The Burr in the Burgh

I knew it!! Tom Cruise is the Sith Lord!! Check this out.

Sphere: Related Content

No. It's not. Not if by natural one means that death is the design of the Creator or that it's what is "supposed" to happen to us and thus OK. Every mourner knows that death is not OK. When God created Adam and Eve in the Garden, it was not His purpose for them to die. Death is a result of our sinfulness (sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned - Romans 5). And that's why we hate it. Because it is un-natural. And I'd suggest that God hates death even more than we do.

Russell Moore over at Mere Comments made me think of this with his post today entitled "Death is Not a Happy Ending." He alerts us to some insightful writing in the latest issue of Presbyterians Pro-Life. He quotes Terry Schlossberg's article about the death of Terri Schiavo. Schlossberg states that the Christian faith

"does not welcome death as a friend or as an escape from the burdens of this life. Scripture speaks of death as the 'last enemy,' that which is overcome by the Savior."

That is certainly true. And though I'm unaware of his personal beliefs, I have always found something appealing in the words of Dylan Thomas as he begged his dying father to fight death rather than accept it: "Do not go gentle into that good night.... Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

The Culture of Death is trying to redefine death, to domesticate it. The Culture of Death believes that death is nature's way of making room for life. The Culture of Death believes that a person's value is determined by his productivity so that when a person becomes a burden or a drain, then he should die. It's a "survival of the fittest" thing.

Of course, one must accept the reality that death is inevitable for all of us (except those alive at the parousia). And there are times when a dying person must be allowed to die - though not because it is his/her "right" but because it has become the lesser evil.

At the same as I say all of that, I confess that by His own dying and rising, our Lord Jesus has transformed death so that for those who are baptized into Christ, death has lost its sting. We are set free from the fear of death and, as the Apostle writes, we do not grieve as the world does.

Even Christians may occasionally contribute to this domestication of death when we emphasize that so-and-so has gone to a better place. That's true. And it is comforting. Jesus told the penitent thief, "Today you shall be with me in Paradise." And St. Paul does write that to be absent from the body is to be with the Lord. But we too often fail to recall the promised resurrection on the Last Day, though we confess it in the creed. Russell Moore is right to point out that "The final hope is to share in Christ's resurrection, and so to overturn the curse of sin and the reign of death."

Sphere: Related Content

I'm so looking forward to this movie. Anyone have an inside line on whether the film is loyal to the book?

Sphere: Related Content

Yesterday, I crossed the 10 thousand point in blog visits. More than 10 thousand in almost exactly three months. According to my stat counter, I currently get an average of around 100 unique visitors each day. That has been slowly on the increase. The only other pattern I have noticed is that my traffic usually drop significantly on Saturdays and Sundays. Thanks for reading and keep coming back!

Sphere: Related Content

For the past two weeks, I have been teaching a Bible class on the Ten Commandments at my congregation. And naturally, one of the first things I wanted to do was address the fact that different groups enumerate the commandments differently. Did you know that Roman Catholics and Lutherans number them one way, the Protestants another, and the Jews yet another? So when people debate whether the Decalogue should be inscribed on civic monuments or displayed in government buildings, they will have to make a decision as to which enumeration to follow. One argument could reasonably be made, I suppose, that by choosing one listing over the others, an endorsement is being made of a specific church or religion.

In my digging, I uncovered an old Washington Post article about this topic. You should give it a look because it shows the three different ways of numbering the commandments. Does this mean there is some kind of discrepancy in God's Word? No. Reading the Biblical accounts in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, one finds that Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Protestants and Jews all have the same commandments. But since the scriptures themselves do not delineate how they should be numbered, there may naturally arise differing listings.

It appears to me that the main difference between the Roman Catholic/Lutheran numbering and the Protestant numbering is that the Calvinists and the more radical reformers wanted to place emphasis on the whole graven image part, presumably to condemn Rome's proclivity for statues. But since the Lutherans, while not praying to the saints, found no objection in 3-dimensional church art, they understood the graven image prohibition as simply part of having no other gods.

