The Burr in the Burgh

Bob Dylan sang, "You gotta serve somebody. It might be the devil. Or it might be the Lord. But you gotta serve somebody."

Well, here is a good question for us: Is a pastor the servant of the congregation? Or is he a servant of Christ Jesus? The answer is "yes."

A Christian pastor is not a lord or master over his congregation. So he is not to tyrannize them. This happens whenever a pastor tries to micromanage every sphere of congregational life and sometimes when he allows his lay leaders no opportunity to make decisions of any consequence. In other words, I don't have to impose my ideas about our new parking lot construction as if I'm the boss. I have plenty of people here who know more about that than I do.

A pastor also becomes a tyrant when he asserts his own personal opinions as the Word of God. For instance, I may have very strong political views. Would it surprise you if I do? But outside of teaching people what the Bible says about certain moral issues and the role of government, I don't have any business - as their pastor - of commanding people to vote for this candidate or another. I suppose I could envision scenarios were this would be otherwise, but not often in our democracy would this be the case.

Or a pastor can become a tryant when he tries to govern his members in ways that do not belong to the pastoral ministry. I can (must) tell someone if they are living in a sinful manner. But I can't tell them whom to marry, which house to buy, where to send their children to school, etc. I can (must) exercise church discipline with unrepentant sinners, but I have no civil authority over them.

There have been ministers who have abused their holy office in the ways mentioned above. But at the other end of the spectrum, you have congregations who want to tyrannize their pastors. That is no less ungodly. There was a fine book published a few years back called Clergy Killers. And it's about a growing tendency of congregations to adopt a "hire-and-fire" mentality. "We hired you. You work for us. Do what we say, or we'll can you."

But the fact of the matter is, I don't work for my congregation. I am not their employee. I am a servant called by God, through the congregation. But I answer to God first, my church council or board of elders second. And where those two entities may conflict, God gets my first allegiance. Now, I personally, have been blessed not to have a tyrannical congregation, not in the least. Quite the opposite. They are loving, generous, kind and willing to be taught from Holy Scripture. They have also exercised an extraordinary measure of patience for their young, relatively inexperienced pastor. And I can only pray that I will never be a harsh overlord toward them.

Sometimes pastors can be over-bearing, but an over-bearing church board can be just as pernicious to the kingdom of God. God tells us to submit one to another. It's like marriage. Without submission, mutually, there can be no love-making.

Yes, the pastor serves the congregation, but he does so as an agent of Jesus Christ. He serves Christ in the sense that he is waiting on the Body of Christ. Jesus told Peter, "feed my lambs." We are the undershepherds who answer to the chief Shepherd and bishop of our souls.

Pastor David Petersen, over at Cyberstones, has a further reflection on these sentiments.

In the Lutheran denomination I belong to, it is recognized that the only legitimate reasons to expell a pastor from his call are: persistence in false doctrine, openly immoral life, and physical or mental incapacitation. It's a good thing that "doing something stupid" is not one of those criteria. Every pastor, myself included, makes foolish mistakes. But sometimes you hear about something that just makes you ask "What in the world was he thinking?!?!"

CBS News reports that a 78 year old Roman Catholic priest in Austin, Texas asked a group of children to come forward during mass - I'm guessing for some kind of children's sermon or something - and he proceeded to prick each one of them with a pin.

When I read this article, I was dumbfounded. Apparently, he'd taken a single unsterilzed needle and poked, breaking skin mind you, a flock of children. The article also states that he nailed a few adults in this stupid exercise as well. He claims that this was to illustrate that suffering is part of life and that Jesus suffered for us.

So what's the big stinkin' deal, you ask? Let me count the ways:

1) It's a health risk. Especially if it's true that he poked adults as well as children. Do you trust your fellow parishoners enough to share needles with them? Anyone hear of HIV or hepatitis? I realize the risk is probably relatively small, but it was a stupid thing to do. Listen, I'd drink the blood of Christ out of a chalice in a cathedral full of AIDS patients, but I would not let someone prick my son and two dozen of our closest friends with a single needle.

2) The report says that the priest wanted to teach them about the pain that Jesus suffered on the cross and, in his words, "that suffering is a part of life." Oh come on. There are much better ways to teach children about the pain Jesus endured. How about a good scourging? And it is ridiculous, in my mind, to think that we need to give pin pricks to children to teach them a lesson most of them ALREADY know all too well. That life hurts.

"The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the work of the devil." - 1 John 3:8

Many of you have perhaps seen the new movie called The Exorcism of Emily Rose. It appears to be doing well at the box office as a fall release. It has attracted the attention of the media, in part, because the director is a professing Christian and the movie is based upon a true account.
This week's WORLD magazine has an interview with Scott Derrickson, the director. Today, I went to see it and in my evaluation, it is a very good movie.

