that the new Pope is a nazi at heart. How would you like to be judged for everything you did when you were fourteen years old? It's never mentioned that Ratzinger's family were anti-nazi, that all the youth were compelled to join, and that young Joseph eventually went AWOL from the Third Reich's paramilitary.

But I still resent the not-so-subtle implication that the new pope is nazi-ish just because he's a conservative. Having been personally called a nazi myself by the pro-abortionists (smell the irony?) who came to counter-protest a pro-life march I once attended, I can tell you it doesn't feel too good.

People like Dowd keep bringing up his Hitler Youth involvement as a way to smear mud on his name. Nothing more. In the interest of being fair and balanced, I'd like to point out the the Anti-Defamation League graciously applauds the choice of Ratzinger as pope. They state: "We welcome the new Papacy of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger." And add, "Having lived through World War II, Cardinal Ratzinger has great sensitivity to Jewish history and the Holocaust. He has shown this sensitivity countless times, in meetings with Jewish leadership and in important statements condemning anti-Semitism and expressing profound sorrow for the Holocaust." But maybe the ADL is really part of that vast right-wing conspiracy.

Possibly the weirdest label I keep hearing is that Ratzinger is "God's Rottweiler." This is meant to be a put-down, I suppose. This stems from his years as John Paul's chief doctrinal guardian when he didn't shrink from disciplining errant priests. He told American bishops that they should not give communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians. And for this, he is called "God's Rottweiler." I understand that the anything goes crowd will resent the new pope for taking firm moral and doctrinal stands, but don't you think if God has a Rottweiler, you'd best pay attention? Dowd doesn't really think Ratzinger is God's Rottweiler. Anyone who would belittle or mock God's Rottweiler deserves to get bit, or at least barked at. Actually, I think she was just taking the Lord's name in vain.

Former Anglican Archbishop of South Africa, Desmond Tutu, complained on Wednesday that the new pope prefers Christianity to other religions. "God is not a Christian," he says. "Christianity doesn't have the corner on the God market." Huh? Isn't it a little bit ridiculous to blast the pope, of all people, for thinking Christianity is the way to go?

There has been a fair share of handwringing over Benedict's supposed right-wingism. Pat Buchanan has an extremely insightful column on why the worldlings are so upset. You should give it a read.

And does a bear...(well, you know)

Neil Cavuto has an interesting observation about the skewering of Pope Benedict XVI in much of the world press.

I don't understand why so many people are shocked, scandalized and dismayed that the new pope espouses traditional Roman Catholic teaching.

I should make a confession, however. Like his cultured despisers, I would love to see him change a few things. Only, I wouldn't champion the same reforms the press loves to beat with a club. In my view, he should be truly catholic and return the church under his charge to the apostolic gospel his predecessors marred with tradition and faulty interpretation.

OK, I just got finished watching a report on TV about a newspaper columnist in Los Angeles taking a cheap shot at the Catholic Church in an editorial that really had nothing to do with religion. Many on the left are, frankly, Romo-phobic. That's the only explanation. Anti-Catholicism /Catholic-bashing is perhaps the one form of bigotry still openly permitted in the American public square.

That being said, there are some things about the Roman Catholic Church that I simply don't like (while I truly do love my many RC friends). The things that "the world" hates most about the RC Church are typically NOT what I oppose, however. In fact, the points where the secularists scorn Catholics the most are often the points where I feel the most solidarity with them. Abortion and euthanasia are excellent examples.

And then I see something like the story on ABC's Primetime Live that aired this evening about a church here in Pittsburgh. It seems that a local woman was suffering from a difficult pregnancy and a family member went to a well-known Roman Catholic Church to pray. This particular church is reported to have the largest collection of relics anywhere outside the Vatican. 2500 to be exact.

To make a short story out of it, the broadcast reported that a relic - a bone that may or may not have been part of a particular Christian, long dead - was used to heal this poor woman in the hospital.