I'm most intrigued by the fact that in the Jewish tradition, the first commandment is not a commandment at all, but a statement of gospel: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery." As a Lutheran Christian, I can appreciate that very well. The commands then become less imperative and more indicative. A Christian might understand it this way: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of slavery to sin and the grave by the death and resurrection of my Son, your Lord, Jesus Christ." In that case, the commands become descriptive of how God's children live, not just how they should live or must live. It's a statement of who we are in Christ Jesus. Or as our Lord Himself put it: "You are the light of the world. You are the salt of the earth."

Sphere: Related Content

Here's something clever floating around the blogosphere. Book tag. Bob Waters over at Watersblogged tagged me.

The game is this:

1. Citizen Soldiers by Stephen Ambrose. I always enjoy Ambrose's Word War II books. This one in particular because he highlights the characteristics and virtues that not only make America great, but were the foundation for our victory in that great crusade. An excellent and engaging look at the everyday Americans who saved Western civilization (and France).


2. Tortured for Christ by Richard Wurmbrand. I read this one myself as a teenager. I don't recall it well enough to vouch for all its theology, but it really opened my eyes to what Jesus meant when He said, "Take up your cross and come follow me." As Bonhoeffer famously said, "When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die." Wurmbrand was a Lutheran pastor (Romanian Jewish convert) who was imprisoned and tortured first by the Nazis and then by the Communists. He later testified about his sufferings before the U.S. congress and, when some found his account hard to swallow, he stood up to remove his shirt in that august assembly to reveal his scars. Having been briefly to the Sudan myself and knowing that more Christians were martyred in the 20th century than in the previous 19 combined, I think today's youth need to read this book, or one like it. It's short too.


3. How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) by Ann Coulter. This one is to fulfill the humor requirement. Not only do I think Ann's perspective on politics and culture to be generally very clear-headed, but her acerbic wit slays me. Her bit on Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ is the number one best review essay I saw. She totally gets it. Her understanding of the atonement is refreshingly blunt. I quoted her in a sermon once. Her earlier book, Slander, is good too.


4. Table Talk by Martin Luther. This could also fit under humor, in a pinch. I'd more likely file it under wisdom literature. The Blessed Reformer offers pithy dinnertime comments on theology, marriage, politics, and beer.


5. Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel by C.F.W. Walther. It's a classic. And no one explains this better. Frankly, this book opened Scripture to me unlike anything else before or since.
   


6. Novels no human should fail to read: Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens (substitutionary atonement); Lord of the Flies by William Golding (original sin); 1984 and Animal Farm by George Orwell (the threat of totalitarianism); The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis (Jesus); The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien (friendship); Les Miserables by Victor Hugo (grace); The Telltale Heart short story by Edgar Allen Poe (guilt); Merchant of Venice play by Wm. Shakespeare (mercy); The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath (depression); A Prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving (divine surprise).

The reason I hate making lists like this is because I know full well that five minutes after I post this, ten more books will come to mind. So be forewarned that there may be a sequel.

And now I get to tag someone. Your turn Preachrblog, Confessing Evangelical, and CyberBrethren.

Sphere: Related Content

So, last night I watched a German movie called Run Lola Run from 1999 starring Franka Potente (who was with Matt Damon in the Bourne movies). It's a clever film about how the outcome of one's life can often depend on the minor details.

The plot is simple. Lola gets a panicked phone call from her boyfriend, Manni, who says he's going to die in 20 minutes unless he comes up with 100,000 deutsche marks. It turns out he was supposed to deliver the money to a gangster promptly at noon, but on his way to the meeting point, he'd been scared off the subway by the sight of two police officers. In his fright, he left the bag of cash on the train where it was purloined by a homeless man. Now Manni is convinced that the bad guy will suspect him of stealing the money and will certainly kill him unless Lola can help him. His other option, he figures, would be to rob a bank before 12 o'clock. The rest of the film shows Lola frantically running from one point in the city to another to come up with the cash Manni needs.

What makes this interesting is that the film tells the story three times with three very different outcomes, all depending on the smallest of details. It's very creative, edited like a rock video, and surprisingly entertaining.

