The Burr in the Burgh

Real Sex: The Naked Truth about Chastity. That's the name of the latest book by Lauren Winner who also wrote the memoir entitled: Girl Meets God: A Memoir. Ms. Winner was the first plenary speaker for our conference on love and marriage. I have to admit that I was quite impressed. I have not read any of her works, but I figured she would be very articulate. I was impressed by her analysis of the currents of our culture.

The title of her paper was "Allowing Sex to Be Ordinary." She observed that the sexual revolution has not only impacted our views on non-marital sex but also on marital sex. She challenged us to answer "what is good sex?"

Those who engage in non-marital sexual relations refer to it as exciting. It is a thrill precisely because it is illicit and unpredictable. In other words, the excitement is derived from its inherent instability.

On the other hand, married sex is often decried as dull and ordinary. Ms. Winner states that the difference btwn marital and non-marital sex is . . . excitement. And she argues that we Christians capitulate to the currents of our world when we believe that marital sex is only good when it more closely resembles non-marital sex. So all sorts of advice is given to "spice up" our bedrooms, going from embarrasing to bizarre.

But allowing sex to be ordinary is the more counter-cultural approach. Marital sex is good because it is comforting, familiar, clumsy and a natural part of domestic life.

Anyhoo, I thought she made some provocative points and now intend to read her book.

Sphere: Related Content

Sphere: Related Content

I'm currently reading A Man in Full by Tom Wolfe and enjoying it very much. In one spot, the observation is made that some people are planners and others are doers. Life can be compared to a shooting match.

In a shooting match, your motto ought to be: Ready, Aim, Fire.

For many of us, it ends up being either: Ready, Fire, Aim or Ready, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim...

Are you the type of person who acts without thinking? You shoot before you aim? Or are the type of person who thinks and considers, then re-thinks and re-considers, and then thinks some more before making a move, possibly never even getting around the "fire" stage?

Sphere: Related Content

There is now hard scientific evidence that celebrities are narcissistic. Really?! See here. I think I also read about a new controversial study which has discovered that water is wet and another one that heat is hot.

An interesting sub-point of this study reveals that professional musicians - arguably the most highly skilled category of celebrities - are the least self-absorbed. And women from reality shows - the least talented - are the most self-absorbed.

"I was sort of amazed by this study," said narcissism expert W. Keith Campbell, associate professor of psychology at the University of Georgia.

Really?! I'm not a "narcissism expert" but I found nothing amazing about this at all.

Interestingly, the experts make a distinction between narcissism and egotism. Narcissists, they say, actually hate themselves and they are compensating. Egotists genuinely do believe they're the best since sliced bread.

Martin Luther identified man's problem as being "curved in on himself." One modern theologian said man is radically self-centered. How does that jibe with the report that so many suffer from self-loathing? That's easy to answer. The opposite of pride is not self-hatred. The opposite of egotism is not narcissism. In fact, self-hatred is really just another form of self-worship because it all centers on the self.

Sinful pride is when one loves oneself above all things. And everyone is guilty of that, even if they loathe everything about themselves. Humility, on the other hand, is not self-deprecation. Humility means to not think of oneself at all.

Sphere: Related Content

When I departed from my con-
gregation in Pittsburgh, people said they hoped I'd still have occasion to preach. I will, but for now I am enjoying hearing good preaching for myself.

I have often thought about what are the necessary ingredients for good and effective preaching. Most fundamental, of course, is that the message remain Christ-centered; properly distinguishing law and gospel; highlighting the cross, forgiveness and justification; sacramental; ecclesial; and eschatological.

That having been said, the most orthodox preaching in the world helps no one if it is not heard. And hearing means more than simply that the sound waves vibrate the eardrums. Hearing includes understanding. Or as Jesus would say, you can have ears and still not hear or eyes and still not see.

In the post below, I mention two outstanding sermons that I heard today. What made them outstanding? A number of things. But one thing that stands out is that they were clear. It seems to me that what taints much of the Lutheran preaching I have heard is that it lacks clarity.

