The Burr in the Burgh

Higher Things 2007
Text: Matthew 28:1-8 (Eastertide theme)

Your sins tangle you in the web of death. You think you can get away with it, but you cannot. You think no one will know, but God sees everything. You have convinced yourself that it’s not that big a deal to look at pornography. You think it’s OK to mock the weirdoes at school. You love buying clothes at the mall more than you love receiving the Eucharist at church.

Sin is like tar. Once you get a spot on your hands, there is nothing you can do to wipe it off. In fact, the more you try to wipe it off, the more you’re going to just spread it around all over yourself. You cannot justify yourselves before God. All of your acts of piety, your good deeds and your sweetness are not enough to make you right with God. And the more you attempt to please God and hide your sin, the dirtier and filthier you will become.

Sin is like manure on a baloney sandwich. It doesn’t matter if you just have a little teensy piece of dog manure on the bread. The whole thing is ruined. You can’t eat that thing because the whole thing is contaminated.

So often we try to appease our consciences by comparing ourselves to other human beings. Well, my sins are small compared to that guy! The problem is that when judging you, God does not compare you to that guy. He compares you to His Son. And by that standard, we all fall short.

When it come right down to it, you’re a mess. And so am I. But it’s worse that we tend to want to believe. Like the knight in The Quest for the Holy Grail, we are spouting a fountain of blood and try to make light of it saying, “It’s only a flesh wound.”

Your problem is not that you are sick It’s not that you are weak. It’s not that you are out-of-harmony with the universe. It’s not that there’s a tiny speck of manure on your sandwich. The problem is that you are contaminated. The problem is that all of us are out favor with God on account of our sinfulness. All of us are spiritually dead without Jesus Christ.

A really big problem calls for a really big solution. People that fail to understand the seriousness of their sin also fail to realize the seriousness of God’s love. Our savior is not small. He is not weak. He is not trivial. He is not one hour of your week. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. He is the beginner and finisher of our salvation.

The most important thing in life is not your shoes, your hair, your grades, your pimples, your sex appeal or the plastic golden trophies on your shelf. The most important thing is that you, sinner, have been baptized into Jesus Christ. And in that baptism, God Almighty bestowed on you all the blessing and benefits of the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

On the cross, the Father heaped all of the manure of your sin, all of your secrets and all of your hidden faults and piled on the head or His Son, so that on the cross, God looked at Jesus and said, “You disgust me. You repulse me. You nauseate me. I hate you.” And the sky went dark and the earth shook and the curtain in the Temple tore from top to bottom. And the only truly good man who ever lived bowed his head and died.

Probably all of you have been to the funeral of someone you knew, at least once or twice. In most modern cemeteries, people put big heavy granite or marble headstones on top of the graves. They are called headstones. Did you ever wonder why they do that?

We think of these probably as just a way for us to mark the spot or a way to remember the deceased. Some historians think, however, that the practice of placing heavy marble or granite stones over the head of the dead person dates back to pagan origins when people were afraid of ghosts. They thought that placing a big rock at the head of the grave would pin the spirit of the dead person in his grave so he would follow them home and haunt them.

But I am here to tell you today that no one on heaven or earth, no angels or demons, no man or woman, no authority, power or dominion will be able to keep you pinned in your graves at the Day of Lord’s return. There will come a day, sooner or maybe later, but it will come when our dear Lord Jesus Christ will reappear in glory surrounded by angels and He will speak your name. And at that moment, if you are in the grave at the time, your body will be restored to life and you will rise again. Not green and maggot ridden like a Hollywood zombie with bits of flesh hanging down in quivering strips. But fully restored and more than that. You will be glorified.

So, to hell with the devil and his accusations!! He has no claim on you. You have been baptized into Jesus Christ. The very life of God is pulsating in your veins and corpuscles transforming you into the magnificent creature God the Creator intend you to be.

I have no particular wish to die, but I look forward to the day of my resurrection, the day when my baptism will be fulfilled. But until that hour, fix your hopes on Jesus Christ. Don’t let the devil fool you into thinking you are worthless. Because of all that Jesus has accomplished, you are precious in God’s sight. He will not treat you as your sins deserve. Left to yourself, your life is like manure on a baloney sandwich, contaminated through and through. But in Jesus Christ, you are pure gold – no, more than that, you are the sons of God. In Jesus’ name. Amen.

In certain circles (namely, the circles in which I circulate) the theological discipline of apologetics often gets a bad rap. Some belittle the whole apologetic enterprise saying, "you can't argue someone into faith." Thus many confessional Lutherans ignore apologetics and the field is over-run by modern Evangelicals (Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, etc.) We Lutherans have some hearty influence in the field, however, namely John Warwick Montgomery and Paul Maier, but these are few and far between.

If apologetics is the enterprise of forming systematic arguments to defend one's beliefs, then confessional Lutherans do this all the time - only they do to it towards fellow Lutherans and other Christians. Polemics has a noble and oft-abused history in the Christian family.

There is a screaming need for intelligent Lutheran Christians to apply themselves anew to the enterprise of apologetics towards non-Christians. We need to overcome our allergy to human reason and construct cogent arguments to defend our teachings against objections. Yes, Luther once called reason a whore because he was reacting against the excesses of Scholastic medieval writers. But he also acknowledged that reason can serve theology when enlightened by the Spirit (cf. Table Talk).

You can't argue someone into the Faith, to be sure. There is a distinction between apologetics and proclamation. For many, the one must precede the other. I agree that it is dangerous sin to make reason a master over divine revelation. But what about the many areas of conversation that are located just outside the perimeter of divine revelation? And that support the claims of the Church?

Most faithful pastors do the apologetics I'm talking about nearly every day. That is, if they engage in conversations with unbelievers about God or matters of the spirit.

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.