Now since relics played a bit of a role in the genesis of the Lutheran Reformation, I am kind of sensitive on this subject. But in the report we heard about how a woman prayed to dead people, rubbed a bone on her belly, saw an apparition and ... experienced a miraculous healing. That's nothing short of voodoo with a Christian gloss. I believe in miracles, but I believe that GOD does them, not Saint Whatshisname or Blessed Whosoever.

I heard not one word about our Lord Jesus Christ. Not one word about God's mercy or His power to heal. Nothing, nada, nihil. Now I can't blame the Church of Rome for the way ABC reported this story. But insofar as Roman Catholics are still encouraged to pray to anyone other than God and insofar as miracles are sought not from God but dead Christians, there is still superstitious mumbo-jumbo alive in the RC Church. And this makes us all look like morons. There are enough issues where the Christian Church must clash with the world already. The cross is a stumbling block. But it irritates me when well-meaning believers do things like this and give outsiders a wholly unnecessary reason to write us off, and in so doing, write God off.

There has been some recent discussion about the nature of the pastoral office around here. It's all good. Another local LCMS pastor, Rev. Don Matzat, asked on his radio show if your pastor is a shepherd or a cowboy. He went on to explain that sometimes pastors lead out in front of the flock. And other times, they get behind and push the sheep like a cowboy. Just because the word "pastor" literally means shepherd doesn't mean that some of us aren't really cowboys at heart.

The shepherd leads in such a way that the sheep hear his voice and want to follow. Why? Because they know he will take them to quiet waters and green grass. The cowboy, on the other hand, has to shout and shove and lash the herd to make it go where he wants it to. I see this really as a distinction between Law and Gospel.

The faithful pastor uses both Law and Gospel. But we motivate Christians to follow Christ not primarily with a whip, not with threats and curses. The sheep might go where they are directed as a result of bullying, but they will hate you for it. The better way - Christ's way - is to lead by offering us His blessing. It's like this. Do you follow Christ because you fear His wrath if you do otherwise? Or do you follow Him out of love, because He calls you gently and offers you good things?

Jesus told Peter to feed the flock. One of my favorite quotes is from C.S. Lewis who said in Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer something like: "Our Lord's charge to Peter was to feed my sheep, not experiment on my rats or teach my dogs new tricks." I find that my brother clergy sometimes forget that Word and Sacrament are the means God has given to grow and build the church. We feel like we must improve on what the church has always known and innovate. Ultimately, it fails us.

After less than two days of deliberation, the Roman College of Cardinals surprised no one by choosing Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, a German, as the new Pontiff. Now he will be known as Pope Benedict XVI.

I think this tells us a great deal about the future direction and current leadership of the Roman Catholic church. If I'm not mistaken, a super-majority of 2/3 plus 1 was required. That a scholarly traditionalist, much like his predecessor, should be so quickly chosen might indicate how conservative the College of Cardinals really is.

Pope Benedict XVI just celebrated his birthday a few days ago. He is 78 which means the College chose a man who will not reign for nearly as long as John Paul II. For the past 20+ years, Ratzinger had been the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, an organization once known as the Inquisition. And he was definitely a hardliner in that role.

Obviously, my personal preference would have been for the College of Cardinals to elect a good solid Lutheran as their head (wink), but since that was never going to happen, Ratzinger is, in my evaluation, as good a man as any.

Sadly, under his watch, it will be very unlikely that any of the substantive differences between Rome and the Reformation will be resolved. But I am at least grateful that this new pope, like the one before him, will champion many critical principles of a historic Christian worldview against post-modern relativism. For instance, we can expect him to be an advocate and defender of the culture of life. In fact, I suspect very little will change under Benedict XVI.

Here is the text of the first public words spoken by Pope Benedict XVI.

They say that imitation is the highest form of flattery. Well, I saw something on Pastor Paul McCain's website that made me giggle and I decided to mimic him and post it here. There is a website called Despair.com. And they sell posters, mugs, etc. that goof on all those inspirational products you see around. They sort of remind me of "Deep Thoughts" by Jack Handy. In case you are wondering, yes, I still like to watch the Three Stooges, the Marx Brothers, and Monty Python. Hey, I know it's immature. But here are a couple of posters from Despair.com.