To me, this is the most difficult part of sermon preparation. I can write textual and orthodox sermons. That is relatively easy. What is less easy - at least to me - is to compose text for the ear instead of for the eye. Writing for the ear is a different skill than writing for the eye. When you are reading a page, you can go at your own pace. You can pause to think. You can re-read complicated sentences. But when you listen to oral exposition, you do not have those luxuries. We preachers need to keep that in mind. Preachers can have quite varying styles and still remain effective communicators. But however you do it, people need to be able to leave the building and know what they've just heard. It troubles me when a person listens, truly sits and listens to a sermon, but can't tell you much about it one hour later.

Part of the responsibility falls to the person in the pew, of course. Get enough sleep on Saturday night. Don't come to church expecting to be entertained. Pray for the ability to receive and understand God's Word. And be an active listener. Take notes, if it helps. I often do.

But preachers can't content themselves with writing orthodox manuscripts, though that is certainly essential. I'm not advocating that we water down the message. I'm not saying you have to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator. I am saying that people today have more difficulty following oral presentation than they did a hundred years ago and so we generally perform a dis-service from the pulpit when we write like Victorians. Oh, that's not always the case. Congregations differ widely. And what you may be able to pull off quite well, may flop for me. And vice-versa.

I have heard and read sermons that used humor effectively and others that belittled the gospel with flippancy. No man should enter a pulpit unless he does so with fear and trembling. Sometimes illustrations do help to make a point. Other times, the preacher merely uses the biblical text as a pretext. The tail wags the dog. And the illustration becomes a point of its own. Cliche and trite expressions deaden the mind. Avoid them like the plague (wink).

A sermon that speaks should have meaty content, but should resonate with the average person. Don't be a clown, but watch out for the dreaded "pulpit tone." Be dignified but not hifalutin.

Sphere: Related Content

I heard two outstanding sermons today from two different preachers.

• This morning at Redeemer, Pastor Petersen offered a homily on Luke 10:25ff. Jesus said to love our neighbors as ourselves and the man asked, "who is my neighbor?" Pr. Petersen reminded us that everyone is our neighbor. No loopholes and no exceptions. Everyone is Jesus' neighbor and He loves us as He loves Himself.

• Then later today, President Wenthe preached at the opening service at which I was also installed. In his sermon, he talked about having perspective. Depending on one's perspective, a thing can be either a blessing or a disappointment. Then he emphasized that a Christian gets his perspective from God's house. What is the lens through which to correctly view God, ourselves and the world? Preaching and Sacrament.

Sphere: Related Content

16 year old Keisha Castle-Hughes (Whale Rider) plays the mother of God in the upcoming film due out in December 06. It's called The Nativity Story. Originally the title was going to just be Nativity. I wonder why the name change.

Readers of this blog know that I am a fan of the Anne Rice novel, Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt. Variety is reporting that Ms. Rice has sold the movie rights to her book. See here.

Sphere: Related Content

When I was a pastor in Pittsburgh, lots of people in the community called me "father." Pittsburgh is a heavily Roman Catholic area. I never stopped anyone or "corrected" them for this. Although addressing a Lutheran pastor as "father" is uncommon in the US, there is nothing wrong with it.

If someone asked me how I wish to be referred to, I'd say, "Call me Pastor or Pastor Stiegemeyer. Just don't call me late for supper."

When I introduce myself, I always just give my name and position. "Hi. I'm Scott Stiegemeyer, the pastor at such-and-so" or "I'm Scott Stiegemeyer, the Director of Admissions." I seldom use the word reverend of myself. Though I always refer to other clergy that way.

Sometimes, people would call me "Pastor Scott." Again, I think that's simply because of it being common in Roman Catholicism.

Occasionally people skip the titles altogether and just called me by my first name. I really never had this happen much. It seems to me that a pastor should not insist on respect or the use of honorifics for himself. Jesus never told anyone, "That's Reverend Jesus to you."

I consider myself fairly traditional. I am generally unhappy with the decline of manners in our society. And I certainly believe the pastoral office should be honored. But while I will make a fuss over respecting my fellow clergy, it is unseemly for a pastor to demand respect for himself.

Sphere: Related Content

So here is a case in England of a woman who has been diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state, similar to Terri Schiavo. New tests now show that this british patient has more mental awareness than her doctors had thought. The article states:

Lead researcher Dr Adrian Owen said: "These are startling results. They confirm that, despite the diagnosis of a vegetative state, this patient retained the ability to understand spoken commands and to respond to them through her brain activity."

