The Burr in the Burgh

In 1948, Alfred Hitchcock directed the unusual thriller Rope starring Jimmy Steward and Farley Granger.

I say "unusual" because it is not typical for Hollywood to include drawn out philosophical reflections in its productions.

Entirely played out in two rooms of a single apartment, the opening scene shows two men at the final moments of strangling a third man to death.

Brandon and Philip are the two spoiled urbane collegians who are playing a game, performing an experiment, and, I suppose, attempting to realize their destiny.

Jimmy Stewart plays a former professor, still much admired by the boys for his unorthodox views.

Essentially, the drama revolves around Brandon's and Philip's avant garde ethical viewpoint. Patterned after the famous case of Leopold and Loeb, the two young men set out to commit the "perfect" murder just because they could. But they could not. And did not. They were caught.

I don't quite know enough about Friedrich Nietzsche to be the judge, but the film's two protagonists - especially Brandon - purport to embody the German philosopher's idea of the ubermensch.

To be plain, Nietzsche believed that traditional Christian morality was generally demeaning to man. Since "God is dead", (as he would say), why should men bridle their instincts, denying themselves terrific pleasure and reward to assuage a fictional deity?

For Nietzsche, might makes right. The one who has the power to enforce his will upon others is the best one. He spoke of the "superman" who would not grovel or cater to the heavenlies but who would assert himself.

Brandon certainly understood himself as the ubermensch. In his mind, murdering a cohort whom he considered an inferior was justified. Sort of a variation on Darwin's natural selection.

Ideas do have consequence.

cf. Rope: Nietzsche and the Art of Murder; Hitchcock and Philosophy (Popular Culture and Philosophy)

Erin Bode is a young woman who looks like Michelle Pfeiffer and sings like Nora Jones. She has also recently partnered with the Lutheran Church (MS) World Relief to assist poor girls in South Africa. Go here to see what I mean. You will like it. And purchase the CD. Do it because the music is terrific. Do it because the proceeds assist these young people in such need.

There has been a lot of press recently about a statement from the Bishop of Rome about how people are saved. First of all, I think it's important to note that Benedict XVI has said nothing new here. I continue to be amazed, frankly, that there are so many people who are surprised when the pope teaches Roman Catholic doctrine. Oh, and I just learned that the Dalai Lama thinks like a Buddhist too!

Regardless of what you've heard, the pope did not say that all non-Catholics are going to hell. What he said, as I understand it, is that Lutherans and Protestants are not the church, properly understood.

I disagree, of course. Who is the Church? Where is it to be found? Lutherans believe that the Church is the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are administered according to the Gospel. (Augsburg Confession Article VII).

I agree with the pope that there is only one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Our Lord did not establish multiple entities to represent Him, nor are there multiple paths to enlightenment. There is only one true church.

I will go further. Outside of the church, it is not possible to be saved. I don't accept the notion of "anonymous Christians" which some Roman theologians have posited. That is the idea that people of non-Christian belief systems might be saved by Christ even if they don't know his name or confess Him as Lord.

So to be saved, one must be in the Church of Jesus Christ. I simply do not equate the Church of Jesus Christ with any single existing institutional denomination.

A major part of the problem is the pope's misunderstanding of apostolic succession. The Apostle's Creed refers to the church as apostolic. That is to say that it is built upon the foundation of the apostles (and prophets) with Jesus Christ as the cornerstone. But in what sense is the church apostolic? Is the important thing that one can demonstrate a physical laying on of hands from one to the next for eons? Rather, isn't it the man who teaches the doctrine of the apostles who is their rightful successor whether he is in the physical lineage or not?

Consider what Jesus says in John 8 about who are the true sons of Abraham. In opposition to the pharisees, Jesus said that the sons of Abraham are those who hold the faith of Abraham, not simply those biologically descended from his loins.

I went with a couple of chums last night to a late showing of 1408, the current film based on a story by Stephen King. It starred John Cusack, one of my all-time favorite actors.

I really appreciate a well-written ghost story. This one was better than average but not stellar. A good ghost story always begs these two questions:

- Is there life beyond death?
- Is there a God and does He love or hate us?