As the title suggests, a girl named Emily Rose is possessed by evil spirits. This occurs while she is away for her freshman year of college. The priest who eventually performs her exorcism is on trial for negligent homicide (or something like that). I don't want to give away too much of the plot, but that is the initial setup.

The movie is a mixture of the genres of horror and courtroom drama. The trial is taking place in the present with the scenes of Emily's possession and exorcism shown as flashbacks. It has some genuinely scary moments and disturbing images. But if you go expecting to see a typical gross-out bloodfest or tons of computer generated special effects, you will be disappointed.

The cast was excellent. Laura Linney plays the agnostic defense attorney for Father Moore, played by Tom Wilkenson. Campbell Scott is the devoutly Methodist prosecutor. And Jennifer Carpenter excelled in the title role. In particular, I must single out Wilkenson and Carpenter.

It was so heartening to see a Roman Catholic priest portrayed in a major Hollywood film so sympathetically and believably. And there is nothing less secularized or rationalistic than showing a priest performing an exorcism. Wilkenson's Father Moore is intelligent, compassionate, and devout. He is also articulate and courageous.

And Jennifer Carpenter. . . what can I say? I almost wondered if she really was possessed. It was creepy, but she and the director exercised just the right amount of restraint with her character. I really felt sorry for the girl she played and then came to admire her.

I'm a fan of Billy Friedkin's 1973 film adaptation of William Peter Blatty's book The Exorcist. But I am tempted to say that this was a better movie. I really liked the less sensationalist approach. Y'know the spinning head and pea soup projectile vomiting was a bit much. Plus, honestly, this movie is just less disgusting all round. Less blaspemous language, less sexual perversity, etc. Now that may be a mark against it in terms of realism. But I think if you are trying to make a film to convince the average Joe that there is more to life than Horatio's philosophy (as Shakespeare's Dane would say), going too far with the spectacle can be distracting.

One criticism I would level at the director is that I hate it when horror movies just try to startle you with a sudden loud noise or someone jumping out from behind a door. And it's not because I don't like to be startled - because actually I kinda do - but because it's low brow. If you can't frighten me with the story, the plot or the characterizations, then forget about it. Don't jump at me and yell, "Boo!"

There are some theological deviations here and there. I wouldn't say it is a Christ-centered story. The article of justification is never articulated. Alone, it will not convert anyone.

But here is why I believe this film, and others like it, are important. It treats Christian doctrine and the Christian church with respect. And it promotes the idea that there are spiritual realities in the universe we inhabit. In an increasingly secularist age, it is helpful to instill the belief that some things cannot be explained by science or dissected under a microscope. And though it doesn't give the explanation of how, it is clearly shown that the Christian Church holds the key to salvation.

But I will go further and say that I appreciated the movie because it is about Satan. And it's not a farce or an exploitive caricature of Satan. No, this is the real deal. The two errors people can fall into with regard to the devil is to think about him too much or to think about him too little. For those who think about him too little, consider that Jesus spoke about Satan and hell quite a bit. Most of what we know about hell comes from the mouth of Jesus Christ.

If I were an average Joe, someone who generally considered himself a Christian but didn't attend church or pay much attention to religion, I think this movie would get under my skin. And that appears to have been the express intention of the director. Movies like this would make me afraid to go to hell. And that would be useful progress for many people, even some people who sit numbly in our pews week after week.

With the American love affair with the automobile, it is no longer seen as necessary to attend a church near one's home. I know people who drive past half a dozen churches to get to the one they choose. Well, how is this choice made?

Unfortunately, I fear, many people make a church choice based on not-so-good reasons. I am not one of those who says that all churches are basically the same or that our denominational differences do not matter any more. I think the differences do matter because truth matters. Denominational differences arose from doctrinal disputes. And while Christian history has not been free of petty arguments, legitimate doctrinal differences should not be simply glossed over.

You see, I am of the conviction that the Bible is the Word of God. Inspired and Inerrant. So differences of interpretation are not merely personal preference, opinion or whim. They are disagreements about what God has said. And since presumably all Christians care to know what God has truly said in His Word, we want to clarify and be certain that we know what we believe. For instance, when Jesus said, "This is my Body...", he either meant "This bread truly is my body," or He meant "The bread merely represents (thus 'is not') my body." Which is it? Jesus said it. I think His intention was to be understood.

My point is that doctrine should be the chief criterion by which a person or a family determines which church to join. Not the personality of the pastor. Not the beautiful architecture. Not the accomplished musicians. Not the size, the wealth or the racial makeup of the congregation.