I can't say how or if these findings relate to the Schiavo case. But it does demonstrate that doctors do not always know what they are talking about. They are constantly learning new things and daily updating and revising their findings. Which is why so many of us who believe that all human life is to be valued wanted to protect Mrs. Schiavo from her husband's desire to starve her to death.

Sphere: Related Content

At a meeting on Tuesday, President Wenthe led a devotion on Psalm 1. The english translates v.2 this way:

But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.

The word for "law" there, of course, is torah. The point Dr. Wenthe made is that the Hebrew word torah, though usually rendered as "law," can also refer to gospel.

What do I mean by law and gospel? Both are God's word but they do different things to me. The law kills and the gospel gives life. The law accuses and the gospel pardons. It is impossible for my sinful heart to delight in being accused and killed by the law. But the new me in Christ can delight in the law as the necessary prelude to the gospel which justifies me and regenerates me.

But I want to shine the spotlight on the word "delights." The message of Christ is delightful. Being a child of God is delightful. It is a delight to follow Christ. It is a delight to hear his words. It is a delight to reside in his church. And it is a delight to serve others in his name.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm all for gloom, despair and agony. They're actually my personal specialty. Left alone, I'd be the sourest, meanest, angriest, most self-pitying, most introverted cuss in the world. But "delight?" That has to come from outside myself.

Organic pathologies aside, it just seems to me that the more we get the idea that we are clean in Christ and in God's good favor, the delight would bust our seams.

Sphere: Related Content

Are you the next Jackson Pollock? Find out by going here. Change colors by clicking your mouse and hit refresh for a clean slate.

Sphere: Related Content

So is Bob Dylan recovering his Jewish identity? Looks like a hasidic hat.

Sphere: Related Content

In the previous blog post, a reader commented that the seminary should not call the qualified but qualify the called. Initially, I think his point was that we should remember that pastors (and pastors-to-be) are sinners too. I'm a pastor, and I am all too dreadfully aware of my own inadequacies and wickedness.

But if I may, I would like to address what I believe to be a common misunderstanding. It has to do with the notion of being called by God. I would disagree with my reader. The seminary recruitment office does not go looking for men who are called whom we will then train. Instead, we look for men who have certain qualities and aptitudes who will then receive a call. My reader is putting the cart before the horse. The tail is wagging the dog.

Who is called by God? If you tell me that you are called by God to be a pastor, my first question is: "How do you know?" How do you know you are called by God and it's not a figment of your own mind or a deception of the devil?

There are only two ways a man could be called by God. Either directly or through means. Either the church has selected, layed hands upon and sent you or you have been selected and sent directly by God without mediation. Those are the only two possibilities. Usually, God calls men through the church. He certainly can and has called men directly. But if you have a direct call from God, you ought to be able to demonstrate this with signs and wonders.

There is no such thing as an inner call to the ministry. The scriptures never speak of such a thing. You might have an inclination to be a pastor. You might be uniquely talented for the ministry. You might have a desire to serve. And this inclination, talent and desire might come from God. But that is not a call.

So no, we do not qualify the called. We call the qualified.

Sphere: Related Content

As the new Director of Admission at CTS-FW, I've been thinking a lot lately about recruiting students to study at the seminary. I've been particularly considering the dual need for both excellent and well-qualified students AND the need to recruit a greater number of students.

It is good for the institution to increase enrollment. Putting it very crassly, larger enrollment translates to more money. No one here is getting rich but more money translates into being able to improve and expand the seminary programs. It means a growing endowment and, hopefully, an ever brighter and solid future.

More than that - and this is the real reason I think of numbers - an increase in enrollment is good for the church. It means more men trained and certified for ordination. It means more preachers to further the divine mission of the church which is to make disciples of all nations.

On the other side, however, the church is very discerning about whom it ordains for pastoral ministry. The biblical requirements are very clear. He must be above reproach, apt to teach, have a stable family life, etc. The requirements for admission to the seminary are, in some ways, more stringent than the most elite Ivy League campus. Can we afford to be so selective? We can't afford not to be.