Another film that covers the same motif is Sliding Doors with Gwyneth Paltrow. Two stories are told with the same characters and the same setup, but one detail early on totally changes the way things unfold.

It reminds me of a science fiction short story I read a long time ago (Asimov?) about a man who invents time travel and goes back to the age of the dinosaurs. While there, he accidentally kills a single insect, but that minor incident alters all of human history. I don't buy the evolutionary premise, but the idea is intriguing.

For instance, in college I used to go on Monday nights to sing hymns and read scriptures at a local nursing home. One night, a friend of a friend was visiting from out of state. If I'd missed going just that one time, I might never have met my wife, my son would never have been born and who knows how many other things would be different?

In our Gospel reading yesterday, from Matthew 10, Jesus told His disciples that their Heavenly Father governs the life of every sparrow and has numbered the very hairs on their heads. It's comforting to know that our benevolent God has the details in control.

Sphere: Related Content

Something quick for Father's Day. Check out these two posts from Pr. Paul McCain:

Post 1 Why Dad is So Important

Post 2 The Truth About Men and Church

Sphere: Related Content

Not if you belong to the United Church of Christ, apparantly. The UCC (sometimes facetiously called Unitarians Considering Christ) is about to debate a resolution on this very matter.

For two millenia, whatever Christians may have disagreed on, everyone would have at least been willing to say that Jesus is Lord. Some "conservative" UCC pastors have submitted a resolution to their July denominational meeting which affirms this traditional bedrock belief and requires all clergy to accept it. This may seem like a no-brainer to you and me, but some observers say they think the measure will fail.

This boils down to whether the clergy in the UCC believe that Jesus is God or not. Apparantly many of them do not.

See here for details.

Russell Moore over at Mere Comments summed it up eloquently: Still, it is sad to know that in the United Church of Christ Arius would be considered a moderate.

Sphere: Related Content

Today, Scott Edmund Stiegemeyer (the first) turned 36 years young. I know; I know. You can hardly believe that I'm that old. I get that a lot. I was most recently carded at a restaurant less than twelve months ago. So although it absolutely positively stretches the limits of credulity, I am 36 years old today. And luvin it.

Actually, as I think about it, I really think of myself as nothing more than an overgrown teenager... for better or worse. I still like rock-n-roll (my son tells me to TURN THAT MUSIC DOWN). I still enjoy many of the same types of movies, television and books that I did when I was 16. Of course, at that age, I was an avid reader of theology and history.

Here's what I did:

• My wonderful wife and son took me down to the Three Rivers Arts Festival. I love that kind of stuff and bought a silver bracelet for my wonderful wife. We're planning to go back down in a couple of days to hear Aimee Mann.
  
  
• We went to my son's baseball game. He got a double, a ground out, a walk, and a strike out. He mostly played 3rd base and had a good throw to 2nd getting out a runner. His team won. Two wondeful people from my congregation showed up to cheer for my son. It was great to see you Joy and John.


• My wonderful wife and son took me to dinner after the game to Nakama, a Japanese steakhouse where I had miso soup, salad, hibachi shrimp appetizer, rice, veggies, filet mignon, and two glasses of my favorit beer: Guiness stout.


• Got home around 10 p.m. and opened gifts. A lovely day.

One major highlight: Eating deep fried Oreo cookies and a deep fried Twinkie at the Art Festival. Ain't life grand?

Sphere: Related Content

You have to admit that this is a pretty ridiculous headline: Terri Schiavo Autopsy: Manner of Death Undetermined. Again, I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure we do know the cause of her death. Maybe being denied food and water for two weeks had something to do with it.

Michelle Malkin, once more, sheds light on a cloudy subject. She writes, "Terri Schiavo, a profoundly disabled woman who was not terminally ill and who had an army of family members ready to care for her for the rest of her natural life, succumbed to forced dehydration at the hands of her spouse-in-name-only.

We know she died of dehydration. And we know that she was severely brain damaged. What the 39 page autopsy did not answer is what caused Terri Schiavo to collapse 15 years ago. We will probably never know that.