Of course, I speak as the pastor of a small congregation. I have seen people choose a church that teaches (or tolerates) false doctrine merely because they have a bigger Sunday school or a more dynamic youth group. Hey, I'm all in favor of big and dynamic. And when the doctrine is straight, those are fine reasons to select a congregation.

What trouble me - and what I hope troubles you - is the rampant indifference to teaching.

A story in The Guardian earlier this week reports that cosmetic products made in China from the skin of executed prisoners is being marketed in the United Kingdom. Sounds like the nice lampshades and wallets made out of Jews in the 1940s. Only with one difference, in this case no one seems to mind that much.

There is no outrage in The Guardian's reporting. Only the briefest suggestion that this might be immoral or wrong in some way. It's not technically illegal. A "grey area" they say. I thought Europeans were generally so anti-capital punishment. But, I guess, since they're from China, the likelihood that these prisoners were Christians or champions of democracy is great. Killing such folk doesn't seem to irritate Europeans as much as it used to.

In the article, much was made of the fact that using human remains to make cosmetics is culturally acceptable to the Chinese. It's hard to miss the implication that we shouldn't be too quick to impose our benighted Western values on another culture.

But I'd bet you a coke that if these cosmetics are tested on lab animals first, there'll be picketing in the streets of London.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose is a new film based on a true account of a woman who is deemed to be demon possessed by the Catholic church. Something goes wrong in the course of her exorcisms and she dies. The priest who was performing the rites then faces trial. I haven't seen it yet, so I cannot comment much directly on it. But the reviews have been intriguing, though quite mixed.

Blogger Darrell at Southern Conservative loved it and recommends that all Christians go see it. Go here to Christianity Today for an overview of reviewer opinions.

Have you seen it and what did you think?

I have to say, I laughed when I read this.

A new political party in Sweden called The Feminist Initiative is running on a platform calling for the abolition of marriage. All marriage. The idea, allegedly, is that marriage "is not about love, but about ownership." Instead they propose some sort of domestic partner arrangement that would not take gender into consideration at all, nor would it be restricted to only two partners. I'm frankly shocked at their intolerant approach. They do not permit sheep and goats to become legal partners with humans! That's species-ism! Somehow this is seen as a good move for women. Well, how does this party try to appeal to male voters? A six hour work-day. I'm sure all the Mr. Mom's are miffed at the assumption that all the men out there are the bread-winners. That's sooo retro.

What's next people?!

Here's the link, since I wouldn't blame you for thinking I made this up. Someone please tell me this is a spoof. I don't think it is.

Not the "Great Depression," as in the stock market crash of 1929. But well written memoir type books by people who've suffered from severe depression. Right now, I'm enjoying Prozac Nation by Elizabeth Wurtzel. She's really a very good writer. Other good ones include Girl, Interrupted by Susanna Kayson and The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath. None of these come from a Christian perspective but they are very enlightening and insightful reads nonetheless.

Here is an intriguing quote from Prozac Nation:

Homesickness is just a state of mind for me. I'm always missing someone or someplace or something; I'm always trying to get back to some imaginary somewhere. My life has been one long longing.

Help me promote my blog.

Slowly, my daily readership is increasing. It's becoming common now for me to get 100+ different visitors a day, on average. That's cool, but I'd love to reach even more.

If you read a post here that you find interesting, insightful, or even annoying, please share it with a friend. Did you know about the "email-a-post" feature? There's a little envelope image at the bottom of every post. Click that and you can send it to whomever you like. Keep coming back yourself and encourage people you know to read The Burr in the Burgh.

O.K., shameless self-promotion completed.

I hereby declare that Pastor Alms in North Carolina is my kindred spirit. I hope he is not offended. You should read his blog daily. Today, he reflects on the question: "What Does a Pastor Do All Day? It's a very good post.

It reminds me of a cartoon I once saw. A pastor is in his study kneeling in prayer. And his secretary peeks around the door and says, "Oh good, you're not busy."

He's praying, but according to her, he's not doing anything really important. I hate the idea that a pastor is supposed to be "busy." It's killing the church. "Busy" does not always mean faithful. People, with the best heart, will say to me, "I know you're busy . . . " And I try to correct them. Do I have a lot to do? Yes. Is my time and energy limited? Yes. But God forbid that I ever become a busy pastor.

I read somewhere that we must make a distinction between that which is urgent and that which is important. I find I have to do this all the time. So many different things pull at me, I must sometimes discriminate. What may be urgent to someone (meaning they want me to pay attention to it right now), might not be important. And what is important, might not be urgent. Hopefully, we put our first energies toward what is both important and urgent.

Most people measure effectiveness according to output or production. Some pastors give in to the temptation to make sure they have observable things they can show others as evidence that they are doing a good job. They live by what I call the ABCs of church meetings: Attendance, Buildings, and Cash.