As I was reading some articles on the Office of the Ministry, I stumbled across this quote from Joseph Stump:

It is the duty of the Church carefully to select and train men for the holy office of the ministry, and she should not set men apart for it without due consideration of their physical, mental and spiritual qualifications. She is to lay hands suddenly on no man (1 Tim. 5:22), but is to see to it that only those are admitted to the office who have the requisite natural gifts, common sense, and Christian faith and piety; and who have received the necessary academic and theological training. Ordinarily this training ought to include a full course in college or university and in a theological seminary. Few exceptions, and those only for the best of reasons, should be made. The demand for quality in the ministry to-day is very great. The Lord not only needs men for the ministry, but He needs gifted and well-trained men. (Joseph Stump)

Sphere: Related Content

One of my favorite movies of the last ten years is Memento starring Guy Pearce. Like a lot of movies that appeal to me, it is kind of depressing. I like movies the same way I like coffee, chocolate, and beer: dark and bitter. But it is very thought-provoking and brilliantly constructed.

The premise of the film is that Guy Pearce has a strange malady where he cannot form any new memories. He knows how to read and drive and so forth, but about every 15 minutes his brain resets. So if he excuses himself during lunch to go to the men's room, he'll completely forget who he was eating with and why by the time he comes back out.

He also happens to be stuck in the middle of a murder mystery. So the only way he can function and pull himself out of his mess is by writing little memos all over his body to remind him who is friend and who is foe. It's really excellent.

Yesterday, I heard President Wenthe make an interesting connection. He mentioned this film and compared it to the situation of many contemporary Christians. He said that people who have no memory, lose their identity.

One of the most important things we can do to resist the Enemy's strategems is to remain knowledgeable of our history as the people of God. It's not just that when we forget the past, we are destined to repeat it, although I think that's true enough. It's that God is unfolding the salvation of His people through space and time. We really do stand on the shoulders of giants. We can see so much farther when we stand firmly on the great fathers and doctors of the faith than when we insist on idolizing the now. Many folks today think that if it's newer, it must be truer. Once upon a time, people looked to the aged for wisdom. Now many think the aged have nothing worthwhile to offer and that the youth have the answers.

Sphere: Related Content

The Da Vinci Code if it were written a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.... See here.

Sphere: Related Content

One of my favorite Shakespeare tragedies is Othello. I thought the movie version a few years ago with Kenneth Branagh and Laurence Fishburne was awesome. But one of the major weaknesses of the play, in my opinion, is the character Iago. He is a classic villain. A delicious role for any actor, I'm sure. But the problem, as I see it, is that he is too evil. It's unrealistic. No one is that bad. He has no redeemable characteristics at all. They say that even Hitler loved children and dogs.

OK, that's a weird preface for me to talk about the newest Oliver Stone picture, World Trade Center. I say this because I am a person who hates Oliver Stone's previous movies. I loathe and despise them for their anti-Americanism and bizarro attempts to revise history. And so, my natural reaction when I found out he was making a movie about 9/11 was "Oh, good grief! This'll be aweful." Another screeching Bush-is-the-source-of-all-evil bit of leftist propaganda. How boring. How unimaginative.

That was how I felt until I started reading the reviews. I still have not yet actually seen the film. This short review by James M. Kushiner at Touchstone is interesting. It's brief so, if this interests you at all, please read the link. What intrigues me most is the suggestive religious themes -even Christian themes- Kushiner refers to.

I'm still unhappy with Stone's other movies but maybe I Iago-ized him in my mind. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Sphere: Related Content

Hi. Our seminary campus is hosting a campus visit for prospective students in Sept. I just wrote a letter for the website which you can read here.

Sphere: Related Content

Based on the responses I've gotten both on this blog and via e-mail, I do not intend to change the name of my blog even though I no longer live in Pittsburgh. My reasons have to do with branding, recognition, etc. Plus, Rev. McCain made a good point (twice) about indexing on Google. So "The Burr in the Burgh" we shall remain.

However, I was really disappointed not to be able to send that mix CD to anyone. So, for the first person to correctly guess how many fingers I am holding up, I will award a disk with some of my favorite pop tunes.

Sphere: Related Content

Since I am no longer in the "Burgh," a number of people have asked about changing the name of the blog. I have thought I'd just leave it as it is. However, if you have a decent suggestion for a new name, please comment. In fact, I'll take suggestions for the next seven days. If I choose to use one of your suggestions, I will send you - the winner - a personal mix CD of some of my favorite tunes.

Sphere: Related Content