I liked 1408 not only because it was a moderately scary flick, but because it did grapple with those two questions pretty effectively. Of course, most ghost stories fall very short of giving complete and correct answers but in an aggressively atheistic and materialistic cultural context, the questions themselves may represent progress.

Yesterday, I finished reading A Father's Story by the father of serial murderer Jeffrey Dahmer, Lionel Dahmer. I found it enlightening. Parents look at their children and hope for the best for their future. To what extent, if any, should responsibility (blame?) fall to the parents for the crimes of the children? One of the things that I found most interesting in Mr. Dahmer's book is the degree to which it was an examination of himself. The apple never falls too far from the tree. Not to say that Mr. Lionel Dahmer ever committed the particular atrocities of his son. But the author reveals that his own quirks, failings, weaknesses and flaws are present in seed form in his son. As he put it (I may not have the quote exact), he put his hand on the handle of the door to the room which Jeffrey entered.

Was Jeffrey genetically predisposed to become a murderer? From his father's account, I'd say most likely. But that's not such a stretch really. I think everyone is capable, under certain circumstances, to commit murder. Are our genes our destiny? I'm not saying that. Yet just as some people are naturally more sensitive, others "naturally" lack empathy.

What Jeffrey did, however, goes well beyond merely killing human beings. Perhaps his perversions defy explanation. One of the rationalizations that I find objectionable is when people label such people "monsters." Jeffrey Dahmer was no monster. He was a man. A man who felt, willed, loved, and performed monstrous things. Is there a qualitative difference between Jeffrey Dahmer and you? Certainly a difference in degree, but in quality? Have you never hated another or wished someone dead? Have you never treated people like they are your possessions? Have you never - in pain or anger or sorrow - tortured the innocents? By your words? Your actions or inactions? Ah. Maybe we have all grasped the handle to the door of the room Jeffrey entered.

Now I'm reading a brilliant text by Mikal Gilmore, brother of killer Gary Gilmore, called Shot in the Heart. Mikal is a writer by profession and what a skillfully woven narrative he offers! Whereas Mr. Dahmer focused upon the genetic conveyance of evil (if you will), Mikal Gilmore seems to be looking at the entrenched patterns of violence in family systems. He looks much further into his family tree to see how close the apples fall. And this is a guy with a bizarre and terrible tale to tell.

I can never just read one book at a time. Lately I've been reading:

From my interest in movies:

Yesterday, after the church council picnic, I finished The Three Stooges: An Illustrated History, From Amalgamated Morons to American Icons. Loved it. Next I'll take up my biography of Laurel and Hardy.

The Kill Bill Diary: The Making of a Tarantino Classic as Seen Through the Eyes of a Screen Legend by David Carradine

Forensic Science of CSI by Katherine Ramsland

The Human Predator: A Historical Chronicle of Serial Murder and Forensic Investigation by Katherine Ramsland

Inside the Minds of Serial Killers: Why They Kill by Katherine Ramsland

A Father's Story by Lionel Dahmer, the father of Jeffrey Dahmer. I just started this yesterday.

The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't

Philemon: A theological Exposition of Sacred Scripture (Concordia Commentary) by Dr. John Nordling, one of our crackerjack New Testament gurus.

Friends, the past two weeks have seen the 9th annual successful Christ Academy for high school men considering the pastoral ministry. It's been a crazy busy two weeks.

Why would actress Cameron Diaz want a handbag emblazoned with Maoist slogans? This is fashion? And then to insensitively wear it while touring Peru, a land where Maoist ideologues murdered tens of thousands. Why not just wear a "Go Hitler!" sweatshirt in Jerusalem or a "Pol Pot Is My Homeboy" baseball cap in Cambodia? Even if Diaz was truly clueless, her handlers should have caught this.... No, wearing a Mao Zedong handbag is just evil.

A man named Scott Diekmann contacted me today to inform me of his group's website called Sound Witness. I haven't had the chance to look at their material yet, so please don't assume I agree with every jot and tittle. However, just from my quick glance, it looks to me like these guys have something helpful to offer. I encourage you to take a look at their material. I'm particularly interesting in the article on the emerging church movement.