Other times, simply moving around a lot, always walking fast, making sure you are seen in all the right places, and having a distracted look in your eyes gives people the illusion that ministry is taking place. And many pastors derive their sense of self-esteem from having people think they are movers and shakers in the kingdom of God.

Of course, I have duties I must attend to. People to visit. Meetings to attend. Things to do. But how can I really tabulate the hours spent in prayer, in devotion, in casual pastoral conversation. How much time should I allot for sermon prep or teaching prep? I find it difficult to keep everything to a rigid schedule. Sometimes I need to crunch on a text for a long time before I can offer something meaningful. Sometimes I need to meditate (not in the Eastern empty-your-head way). Nothing kills prayer, reflection and study more than "busy."

Someone named Tim J. over at another blog, has given me this wise and gentle rebuke:

After re-reading the story, and considering the source (a London tabloid) I think it's possible the story is simply false.

But, to answer Scott- Directly killing people in order to alleviate suffering is wrong. Extreme circumstances don't change that. If we begin to kill people to save them from suffering, then where do we draw the line? Do we include emotional or mental suffering? How bad should the suffering be? What constitutes "terminal" illness? I know it's a slippery slope argument, but it happens to be true.

Sometimes, in order to follow God's will, we have to be willing to shoulder our cross, even if it involves great suffering. As hard as it is, sometimes we have to watch other people carry a terrible cross, and may be powerless to help.

We should always do all we can to comfort the suffering, but God is sovereign. We can't say, "Well, it would be better for them to die.". That is despair, and despair is the opposite of faith.

Euthasia is a form of murder. I opposed what was done to Terri Schiavo on that basis. She wasn't dying. She wasn't on life support. She wasn't suffering. Please read what I wrote on that matter in these previous posts here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Yesterday's post, however, has caused some stir, understandably. That's why I want to clarify myself. I am willing to be rebuked and corrected. I may have misunderstood the facts. I may have voiced poor judgment (wouldn't be the first time). But allow me to ask a hypothetical question. Are there any scenarios - any scenarios at all - in which euthanasia may be the lesser of two evils? I'm not necessarily speaking of the case in N.O. And I'm not trying to start a flame war. I am sincerely asking the question.

The British newspaper, Daily Mail, reported today that some New Orleans doctors gave lethal doses of morphine to some of their patients during the recent evacuation due to hurricane Katrina.

Was this morally wrong?

See above for my response. Here and here.

The hurricane in the gulf coast was terrible. And I grieve for the many lives that were lost. We all do. And it's common that at times like this, people want to know why such things happen.

Some will answer that God sent the hurricane to punish those crummy sinners. Others will conclude that it is evidence that God does not even exist.

It's the old quandry. How can there be such suffering if God is both all good and all powerful. If he wants to help, but is unable, then he is not all powerful. And if he is able to intervene, but is unwilling, then he is not all good. Or so the reasoning goes.

Author, professor and ordained minister, Tony Campolo, has published an article about the hurricane Katrina, in which he says that we can't make God responsible for what happened because God, poor thing, is trying his hardest. So lay off. Campolo then spouts off one rank heresy after another.

According to Campolo, the Hebrew bible never claims that God is almighty. He writes: "Perhaps we would do well to listen to the likes of Rabbi Harold Kushner, who contends that God is not really as powerful as we have claimed."

It seems to me that the God who created the universe might be able to overpower a lot of fast moving air. Let's see, isn't that whole creation of the universe business somewhere in the Hebrew bible? Oh, there it is - on the first page. Didn't God create man from the dust of the ground and breathe the breath of life into him? Doesn't the Hebrew Bible talk about a God who could part the Red Sea so the Israelites could pass through on dry land? And isn't this the Hebrew God who once flooded the whole planet killing every living thing that wasn't snugly safe in Noah's ark? Too bad this God of the Kushner Hebrews can't hold back all that really heavy water pushing on the levees. If bad things happen on God's watch, according to Campolo, it's because He is not strong enough to do anything about it.

And why does Campolo ignore the clear teachings of the other 27 books of the Bible? Jesus calmed the wind and waves by saying "Be still (cf. Mark 4:39)." What is Campolo suggesting? That maybe Jesus doesn't have enough mojo for a reeeeeeaaaalllllly big storm? What's harder to do? Raise your own self from the dead or stop a hurricane?

Campolo denies the doctrine of original sin. He says, "Certainly, God would not create suffering for innocent people, who were--for the most part--Katrina’s victims." All people are sinful and deserve God's wrath. I'm not saying that Katrina was God exercising His wrath, but I am saying we all deserve that and worse. Who are all these innocent people that deserve to have lives free of suffering??

