The Burr in the Burgh

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.