The autopsy does not tell us what degree of awareness Terri experienced. But some will ask, "wasn't she a vegetable?" Experts have reminded us that an autopsy cannot determine the existence of PVS.

Supporters of Michael Schiavo now mock those "extreme right-wingers" who wanted to keep Terri alive. I guess they forgot about the legions of lefty Democrats who also defended her life such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Joseph Lieberman, Nat Hentoff, Lanny Davis, and Alan Dershowitz. Only extremist left-wingers think this was a right/left debate.

Some good thoughtful comments from Captain's Quarters, who wrote:

Terri had never requested to die, not with any transparency or formality. All we had for witnesses on her state of mind was a husband who waited until after he had won a substantial lawsuit to recall a conversation in which Terri made an offhand comment about not wanting to live on a respirator, and two of his relatives who corroborated him. The husband had a conflict of interest in the matter, having started a new relationship with another woman and fathering two children. On the other side, Terri's parents and siblings were willing to take over her medical care and the responsibility for its costs.

Amd most of all, as the coroner affirmed yesterday, Terri was not dying.

Despite all of this, Florida decided that it would deliberately kill Terri on the basis of her husband's wishes, without any living will or formal indication of her state of mind....

And when the state decides to kill someone who isn't dying on their own -- as opposed to stopping artificial breathing/cardiac support for those who lack any ability to survive without it -- it should have more substantial oversight before doing so, and it should have more to rely on than an estranged husband's belated recollection of a superficial, general conversation as its basis.

Why do you suppose 26 national disability rights organizations spoke in favor of preserving Terri's life? Because, if we don't check ourselves, this really can become a slippery slope.

Other good insightful commentary can be found at Polipundit and Gatewaypundit.

Sphere: Related Content

Y'know what? Terri Schiavo died of ... drum roll ... DEHYDRATION. The announcement was made today that she had severe brain damage - which we already knew.

Look here to read the official autopsy report. It's in pdf.

The report does specify that Terri's brain was quite atrophied. I'm not a doctor, but I wonder how much of that may have been the result of dehydration.

In any case, I don't see how this news changes the moral status of what was done to Mrs. Schiavo. As Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life states, Terri didn't die of an atrophied brain. She died of the atrophied compassion of her husband.

We'll hear a lot, I'm betting, about the Persistent Vegetative State (PVS). Lifesitenews.com reports that, "In a March 31 article in MedPage Today, Dr. Michael De Georgia, head of the neurology/neurosurgery intensive care unit at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, warned his readers against a PVS diagnosis, saying that it "cannot be confirmed by autopsy." Dr. Mouhammed Kabbani, a neurologist at the University of Missouri, concurred, saying "an autopsy can show the degree of brain damage and how much brain tissue survived the injury", but that "it cannot by any means tell about the patient's clinical status."

Again, remember that the dear woman was not brain dead. She was not dying (anymore than any of us). She was not in pain. No machines were keeping her alive artificially. She was severely brain damaged. I'm glad we got that cleared up.

Thanks to prolifeblogs.com for reporting on this.

Sphere: Related Content

In England, a man named Leslie Burke, is suing the government to ensure that they will not withhold food and water should he need it administered through a tube. Did you catch that? This man is concerned that his doctors will dehydrate him against his wishes. You see, the government's point is that it is just too doggone expensive to keep all these hopeless patients alive. Mr. Burke is currently able to feed himself, but his health condition is such that he may well need a feeding tube. And he is afraid the tax-supported National Health Service will kill him. I wonder what would have ever given him that idea. The terrifying thing is that the British government is fighting him over this. Apparantly, they would like to reserve the right to starve him to death - against his wishes - if he becomes a burden on the taxpayers.

Michael Schiavo argued for the right to murder his wife and it was granted. He wanted Terri to have the "right" to die. Well, what many Americans refuse to see is that the line between "right" to die and "duty" to die is imperceptibly fine. Today, we say we want to kill the hopeless cases for their own good. Tomorrow, we will say we want to kill the hopeless cases for OUR own good.