I've enjoyed Peggy Noonan's political writing for a long time. Here is her analysis of The Sopranos.

Like many Americans watching television on Sunday night at around 10 p.m., I yelled, "What?! What happened?!" At first, I thought my TV fritzed out on me. But a split second later it hit me and then waves of disappointment washed over me.

There is an internet debate over whether David Chase is brilliant or took the coward's way out. I think Chase is a brilliant coward. I can't blame him, but I will never forgive him. What a lousy stunt!? But still, it makes perfect sense.

Like many others, I am sad to say goodbye to America's most likable sociopath. For a series that was known both for its subtlety and its coarseness, perhaps the best end is no ending at all. The very last sound were these words to a Journey power ballad: "Don't stop." And then it stopped. All too abruptly.

Did it stop or didn't it? We'll never know. There were indications that something was about to happen. And then nothing did. But isn't that how life is? Are all the plot strings in your life tightly knotted at the end?

The episode made the point that life is like sitting in a rocking chair. It's a lot of work, but you don't go anywhere. After all the gore, bodily and emotional, we're right where we started. Tony goes right back to episode 1, season 1 with A.J.'s therapist. And just as the first season ended with a family meal, so the finale. Like men lost in the woods, we tend to go in circles. Has any progress been made?

The Sopranos gave us insight into the meaning of life. No, really. I mean that. When the other FBI agent told Agent Harris about Phil Leotardo's demise, Harris smacked the table with glee saying, "We're gonna win this thing." We're disgusted that he responded to the murder of a human being as if his favorite team just scored in a close championship match. Life is no game. But which fan of the show did not have the exact same reaction internally? Just like Harris caught himself, we have to ask, "why do I like this stuff?" What does that say about me?

The biggest question on everyone's mind was who will get whacked in the end? Will Tony finally get his due? The foreshadowing intentionally misled us. Bobby in the boat with Tony opined that you never see it coming when the bullet with your name on it comes knocking. Maybe, he said, it just all goes black. So isn't the conclusion obvious to you now? Chase didn't whack Tony. Whether he knows it or not, he whacked us.

David Klinghoffer clarifies the Iowa State University flap over denying tenure to highly accomplished astronomer, Guillermo Gonzalez, because he harbors unpopular views in this Daily Standard article. It seems that every outrageous theory is defensible in today's academia as long as you don't ever imply a supreme intelligence behind the origin of the planet.

Anyone care to opine about the... uh... unexpected ending to television's most talked about series? Join the blog-versation. Leave your comments. I'll chime in later. Spoilers allowed.

The Scriptures teach: "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22)." I couldn't help but notice the significance of blood in the temple ritual of the Mayans in the movie Apocalypto. One telling scene has a warrior returning with captives to be sacrificed at the temple. The priest stops him before he sets foot on the most holy place. And the warrior, understanding the problem, cuts his hand with a knife and sprinkles his blood upon the stones before taking a step. I can't say whether the Gibson film accurately represents the theology of ancient Mayan religion, but I am fascinated that so many pagan belief systems understand the principle of cleansing with blood.

Very cool interactive picture here.

Our little buddy was confirmed at Redeemer a couple of weeks ago. I was grateful that Pastor Petersen allowed me to participate as we blessed those little rascals.

The rite of Confirmation is kind of a slippery thing in Lutheran practice. We don't recognize it as a divinely instituted thing but a human tradition that has merit.

Lutherans are not uniform in how we practice confirmation or even in its purpose. Many American Lutherans treat confirmation as a pre-requisite for receiving the Holy Communion. The most common age for confirmation is after 8th grade. Others do early communion and still confirm at age 13 or 14.

The rite itself is not the main thing either. The heart of it is the time spent (often 2 years) in instruction. Many churches still use Martin Luther's Small Catechism as the basic text other than Holy Scripture. The rite is a blessing but is most significant in that it leads to their first communion (the highest blessing).

I like the way our congregation does it. As both a pastor and a parent, I strongly prefer earlier communion. I cannot justify making our young people wait until they are 14 years old before allowing them to receive the benefits of Christ's Supper.