SUCCESS: Some People Dream of Success, While Other People Live to Crush Those Dreams.

POTENTIAL: Not Everyone Gets To Be An Astronaut When They Grow Up.

MOTIVATION: If A Pretty Poster and A Cute Saying Are All It Takes To Motivate You, You Probably Have a Very Easy Job. The Kind Robots Will Be Doing Soon.

Today we read from the Gospel of John, chapter 10. Jesus identifies himself as our Good Shepherd. I believe that our relative unfamiliarity with sheep and shepherding has contributed to people's inaccurate perceptions of what God is like and how He relates to us.

Apart from being guided by Scripture, folks conceptualize God according to what they do know. I suggest that two common models for God nowadays are God as Boss and God as Psychotherapist.

Your boss is a person whose role it is always to evaluate you by your performance. And he compensates you according to that evaluation. A boss is a person who is concerned first and foremost about the bottom line, who judges success on the basis of dollar signs, numerical growth, and good PR. At least that’s how many people think of their bosses and unfortunately that’s how many people think of God.

Or is God more like a psychotherapist? According to that frame of mind, God’s main job is to help us with our problems, to make us feel better about ourselves, to give us tools to improve our interpersonal relationships. And make no mistake, God does help us with our problems and all that and He does give us comfort and peace and a healthy understanding of our value. But God is not the spiritual equivalent of a hot tub who simply wants to massage our tired and aching emotions. I’m not putting down therapists or hot tubs, only saying that there is much more to God than that.

What do shepherds do? They feed the flock and defend it from wolves and bears. They lead the flock to greener pastures. And, if necessary, the good shepherd gives his life to save the sheep. This is how God relates to us. And Jesus continues to shepherd His flock through His appointed undershepherds who feed the lambs with words of reconciliation and forgiveness and defend them from spiritual predators.

I got this idea from Bunnie Diehl, another Lutheran blogger. Here are some songs I never get tired of listening to. What about you? Or "yinz" as they say here in da burgh... sort of the rust belt version of y'all.

Polyester Bride - Liz Phair
Don't Know Why - Norah Jones
Ghost of Stephen Foster - Squirrel Nut Zippers
Goodnight Moon - Shivaree
Train Song - Mindy Smith
A Satisfied Mind - Johnny Cash
The Man Comes Around - Johnny Cash
Battle Without Honor or Humanity - Tomoyasu Hotei
Symphony No. 9 - Ludwig van Beethoven
Come to Jesus - Mindy Smith
I Am a Man of Constant Sorrow - Soggy Bottom Boys
Hey Jude - The Beatles
I Envy the Wind - Lucinda Williams
Few and Far Between - Shannon Curfman
You Wouldn't Like Me - Teagan and Sara
Save Me - Aimee Mann
Spiderweb - No Doubt
Letter to the President - Hawk Nelson
Free Bird - Lynyrd Skynyrd
everything by Good Brother Earl

It concerns me that folks, especially in the US, spend so much time looking at two-dimensional images on screens and so little time interacting verbally with texts or other humans. This is especially detrimental for small children. Many Christian parents think that television is only objectionable if the content is indecent or anti-biblical. Actually, for small children still developing neurologically, the medium is just as harmful as the messages. Scientific studies have shown that when a person views the rapidly flashing lights on a screen, it puts their brains into low gear. It's not just daytime soaps that turn your brain to mush. It's Sesame Street and religious broadcasting as well. Small children who do not experience adequate verbal interaction (talking on TV does not count), fail to develop their brains to their fullest potential. This shows up later on as inability to process written texts properly. And a reduced ability to communicate ideas coherently.

I believe it is Ken Myers in his book, "All God's Children and Blue Sueds Shoes," who argues that visual images deal with the passions. They work on one emotionally, whereas words deal with one's reason. This is extremely important for the life and mission of the Christian church. While the visual arts have always had an important role in Christendom (particularly in the East), Christianity is predominantly a word-based faith. God spoke creation into existence. His word/logos became flesh and dwelt among us. And now faith comes by hearing the message, the news, the good word. If a person knows nothing about Jesus, I can show him a painting of the crucifixion and it may move him sub-rationally, but he won't know what it means. He won't understand that we sinners are declared righteous in the sight of God on account of the oblation made by Jesus until I explain it to him...using words.