Underlying his whole erroneous theology is a brand of the philosophy of dualism. Yin and Yang. Black and White. Light and Darkness. Good and Evil. Duking it out with the earth as the battlefield. He writes: "In scripture we get the picture of a cosmic struggle going on between the forces of darkness and the forces of light. The good news is that, in the end, God will be victorious."

I couldn't decide what to entitle this post. My other option was Tony Campolo is a Heretic. I decided to use what you see up above, but not because Campolo's not a heretic. He is. A Christian is a person who believes stuff. Particular stuff. Not just any ol' stuff.Can a person be saved while persistently denying the Nicene Creed? No, of course not. And Christianity teaches that God is omnipotent.

I don't have a pat answer, like Campolo's, as to why hurricanes kill people. It's a mystery I cannot fathom. But the Scriptures - Old and New - simply do not permit us to deny either God's goodness or His greatness.

Rabbi Kushner may want to leave the room because I am going to quote a scripture which he would not accept. When St. Gabriel announced to the virgin Mary that she would bear in her womb the eternal Logos, she wondered how this could be. And the angel said, "For NOTHING is impossible with God."

Do you remember September 11, 2001 when Muslim terrorists hijacked flight 93? The plane crashed in a field in rural Pennsylvania when heroic Americans fought against the hijackers and 40 people died in the crash.

For some reason, the memorial that is being built on the site as a tribute for the victims of this terrible incident is actually designed to honor their terrorist murderers instead. A red crescent??


Give me a break! Isn't this like building a World War II memorial in the shape of a swastika?

Reported by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Thanks to Bunnie Diehl for pointing this out.

Friends,

Every once in a while, I discover a blog out there that has linked to me. In return, I'm recommending that you all click on their links below and give them a look. Naturally, all the usual caveats apply. Namely, that I don't necessarily agree or disagree with everything they write. But they are cool, often humorous, insightful, interesting and worth your time. If they look promising, bookmark them and read them regularly.

And while you are there, please leave a comment somewhere telling them I sent you.

These are just a few of them. I'd love to hear from you if you know of any others.

BlogWerks

Christianity is Jewish

The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns

The Cubicle Reverend

Noahware

Raging Rabbits

The Southern Conservative

Tales from the DorkSide

I'd like to be the first to officially welcome my wife, authoress Julie Stiegemeyer, to the blogosphere. Go check her out at Jottings and Such. Bookmark it and return often because I can guarantee you'll be finding lots of wit and insight there.

One more reason that I really like Lance Armstrong.

Dr. Gene Veith offers two outstanding articles in last week's WORLD magazine, a weekly you should all subscribe to.

I enjoy literature and movies. And one thing that interests me is the intersection of theology/worldview and narrative. There is a lot of theology (or theological implications) in popular books and films, much of it bad. But sometimes, remarkably, elements of truth are found interwoven in the stories that are told. This may be intentional or unintentional. Either way, it affects the reader or viewer.

Dr. Veith writes here about Christians who work in the film industry. And here, he presents insights about movies that contain a message. I particularly appreciate his observation (paraphrasing into my own words) that while visual images can communicate emotion effectively, words are required to communicate meaning.

The Sixteenth Sunday After Pentecost
September 4, 2005
Text: Luke 13:1-5

I know that many of you, like me, have been glued to the television this week, stunned by the destruction Katrina left behind on the southern gulf coast. The historic port city of New Orleans, a city known for its Cajun cuisine and jazz music, has been largely devastated. Hundreds of thousands of families are left homeless, with all of their possessions lost or destroyed.

Right away people begin to ask the question, “Why did this happen?” I understand that. I ask “why” too when bad things happen to me and the people I care about. So for today’s sermon, I want to address the age-old question of why do bad things happen to good people.

But in order to do that, the first thing we need to do is unravel the question itself. Notice the assumption that we are all a bunch of good people who never deserve to suffer anything. In most cases, when people endure hardship, they believe what they are going through is unfair. That they’ve done nothing to deserve unhappiness. So my first question for you is why do we assume that we should be immune from suffering?

The Bible teaches us that all men, all human beings, are sinful creatures who deserve nothing before God except His wrath and punishment. Every good thing we do receive in life, including life itself, is a gift from God, and one that we have done nothing to earn or deserve.

But even Christians who claim to understand all that, even we often expect God to take our earthly sufferings away if we pray hard enough. There is this idea that God should help us and not only that, but that God should help us immediately. Any delay at all is seen as a flaw on the part of God.

The problem of evil and suffering has vexed philosophers and theologians almost from the beginning of time. Many skeptics and unbelievers find this to be a hurdle they cannot get past. Some people will say something like this: I can imagine a God who is all good. And I can imagine a God who is all powerful. But I cannot imagine a God who is both all good and all powerful when there is so much suffering in this world. You see, people think that if God is willing to help us, but unable, then He is not all powerful. And if He is able to help us but unwilling, then He is not all good.