I agree with the notion that a person should receive basic instruction in the Christian faith before being admitted to the altar. But waiting until a child is a teenager, arguably the most difficult period of their young lives and the time when they are most likely to rebel and question their faith, before giving them the Body and Blood of Christ seems strange.

Tomorrow (June 1), seminarian Jason Braaten will become the Reverend Jason Braaten. Jason is the latest addition to our Seminary Admission staff.

We had a bit of a surprise luncheon for him in the office. Thanks to all who helped.

He'll try to tell you that the pink feather boa is mine, but don't you believe it.

The second picture is of our Admission Officers. Going left to right, there is me, Jason, Martin Luther, Phil Zielinski, Tom Zimmerman and John Dreyer (the eligible bachelor among us). Not pictured are the ladies. Why didn't we get a shot of them? Pat Painter, Marsha Zimmerman and Cheri Shoemaker. Also not pictured are the three student workers: Brian German, Tony Oliphant, and Tim Storck.

I direct you to a fascinating review of The Lives of Others by Barbara Nicolosi. She makes an interesting argument for why Hollywood has made so many movies about the Nazi atrocities but so few about the appalling stories of the Soviets or modern communists in Cuba, China or North Korea.

I just added The Lives of Others to my Blockbuster Online list.

In my last post, I recommended Apocalypto, while warning that it is not for the squeamish. It's a great film and I firmly believe, as I said, that if this had been directed by anyone besides Mel Gibson, it would have been hailed as a masterpiece by Hollywood elites and critics alike.

It is simply a gorgeous movie. It's a feast for the eyes. The story is simple but very effectively told. Since the whole movie is in the Yucatec language, Gibson keeps the dialogue to a minimum. It takes special skill to tell a story without having character dialog or narration to explain things. They say a story-teller should "show" and not "tell." Gibson is the master at that. And to truly appreciate the complexity of the story, you must watch the movie at least twice. The subtleties of the story arc were much more appreciated by me the second time.

Certainly one of the reasons that the politically correct thought police disliked Apocalypto is that it is unabashedly pro-colonial. While the Europeans have very little screen time, they are arguably the most important characters in the film. The Spaniards bringing Christianity to the shores of paganism truly are the deus ex machina. The Mayans are portrayed as a society destroying itself, curved inward, unable to suppress the corruption from within. Just when hope is lost, the saviors arrive. This makes every new beginning possible.

In spite of their many scientific and cultural accomplishments, the ancient Mayans were brutal and savage to an extreme. I'm not saying that classic European society was violence-free, but the values and worldview of Christianity shaped Western culture to make it the great and wonderful phenomena it has been, extolling liberty, justice, knowledge, beauty and faith - in short, the peak of civilization.

But what about the much ballyhooed degree of violence? The gore-hounds surely will not be disappointed. People do get hurt and people do die. And it doesn't always happen off-screen. And it is seldom pretty. So for a society that prefers to paint our dead to appear alive and hire strangers to wash and dress our deceased for us, this will shock. But I don't see how Gibson could have shown the peril of the characters' world without revealing injury and death convincingly.

I finally watched Mel Gibson's Apocalypto last night. I'd easily give it 5 stars out of 5. It's an excellent film, though not for the squeamish.

The reviews had made such a big deal out of the violence and gore that I was reticent to see it. But I'm convinced that the movie reviewers who criticized it for that reason either don't see very many movies or still want to grind an ax against Gibson for his Jesus movie. It's not that intense, not compared to others that get critical raves.

Actually, the violence it contains seemed anything but exploitive. I'd say it was necessary to the narrative.

Apocalypto is simply the work of a cinematic genius. The story is powerful, the characters intriguing, and the action is non-stop. Very exciting. Also very beautiful. Gibson captures the sights, sounds, smells and tastes of humanity at a basic level.

If you want to learn something, if you want to feel excitement, if you want to dip your toe into an alien world while sitting safely in your pajamas, rent Apocalypto tonight.

The critics were mixed in their evaluations. Many of them overflowed with praise. Others claimed to be repulsed. I think this reviewer is correct in saying that if any other director had made this movie, the others would be tripping over themselves to honor it. But because Mel Gibson made a powerful film about Jesus (the most offensive man who ever lived), they can't tolerate anything he does.