Read the article here. Thanks to Michelle Malkin for pointing this story out.

Sphere: Related Content

I have always been a fan of U2 as a rock band. They've been at this for over 20 years and still put out consistently awesome music. Some of their songs are the greatest rock-n-roll songs ever penned. Can I get an Amen?!

For those of you cave dwellers who don't know, Bono is the name of the charismatic frontman of the Irish musical group. Some days I want to be Bono. And it's not because he's one of the most famous pop culture icons in the world, singing in one of the most talented and successful bands of all time (although I could probably get used to that). And it's not just because I sincerely admire his work on behalf of the poor in Africa. Many celebrities adopt pet social causes, but usually their ignorance does more harm than good (see Laura Ingraham's book "Shut Up and Sing"). But Bono is different. He's the real deal in my book. In my humble opinion, President Bush should try to pull some strings to get Bono put in charge of the U.N. (sorry Kofi).

The main reason I want to be Bono is because he's a good writer. He truly has a way with words (forget for a moment his accidental use of the f-word at the Grammys). Words are my life and my livelihood. I'm a professional communicator. And I strive to express classic timeless truths in fresh attention-grabbing verbiage. If I could say what I want to say with the panache of Bono, I'd be thrilled.

The first time I read some of Bono's prose was when Rolling Stone magazine had a special issue a while back on the 100 greatest rock-n-roll artists. They had current blockbusting stars write articles about other blockbusting stars and Bono wrote the page on Elvis Presley. And Bono's ability to paint a portrait of another man's soul using text is unsurpassed. Let me tell you that I read that whole issue, all 100 articles, and no one came close to Bono's craftsmanship as a writer.

The second time I read Bono's prose was in an issue of Modern Reformation (unfortunately I couldn't find a web link [c'mon Mikey!]) when they published something he'd written about the Psalms. The theme of that particular issue was the role of sorrow in the Christian life and contra contemporary happy-clappy praise music, Bono's article on psalms of lament nailed the truth square on the head. This guy gets it. And frankly, anyone who can get himself published in both Rolling Stone and Modern Reformation must be AWESOME. George W. Bush is someone I'd like to have a beer with (though he doesn't drink) and Bono is someone I'd drink a Guiness with and smoke clove cigarettes.

Every once in a while you hear rumors of Bono's Christian faith, but his many charitable works notwithstanding, I hadn't seen a lot of evidence for this myself. Until today, ten minutes ago, in fact. Jeffrey Overstreet's Blog, Looking Closer Journal, has a terrific excerpt from a newish book of published interviews with the Irish songster. The book is called Bono in Conversation and I've just added it to my already freakishly long must-read list.

I don't vouch for Bono's orthodoxy regarding every article of Christian doctrine. But go to Overstreets blog (HERE) and tell me that Bono's defense of the gospel is not clear, articulate and persuasive. Absolutely fabulous. He and Mel Gibson need to do lunch and I'd give my right pinky to be a fly on that wall.

Sphere: Related Content

Father John Parker of Holy Ascension Orthodox Church (OCA) was recently asked to give a benediction at the graduation of the Medical University of South Carolina. But when the school officials found out that Fr. Parker was planning to say a Christian prayer (gasp!), they un-invited him, ironically, in the name of tolerance. Read more here.

Imagine the arrogance it takes to ask a Christian cleric to pray while insisting that he make no mention of his God. There is no generic god. The only God that exists is the Holy Trinity, confessed by Father Parker. To ask him to pray without mentioning Jesus or the Trinity would be asking him to break the First Commandment.

Fr. Parker says it best, "Slowly, like the proverbial frog in the kettle, we are being taught that it is the pinnacle of erudition and public good to believe anything, but it is indeed the nadir, not to mention simply dangerous and offensive, to believe something."

Sphere: Related Content

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

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

Sphere: Related Content

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

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

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

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

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

Sphere: Related Content

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

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

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

Sphere: Related Content

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.

Sphere: Related Content

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.

Sphere: Related Content