And I must confess that I simply don’t have a pat answer for you. It’s a paradox. We cannot explain things of this nature which God, in His Word, has not explained to us.

Liberal theology solves the problem by cutting God down to size and suggesting that is not really as clever or powerful as we thought. They preserve His goodness while denying His greatness. This theological approach appeared in the bestselling book from a few years back by Rabbi Harold Kushner entitled Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People? Rabbi Kushner’s idea of God is of a well-meaning deity who is as frustrated by human suffering as we are. God would like to do something about cancer, hurricanes and tsunamis, but He is simply unable to do so. Harold Kushner’s idea is that we shouldn’t blame God because the poor thing is doing the best He can under the circumstances.

As Christians, we stand by the Biblical witness which tells us that God is, in fact, almighty, that nothing is too difficult for Him. And He is, at the same time, perfectly good and loving. These two things are indeed both true. God is not a passive bystander or a helpless spectator. Nor is He a cruel and heartless tyrant. So why then does He allow bad things to happen?

The Bible is not always very helpful with the “why” questions. It’s great on who and what and sometimes even when and how. But God does not give us a lot of answers to why.

Parents know that when children reach 2 or 3 years of age, they begin to ask “why” about everything. It’s perfectly natural and means that they are curious to learn about the world around them and that’s a good thing. But sometimes children ask “why” about things that there is just no easy way to answer. So parents sometimes have to simplify things to a point their children can handle. And sometimes, every once in a while, the answer is just too complicated for the child to understand and the parent may just have to say, “Sweetie, trust me on this one.”

When it comes to the problem of human suffering and why God might allow it to take place, we have to allow room for mystery. You see, I think we are trying to put together a puzzle without having all the pieces. Only God has all the pieces. Or it's like we are trying to put together a mosaic without knowing the grand design. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a grand design behind it all, only that we don’t know what it is. It may just be beyond our ability to comprehend so our Heavenly Father says to us, in effect, “Sweetie, trust me.”

Corrie ten Boom tells the story of visiting someone in the hospital who was feeling very sorrowful because he was so sick he could hardly breathe. He wanted to die because he felt like his life had no meaning, that it was worthless. So Corrie reached into her bag and withdrew a piece of fabric that she had been embroidering. And she held it up for the man to see and she said, “Your life right now is like the back side of this embroidery. All you can see are the different colored threads all mixed up and knotted and tangled. It makes no sense. But when you turn it around, you can see that I am weaving a beautiful picture.”

In our suffering in this life, in this world so badly corroded by sin, we are looking at the underneath of a magnificent tapestry. Only when we reach the other side, will it all make sense to us. Christian faith means trusting that God is good and kind and loving and the He is still in charge of the universe, even when the circumstances make it appear to be otherwise. Knowing that God will show mercy to His children and that, as He promised in His Word, He is working all things together for our good.

As Joseph told his brothers in the book of Genesis after they’d sold him into slavery and he eventually became the second in command of all of Egypt, second only to Pharoah himself, Joseph said, “What you meant for evil, God meant for good.” While Joseph was suffering and waiting in an Egyptian prison cell, do you think he fully understood that in the future, God would use him to prepare an empire for a great famine thus saving thousands and thousands of lives from starvation? No, of course not. He didn’t know how everything was going to work out but he trusted God. And that’s the point.

Was this hurricane a sign of God’s wrath? After all, New Orleans does have a pretty decadent reputation. We must not think that because this happened there and not here that we are better than the people that live there or they are worse than us. I’m sure that some of the people who died as a result of this hurricane were atheists. But some of them were Christians. Some of them were godless. And some of them were Godly. But the wind and the rain cannot tell the difference.

In Luke 13, Jesus talked about a tower in Siloam that fell and killed a bunch of people. And He asked His disciples, “Do you think those people were worse sinners than all the rest and that is why this terrible tragedy happened to them?” And He says, “I tell you no, but unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish.”

The assumption that many people have, at least underneath, even if they don’t think this is what they think, many people assume that if something really lousy happens to you, it must be because of something you did wrong, that God is singling you out to punish you. Did God destroy New Orleans because it was a more wicked city than all the others?

Jesus doesn’t allow us to think that way. He puts that hot potato right back in our hands. All sinners deserve to die, He says, and more so, they deserve to go to hell. And it’s not our place to sit in the seat of judgment and determine who did what. Jesus tells us to be more concerned about our own status before God, to repent of our sins, lest we likewise perish. C.S. Lewis once wrote that pain is God’s megaphone. Sometimes disaster can serve as a call to repentance.