An excellent new-ish book on the subject is "The Vanishing Word: The Veneration of Visual Imagery in the Post-Modern World" by Arthur W. Hunt III. And here is a cool article to whet the appetite: "How the Bombarding Images of TV Culture Undermine the Power of Words" by Douglas R. Groothuis.

The media has been reporting, or at least implying, that WORD-FM talk show host Marty Minto was specifically fired because he questioned the eternal whereabouts of the pope. I believe this to be sensationalistic. I was not a huge fan of his show, but I wish him only the best. As a pastor I believe it is vital that we understand the important doctrinal distinctions which sadly divide the church today. So I support any Christian who is able to appreciate those distinctions. Glossing over the truth for the sake of "getting along" is not ultimately helping anyone. But In the interest of accuracy, we should hesitate to latch on to everything we hear on the TV. Below is the press release issued today by the General Manager of WORD-FM.


************************************************************************************
PITTSBURGH, APRIL 14, 2005 -- The decision to release Mr. Marty Minto was made well before the death of the Pope was in the news. He was released because he was unnecessarily alienating our audience.

Through 101.5 WORD FM, we want to provide our audience with radio that is uplifting, redemptive and honoring of our listeners’ values. This theme runs through our national ministry programs and should be reflected in our locally produced shows as well.
Mr. Minto’s show did not fulfill that need for our audience.

There have been some interesting studies recently about why most contemporary American churches have significantly more women on Sunday morning than men. A book published several years ago generated a lot of interest in the question. Leon Podles wrote "The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity." Now there is "Why Men Hate Going to Church" by David Murrow. I have not yet read either so I can't comment too much, but I admit the thesis interests me. Pastor Todd Wilken, in his Issues, Etc. Journal , wrote a very helpful article on the subject, but that is not, as far as I can tell, available on the net. But I suppose if you contacted him and asked for the most recent issue, you could still get a copy. If he still has them, you can get one for free. You really ought to.

I am not one who spends a lot of time, in the pulpit or out, talking about homosexuality. Some churches seem to talk about little else. Just do a google of the word "homosexuality" and nearly any major American denomination and see how many tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of hits you get.

But when I see a major news headline "Lutheran Bishops Mull Allowing Gay Clergy," I feel forced to say something. Though this particular article does differentiate the major American Lutheran denominations and clarifies that the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is not the church body that is discussing gay clergy and gay marriage, it doesn't do so until the very last sentence of the article. Many readers will not get that far.

I do not support allowing gay clergy, as the article puts it, and I'll tell you why. But first, I want to be quite clear about what I am NOT saying. I am NOT saying that I hate anyone. I am NOT saying that I think I am better than anyone. I am NOT in favor of discrimation against homosexuals in terms of civil rights. I am NOT even saying that people who struggle with homosexuality can't be fine Christians. So hear me out.

I AM saying that homosexual attraction and practice is sinful. And I am saying that the Christian Church has no right to condone it. Like Martin Luther, our conscience is bound by the Word of God. One does not have to rely on Old Testament Jewish prohibitions to make the case. The New Testament likewise explicitly condemns homosexual behavior.

I've heard some argue that "well, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality." And my response is, "true, but He didn't say anything about date rape, necrophilia or cannibalism either. Does that mean we can put those on the table as well?" Theirs is an argument from silence, which is the weakest possible argument one can make. Jesus did not say anything directly about homosexuality, but a man that Jesus personally called to be his spokesman, Paul of Tarsus, did. Cf. Romans 1:26,27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10.

Some will further argue that homosexuality isn't wrong because it doesn't hurt anybody. Well, that is a premise with which I do not agree. A recent article in the Christian Research Journal (Vol.27/No.6/2005) by Frank Turek ably demonstrates the harm homosexual practice causes to individuals, families and societies. Some of his arguments are stronger than others, but all of them need to at least be considered.

Homosexuality is contrary to the will and design of the Creator. Occasionally, the point is offered that people are born gay. First, there is no evidence of that, though many assume there is. No gay gene has been identified that I am aware of. And even if it could be shown to be a genetic trait, that does not mean that it is good or helpful or the will of the Creator. All sorts of bad things are genetically determined or predisposed: cystic fibrosis, obesity, breast cancer, violent behavior and so on. If I were a Darwinist, espousing the survival-of-the-fittest doctrine, I would think a gay gene to be a harmful mutation that endangers the species. All of that is evidence that God's good creation has been thoroughly corrupted and no one is exempt. The will of the Creator in this case can be discerned by looking at the creation itself. Arguing from design, our sexual organs are fashioned for heterosexual relations. Not otherwise.

All that having been said, it's necessary to remember that heterosexuals are guilty of thoughts, attitudes and behaviors which are just as sexually immoral. And let's not forget that gossip is a sin. As is pride, hatred and sloth. In fact, every one of us stands condemned before God by our sins.

And thankfully, the good news is that the death of Jesus upon the cross was sufficient to pay for all our sins, indeed the sins of the world. So I welcome all who are penitent, no matter what particular sin they struggle against. The rub is when we decide to call evil good and good evil, to upgrade our particular peccadillos from sin to acceptable alternative. We can't give any person's perversities a pass just because it's fashionable at the time, no matter what they are. God is offended by our sins whether we are or not. And by glazing over the offense of God for this or that, we deprive the individual of an opportunity to be reconciled to his Heavenly Father. And how loving is that?

I'm certainly no expert on the Church of Rome or Vatican politics. But like almost everyone else, I can't help but cast my prediction for who will be elected the next pontiff. According to WORLD magazine, there are 117 voting cardinals from 52 countries. All but two or three of them were placed into office by John Paul II. About half of them are from Europe (58). And there are as many cardinals in Italy (20) as in Germany (6), Spain (6), France (5) and Poland (3) combined.

Based on those figures, some are predicting the next pope will be European, and quite likely an Italian. Karol Wojtyla was the first non-Italian pope in close to 600 years. There is some logic to selecting an Italian as pope. After all, he is the Bishop of ROME.

But he is also seen as the head of all the catholic church worldwide. And since the Catholic Church in Western Europe is fading rapidly, along with all other Christian bodies due to secular materialism and, ironically, a re-surgence of good ol' fashioned paganism. It seems that many NW Europeans are saying, "Just Gimme that Old Time Religion." They're becoming Wiccans and neo-pagans.

The Catholic Church is experiencing tremendous growth, however, in other parts of the world: East Asia, Latin America and Africa.

With all that in mind, I think they will select Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria. Let me tell you why:

• He's 72 years old which means he is unlikely to serve for anywhere nearly as long as his predecessor. The scuttlebutt is that that is something the College of Cardinals will take into consideration.

• He's got a lot of personality and humor, much like John Paul. I see him interviewed frequently on EWTN and he has a lot of charisma. Like they say about George W. Bush, he's probably someone you'd like to have a beer with (though I suspect Bush doesn't drink).

• He's described as a die-hard theological conservative who's not shy about speaking out. Again, not unlike JP2. For many, this is a plus, but it could work against him as well.

• Here is the tipping point for me. He's from a Muslim country and served for almost 20 years as the Vatican's chief liason with Muslims. In 1978, the College of Cardinals went against long-established practice and very shrewdly chose a Pole. In the height of the Cold War, to select someone from an Eastern Bloc country had a powerful impact in undermining Soviet communism. Today, the counterpart may be seen as the War on Terror. It is just possible that the same shrewdness may lead these men to elect an expert in Islam who has had many years dealing with Islamic leaders and comes from an Islamic country. Mark my words.

• And finally, name recognition. To be elected pope, a super majority is going to be needed, unless they stalemate for a while in which case the conditions are loosened. But since many of these Cardinals are from poor remote places, they might not all know each other personally very well. So a well-known person has an advantage. Arinze is widely travelled and known far beyond his native land.