Why do bad things happen to good people? Well, the only truly good person I know about is Jesus Christ. And some very bad things did happen to Him, as you know. He was betrayed by one of His own disciples and abandoned by all of His friends right when He needed them most. He was arrested and tried for crimes He did not commit. He was savagely tortured by wicked men. No one showed Him any mercy. They pulled His beard. They spat in His face. They removed all of His clothes and nailed Him to a wooden cross for all the world to see. He was mocked by just about everyone. Even the thief dying next to Him taunted Him. Bad things happened to that good man. And even His Heavenly Father cursed Him, spat on Him, so to speak, and turned His back on Him.

Why did those bad things happen to that good man? Because He loves you and He loves me. God placed all the guilt of all the sinners who have ever lived and ever will live upon the head of His one eternal Son. And Jesus died, not because of anything He’d ever done to deserve it, but in order to serve a sentence that would be rightfully ours.

You see, Jesus paid a debt He didn’t owe, because we owed a debt we couldn’t pay. And so the next question after why do bad things happen to good people is why do good things happen to bad people? Why is God merciful and gracious to sinners? Because Jesus died for you. Why does God absolve us of our sins? Because Jesus died for you.

While there is no simple way for me to make sense out of hurricane Katrina, I can tell you this. One innocent man suffered to satisfy the wrath of God for us all and maybe one of the good things that will come out of this terrible disaster is that it will draw aimless people to the Almighty Creator who loves them so very much. In Jesus’ name. Amen.

My father-in-law, Steve Banks, is a ham radio operator and sent me this link today. It's an article that tells how hams are helping displaced people locate one another. Please pass this information along to anyone who may find it helpful.

Here is an article that says a Canadian youth minister faces criminal charges for writing a letter to the editor in which he stated that homosexuality is morally wrong and dangerous. He is being accused of something along the lines of hate speech and is going before a Human Rights Commission (what a joke). If found guilty, which he believes is likely, he will be fined and could possibly face time in jail.

I suspect that we'll be reading such stories in the U.S. before too long. Of course, we all believe in free speech - as long as you don't offend certain people. And we all believe in freedom of religion - as long as you keep it to yourself and it doesn't affect me.

Dilbert is, without a doubt, my favorite cartoon. Perhaps its the time I spent working in a cubicle that did it to me.

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20050829.html

According to the latest reports, Thursday in New Orleans saw floating corpses, gunfire and chaos. The natural disaster, the so-called "act of God," is over. The hurricane has dissipated. But now the disaster known as fallen human nature will fill the headlines. Think Mogadishu or Darfur with water. Bands of trouble-makers, armed with rifles and AK-47s looted from flooded stores are cruising the devastated city. Some for profit. Arguably some for survival. Many others just for the thrill of it. William Golding wrote Lord of the Flies because he understood that without external restraints, even the sweetest among us will turn into savages. See the dead bodies left to rot in the Louisiana summer sun. Smell the raw sewage flowing in the streets. Snakes and alligators making nests in people's submerged bedrooms and patios. How many hundreds or thousands of people will have died by drowning, dehydration, infection, dysentery, cholera or heat stroke, not to mention bullets or lack of proper medical attention?

A wise Christian lady told me today that it upsets her to think of all the petty ridiculous people (ourselves included) who moan and whine because of their insignificant problems which are seldom anything more than inconveniences when you think about it (I'm paraphrasing for dramatic effect). This should remind us that there are people with real problems.

One of the most noticable characteristics of Jesus is that he had sympathy for those who were sick or suffering. And, with God, sympathy never sits still. God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son...." Did you catch that? God loved. And thus He gave Himself to save the human race. Having been saved and as people who continually benefit from the compassion of Christ, the church is mobilizing to help the hurting. Give to the effort by linking here.

The United States is always one of the first nations to offer aid to other countries when they are hit with natural disasters. A few years ago, when that town in Iran was completely destroyed by a massive earthquake, the U.S. was there in droves. More recently, when those Russian submariners were trapped, the U.S. was sending in military rescue teams, pronto.

This article from the Washington Times details some of the international response to our current crisis. Needless to say, the U.S. has many friends in the world community and a number of kind offers have been made.

The perception, however, by many is that America is so rich that we need no assistance. But that isn't really the point, is it? Americans are some of the most generous people in the world. I remember reading Stephen Ambrose's books on World War II. And he says that when the Americans were finally invading Germany, the local German folk were happy to see them. And that's because they knew that the Americans, unlike the Russians or the French, would not rape their women and pillage their homes. I'm not trying to say that Americans are sinless, only that it has been a common trait of our culture to be neighborly, and that includes lending a hand when trouble strikes.

If you want to donate money to help, go here.

Hat tip to Bad Hair Blog.

Folks, here are some additions to my list of confessional Lutheran bloggers:

Aardvark Alley - Because "earth pig" is one of my favorite expressions

Balaam's Ass - Because a talking jackass is something I can relate to.

Cross + Wise - Because the cross is foolishness

The Crowned Ones - Because Pr. Cholak looks like Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Kiihnworld - Because I'm ecumenical

The Lutheran Logomaniac - Because words mean things

Some of you may remember "Pat" from Saturday Night Live, the recurring gender-ambiguous character played brilliantly by Julia Sweeney. The joke was always that no one could tell if Pat (not to mention Pat's significant other Chris) was male or female. Let the comedy ensue. The humorously icky way that Julia Sweeney brought this favorite character to life made her famous - for a while.

Sweeney is no longer a staple on late night television, but she is in the public eye once again. Apparently, the comedian has decided that she is an atheist and is taking the stage with a new act entitled "Letting Go of God."

Now, I am truly saddened to hear of Sweeney's loss of faith and I pray for her to come around. But what irks me is how she, and soooo many others, reject Christianity and then go around talking as if they are quite knowledgeable about the subject when the evidence suggests otherwise.

My dad used to say, "It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt." This is advice Ms. Sweeney might have taken.

In this interview from the San Francisco Gate, she discusses her disillusionment with religion. I wasn't too surprised when I read that one of the things that turned her off to Christianity is Jesus Himself. She thinks he is "angry a lot" and "hateful."

But did you notice the one example from the Gospels she attempts to cite? The story where Jesus casts demons out of someone and into a herd of pigs, who then hurl themselves off a cliff. She mistakenly claims that Jesus turned people into pigs.

First, she states that Homer's Iliad has as much or more insight than the Bible. And then - as her one example of the hatefulness of Jesus - she goes on to misquote a text found in Matthew 8. In fact, far from being an example of Jesus being mean, this story is about Jesus helping people. What bugs Sweeney most of all, she admits, is that He's not kind to animals.

Sweeney tries to act all educated and well-read when, in fact, she confuses the Bible with Homer. And not the Iliad which she refers to (notice the casual reference to smart people books), but the Odyssey. Jesus never turned people into pigs, my dear. But the witch Circe did.

It just goes to show that Sweeney, for all her talents and charms, is not a serious atheist at all. She's just ill-read.

This is exactly what's wrong with much of the environmental movement. Look at this article from Yahoo News.

Apparently, the London Zoo thinks it is a cute idea to put a handful of human volunteers, clad in little more than fig leaves, into one of their caged exhibits. Now what would be the point of that, you ask? To highlight man's place in the planet's eco-system, they say.

And what is man's place in the planet's eco-system, you ask? Well, apparently man is a "plague species." Since the article doesn't bother to explain that comment, we are left to conjecture. I have heard the idea expressed elsewhere that the human race is like a destructive virus that is consuming and destroying organism earth. There are some within the environmental movement who see the human race as - well - as bad. It's because of the growth in our population, the case is made, that our planet is enduring whatsoever ecological troubles it may be enduring. [What solution then do you think comes to mind?]

The Christian religion teaches that man (male and female) is unique in all of creation, for only man is created in the image and likeness of God. And God has given humanity dominion over the earth. We are divinely appointed the stewards of creation. And as good and faithful stewards, we should neither waste nor destroy the resources God has entrusted to our care. But to equate man with a plague or virus that is weakening and killing the planet is off kilter.

It seems to me to be a similar line of thinking as Princeton philosopher and PETA guru, Pete Singer, who says human parents should be permitted kill their infants up to 30 days past birth, but it's wrong to slay a mink or a sow. "Meat is murder," y'know.

Viewing man (male and female) as just another species of animal life with no more intrinsic value than a dog or a horse, is part of a way of thinking that underlies and advances our culture of death. The Christian assumption is that man is the pinnacle of creation, that all other creatures are for our use. All human life is sacred, not only because of our unique creation but because the eternal Son of God has become a man.

I read (or scan) a lot of different blogs these days. The ones I tend to view daily are on my blogroll, but I have quite a number of other favorites.

Kurt Wall has been a regular reader/commenter on this blog for a bit. He has now ventured into blogging on his own. And I recommend you take a look. It's called Blogwerks.

I've never met Kurt personally (that I know of), but he strikes me as a theologically well-informed layman who loves Christ's Church and is sincerely struggling with some of the issues in his own Lutheran denomination. So pay his blog a visit and say hello.

We all know what the good movies are. What we reeeallly want to know is what are the biggest stinkers.

Here is the list of film critic Roger Ebert's most hated movies. The thing is, I really liked a couple of the ones he mentions.

My favorite quote is:

This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels.