How Do You Sell This One on Ebay?

According to this story, a man claims that sometimes an image of Jesus appears on his truck. You can see the photo here (it is copyrighted, so I cannot post it on this blog), and notice that it looks pretty authentic.
According to the article, this occurs when the driver side window has condensation every morning. I'm confused--I thought it was supposed to be when the dew was on the roses. I wonder how he can make a buck off this on Ebay like the people who sell their toast slices which have Jesus' image cooked in.

Lw&Gspl?

At our staff meeting today, one of the topics brought up was the issue of people texting during worship. No, the pastor is not one of those who encourage congregation members to text questions during the sermon.
I will admit, I don't text message much. Granted, this is because it costs extra on my phone. I did text during a conference--shortly after the "worship" service--only to make a snarky comment, which I'll admit was probably remiss of me.
What, however, drives people to text during church? Is it the inability to abandon one's technology for an hour? Maybe it's a very important aspect of one's job that one must immediately respond to. Maybe it's a highly important conversation about the worship service.
I think I understand. It's a diversion for when the pastor preaches too long and never actually gets around to Jesus' death and resurrection. [I am not pointing fingers here, just making a general observation that some pastors will never pass the Issues, Etc. sermon diagnostic.]
Perhaps it is a substitution for thumbing through the hymnal. Send the pastor a text message instead which reads, "More Jesus, please, and less psychobabble." That might exceed text message length. Maybe it could be shortened to txt spk: PDBL&G. Proper between Law & Gospel.
Maybe we should just go with the same option for texters as for sermon snoozers. Do a David reenactment with a slingshot and some stones.

How Great?

The opening ponderance on God (sometimes it’s called worship, sometimes devotion) is fairly typical at most Lutheran teacher gatherings. Sometimes the style is “blended”, but more often than not it is “contemporary”. Today I was somewhat surprised, as it was “blended” as opposed to the out-and-out contemporary I expected. It was a pastor and a man with a guitar. We first sang a hymn, next we sang a praise song.
After being taught the song, which was singable enough (most praise songs tend to be singable if the leader sings it properly—just don’t try to actually count out the rhythm unless you are really good at counting sixteenth notes and dotted quarter rests), but the words left me with one question: Why?
The refrain was as follows:
How great is our God!
Sing with me how great is our God
And all will see how great
How great is our God.
The text of the song did have some nice, poetic imagery which somewhat echoed the imagery of the Psalms. The last verse, surprisingly, referenced the Father, Spirit, and Son (in that order to get the rhyme scheme correct). What was never there was an explanation.
Nobody ever explained to me during middle school that when one makes an argument, one has to have support. This was a challenge in further writing classes when I made a claim and the teacher would write on my essay, Why? It also became an issue during high school geometry while trying to write proofs. I knew the answer; I just couldn’t explain why. Let’s not even mention the high school philosophy final consisting of that one question: Why?
These days I try to teach my students to give support—solid, strong supports based on facts. So why on earth can praise song writers not be expected to do the same?
If our God is so great and we want to sing so that all can see how great our God is, shouldn’t the song mention more than just a description of God as Father, Spirit, and Son? Even the Psalmists gave reasons for God being great: “It is he that made us, not we ourselves” (Ps 100); “God is our refuge and our strength, a very present help in trouble” (Ps 43). Psalm 23 gives specific examples of how the Lord is our Shepherd.
Studies of self-esteem building show that children who are constantly bombarded with general praise will either have a false, inflated sense of self; or they will stop believing adults when they praise the children. Most authorities encourage specific praise. You did a great job when. . .
So why should songs explaining how great God is be exempt? No, God won’t get an inflated ego or become disillusioned with praise; it’s just that historically Lutheran singing has been used didactically (if that’s even a word).
If you want to tell someone how great God is, be specific. He created the universe by speaking. That’s great! He led the Israelites out of Egypt with signs and wonders. That’s great! He fulfilled the Law and Prophets and still died in our place for our punishment. That’s great (even if it seems weird to the uninitiated)! He gives us His Word and sacraments. That’s great!
If the point one is trying to make is completely missed, then I ask: What’s the point?

Students, Disciples, and Sheep

I disagreed with the spelling book the other day as it wanted discipline as a synonym for punishment. Too often discipline is perceived as nothing more that that. As the vicar pointed out at our faculty Bible study, discipline is based on disciple, which means student; therefore, I think it not a stretch to reason that to have discipline is akin to studiousness
We had listed qualities we teachers most desired in students, and the first one listed was “listens”, closely followed by “follows directions”. Comparing those two most-desired qualities to disciples of Christ was an interesting exercise indeed.
Jesus says in John chapter 10 that the sheep hear the shepherd’s voice and follow him because they know their shepherd’s voice.
How often do students listen? How often do they follow directions? Being a teacher, I know that it’s less than one wants to admit. Too often a student’s listening gets drowned out by clutter—thoughts of what’s for lunch, thoughts of what am I doing here at school, daydreaming, noise and clamor coming from those around a student, whispering from a neighboring desk pulling attention away from the teacher—all of these can keep a student from listening. Following directions, then, is nearly impossible because one has not heard or attended to listening.
So it is in the life of the sheep. The disciple, the follower of Christ, hears the master’s voice, but does not always listen. We, like sheep, have gone astray. Too much clutter—what’s for lunch, what am I doing here in life, daydreaming, noise and clamor from all sides, the whispering pull of seductive idols of all sorts—keep us from listening to Christ. We do not follow the Law, therefore, because we have not heard or attended. The history of God’s people shows this over and over and over again. Adam and Eve were seduced by the sleek serpentine words; the Israelites were won over with a disheartening report of the size of the people of the land and their walls; Kings of Israel and Judah turned from truth to following Asherah and Baals; Pharisees made up their own laws to follow ritualistically instead of God’s Law.
For all this we cry, “Lord, have mercy!” We turn to Christ, our Shepherd, who became the sheep led to slaughter for us. He is the one who listened and followed the Law of His Father, so that his sheep might be spared and be His disciples—studious ones discipling others.

Signs, Signs

And you thought this was going to be about the tornado. . .

Nope, they've done it again. There is a new billboard campaign. From the news story:

"[Pastor] Benke said it's important people understand what's contained in
Christian scripture.
'And then, quite frankly, the church gets that message
wrong, as well,' he said. 'But the Bible teaches there is no sin that isn't
forgivable in Jesus.'
Benke hopes his church's thought-provoking billboards
mark the beginning, not the end, of a conversation about forgiveness."

The billboards offer a website, http://www.whatsforgivable.com/, and the billboard connects to a sermon series starting soon.

At least this time around, the message is scriptural. In Christ, all sins have been paid for.

Here comes the question: will Jefferson Hills get the message right? Will they talk about all having sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? Will they talk about how we are all beggars before God whose only prayer can be, "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner"? Will they address confession and repentence? Will they address the unforgivable sin and adequately discuss it?

I suspect that as good as this sermon series sounds, the point will be lost in the midst of people pondering the billboards and wondering in human terms what is forgivable, and miss the point that we are not the king who forgives the large debt, but we are the slave who finds it difficult to forgive the small debt.

More from the File of Things That Make You Go "Hmm"

What does it say when a parent touring one's school (Lutheran school, mind you) if the school holds to its own teaching or has been sucked in to the ways of the world? This actually occured today. The parent wasn't being mean; this person really wanted to know. The parent then proceeded to offer this explanation for the question. This parent has been looking at Christian schools in which to enroll a child, and one school indicated that they did not celebrate Christmas. This school had been directed by its board to celebrate "winter holidays" aka "ChanuRamaKwanzsMas" so as not to offend the sensitivities of its non-Christian students. Excuse me? I can understand a public school (our motto: thou shalt not offend any but those who need offense--Christians, those of European heritage, and those who support a male-dominated culture) not celebrating Christmas, or at least that holiday of Santa Claus, brown paper packages tied up with string, and the Grinch; but a Christian school?! This seems rather ridiculous. The parent even asked the school what they do for Easter. What next? They won't celebrate Mother's Day so as not to offend those without mothers or those with a mother and a stepmother and a surrogate mother and the girlfriend of the mother because the poor teacher doesn't have time enough in the day for four Mother's Day handprints in clay, let alone one because the teacher has to cover hygiene and safe sex and self-esteem and integrating counting in the early English language (een, tween, treen) to help the children become "the most limited of all specialists, the 'well-rounded' [person]"?
Maybe I've crossed the line over into the absurd. Maybe I'm not the one who has crossed the line. I just can't get beyond this question: if you don't stand for what you believe in, why bother believing at all?

From the File of Things That Make You Go, "Hmm"

Perusing a blog I frequent frequently (Is that redundant?), some of the comments there made me wonder. Why is it that in a world, land, society, fill-in-the-blank where "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" and were nobody is supposed to step on the rights of others, those who assert their opinion contrary to popular opinion are squelched? I guess that's a convoluted way to ask.
What about Sarah Palin? Why is she branded whatever she is because of who she is? Why can anybody get away with it with her and not with, say Sotomayor? To pick on one woman is acceptable, to do the same to another is racist. Same goes for the president. Why is it forbidden to ask the hard questions and not be labeled as racist, narrow-minded, or just "totally out of touch with reality"? Policy is considered separately from the person. If Bush had the policies of Clinton, I would never had voted for him, truly. Have we really come so far that we have forgotten how to think and debate civilly? We resort to ad hominim attacks and that wins the debate in our book?
It especially falls hard on Christians, especially those who still hold to theology, doctrine, and vocation. Now we try to rule the world with religion. We are closed-minded to new ways of doing things. If I recall my history correctly, the Christians were opposed to slavery. The Christians helped make Europe a kinder, gentler society in the Middle Ages.
I hear it now: "But that history was written slanted," or "What about the Christians who owned slaves?" or "What about the Crusades, huh?" There is no quick rebuttal if one does not believe in sin. Christians aren't perfect ("Boy, haven't I heard that one before?"), but to say that all Christians are a certain way because of the Crusades is as prejudiced as saying all green people are the same because of the actions of the Wicked Witch of the West. (I'm sure there are green people out there who are truly decent people and do not cackle menacingly and threaten little dogs and girls wearing ruby slippers.)
This is the long way of saying this: I'm not all those labels one slaps on Christian conservatives. Sure, I'll think for myself and make up my own mind. I'll speak up when I need to, and I will work to show others their errors. Maybe that's what's forbidden--"have your own opinion, but I don't want to hear it because you'll just tell me I'm wrong." Or maybe it's okay to tell me I'm wrong to tell you you're wrong because that's just wrong. Welcome to post-modernism, I guess.

Everybody's Got an Opinion

It is, in a way, exciting for a new Lutheran museum to open up in the headquarters of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. I like museums of most kinds--even the SPAM museum. I'm one of those unusual people who enjoy learning about various parts of history, and yes, I do read most of the signs posted around as I look at the exhibits.



Anyway, you can read about the opening at the Post-Dispatch website, and see some pictures. Go soon--most newspaper websites will allow content to be seen only for a while before a person has to subscribe. Before you leave the news story and look at the pictures, however, take a gander at the comments left by readers. As of the writing of this post, there are twelve comments.



The comments start off commendably, thanking the LCMS for the work the Human Care arm does. From there, it degenerates. Only few of the twelve followed Thumper's advice: "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all." It seems to be an exposition of post-modern society. We cannot dialogue like civilized people; we have to insult and make blanket statements with nothing to back it up. We blurt out whatever we want without showing someone in love (or at least tact) how and why we disagree. If one wrote similar comments about a disenfranchised, minority, oppressed, or racial group, there'd be an uproar; maybe it's just okay to do it to the Lutherans. . . Maybe the SPAM museum is a cult museum too. . .[walking away humming, "SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM; SPAM, wonderful SPAM. . .]

Let's Go to a Show

We have season tickets to the Muny in Forest Park again this summer. It's a pretty good lineup this summer. As an aside, one Muny employee told me that because of the economy they wanted to have shows that were popular to be more of a draw.

Last week we got to see Godspell. I had never seen the show before, but was aware that it is based on one of the Gospels. It is based on the Gospel of Matthew, yet includes the story of the Prodigal Son, which is found only in Luke. I found the first paragraph in the program's write-up about the show very interesting:

John-Michael Teblak conceived of Godspell as a master's degree these at Carnegie Mellon University in 1970. His inspiration for the show came from a disheartening church experience on Easter Sunday of that year. Struck by the lack of joy in the service and the hostility of his fellow churchgoers, he sought to create a show that wold capture the love and happiness of the Gospel according to St. Matthew.

Wow, what does it say for a church when a person is so disappointed in Easter worship that he feels compelled to write a musical to make up for it? Especially one where Jesus and the 8 characters are supposed to be "clowns" and spend the show building a community.

The show was well-acted, and the cast sang very well. The production was well-done. The show was disjointed at best. If community building was the point, I missed that. It was more like a drawn-out VBS skit trying to teach Matthew-John at one sitting. The parables and stories were presented, but without context or theology to tie them together, one was left on his/her own to get out of it whatever one wanted. The Good Samaritan scene did have a bit of a moral to it, of course: "Be nice to people;" which, if you ask pretty much any Higher Things pastor, is not the main thrust of that parable. The Prodigal Son came closer to the main idea. The son who turns away is not the son we think. The "crucifixion" scene fell flat. Jesus was lashed to the sides of the gazebo, so at least there was a cruciform aspect, but the line, "O God, I'm bleeding," was a statement of the obvious, and the follow-up line, "O God, I'm dying," seemed to be there only to let the audience know that that what was supposed to be happening. The resurrection was glossed over--did he rise, or was he just back for the finale and curtain call--it was hard to tell.

All in all, I'm not surprised that there was no corporate sponsor for this show (although someone missed an opportunity there). I also don't plan to rush right out and see it again. At least this week's show is something nice, funny, and takes no theological translation: The Music Man. Harold Hill comes to the Muny. . .

The Art of Debate

I enjoy art fairs. I prefer art fairs which have more artistic artists as opposed to art fairs which fall more under the category of craft fairs. I enjoy looking at the the amazing ability and creativity of the painters, photographers, and others; and sometimes I see some pieces wonder "Why would anybody want to buy that?" I really like looking at the jewelry, but almost all of it is out of my price range. . .

I was recently at one of the biggest art fairs in the country, which is actually multiple fairs held simultaneously. We spent the better part of two days looking at the different booths, and saw some amazing artwork. At one booth I found some reasonably priced jewelry and was planning on making a purchase. The vendor had other ideas.

My husband was with me and wearing a shirt which read "Dare to be Lutheran". Apparently upon reading this, the vendor wished to engage in a religious debate. As I perused the gems and inquired of prices, the vendor began this conversation:

"Do you think I could dare to be Lutheran?"

"You could," my husband responded. Meanwhile, his parents had fled the conversation

"What if I dared to be Buddhist?"

"That might be a problem," my husband said, as I wondered what the vendor was driving at.

"What if I dared to be Baptist?"

"That might be okay."

"What if I dared to be Catholic?"

"That might be okay."

I attempted to deflect the conversation by asking about the merchandise. He brushed me off with some non-committal answers and then finally cut to the chase.

He informed us that he was Buddhist and that they were taught things without "all the dogma." He said that as a Buddhist one could believe whatever one wished. At this point it seemed that he was attempting to drag us into a conversation ridiculing us for believing in doctrine, theology, and closed-minded ideas. He then commented, "We teach critical thinking. You ever hear of that?"

At this point, I bit my tongue, put down the necklace at which I was looking and said, "I'll think about it, thank you," as we walked away.

Now, one might say that we did not "Dare to be Lutheran" or make a proper Christian witness. One might say we should have engaged in debate with this man. Maybe. Maybe not. In this case, it seemed he wished to cut us down to size. He was likely not interested in hearing what it meant to be Lutheran. The statements on my bitten tongue regarding critical thinking being a hallmark of Christianity would probably have fallen on closed ears.

If I were brilliantly witty, I may have been able to win him over with a convincing discourse; however, as I tell my students, there is a difference between arguing and debate. Debate is two opposing sides working to present their respective positions. Arguing is two opposing sides talking past each other. One is mental, one is emotional. Love and Logic talks about frontal lobe (the reasoning lobe) thinking vs. brain stem (fight or flight) thinking. It seems to me that to continue the conversation would have been two brain stems trying to reason together--not profitable. Speaking of not profitable, I hope the vendor did not engage all those who came to his booth in the same manner, else he would have lost more sales than just mine.

Planned?

I have always been pro-life; over the years I have refined my position. When I was in junior high, I had a crush on a boy in my class. I knew he was adopted, but it never hit home to me until he casually mentioned that his mother could have aborted him instead of giving him up for adoption. That first solidified my pro-life position.

When I was younger I thought it was not great, but marginally acceptable to abort a baby if the life of the mother was at risk. Then I met some wonderful people who proved that one can work to save the life of both mother and child is the best option, and let God determine the outcome.

Recently I was mortified by my doctor. I took a pregnancy test. She came in, told me that the results were positive, then asked if this was planned. This question caught me off guard, as I wasn't sure what to say. It was not a matter of consciously trying, so I responded that it was not planned. Her next question was, "Do you want to continue?" Um, excuse me? Talk about being caught off- guard! I was hard-pressed to avoid saying, "Well DUH!" Later, I did make a comment about when the Lord choooses to send a gift, it's His timing. I don't remember exactly how I said it, but that was the main point.

I have mentioned this to other women who said they've had similar experiences, although mostly when they were older and considered an "at-risk pregnancy." Another person told me that OB-Gyns in Minnesota are required by law to inform the woman that she has two options--continue or not.

This got me to thinking: How many pregnancies are truly planned? There are those pre- and extra-marital relationships which result in "unwanted" pregnancies; however, there are those instances inside the proper boundaries of marriage where a pregnancy isn't "planned". It happens. The marriage rite addresses procreation of children. Even the child's verse says, "first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage." Laura Ingalls Wilder mentions in The First Four Years that Rose was not planned, yet even she knew that it comes with the territory. Yet today's doctors are required to tell women that if a baby is not planned, not obsessively anticipated, it doesn't have to be part of love and marriage.

It flows from our post-modern thinking, I guess. Marriage is being redefined. Sex is separated from marriage. Babies don't have to be an outcome of sex if anyone doesn't want them to be. It makes me quote Lost and Found: You see the kids are wild, we just can't tame them, do we have a right to blame them?
We've done our job well. Remove everything from its intended purpose and what's the result? I think we're seeing the answer.

A Tale of Two Weddings

Let me preface this post by saying that if you were in attendance at either wedding, my goal is not to offend; however, rather I am merely pointing out the BO elements therein.
I attended two weddings on two consecutive Saturdays. There were commonalities between the two. Both weddings were in churches. The bride and groom at both are Lutheran. Each had four clergy members participating in the service. The brothers of the grooms were the best men. There were some things which during each wedding which clearly pointed to the character of the couple getting married.
Here is the deviation: one wedding was Christ-centered. One wedding was human-centered. One preacher spoke of how the focus couldn't be on the wedding couple lest it become too overwhelming for the couple. He turned the focus around to Christ and how the focus was to be on Him throughout not only the wedding, but the marriage as well. One preacher spoke of the wedding couple. Christ made honorable mention as the third leg of "a three-legged stool."
At one wedding we sang the Te Deum, and we sang a hymn asking Christ to bless the couple and their life together. At one wedding we heard the bride's father and uncles sing about "My Girl", a song all about the bride. Did I mention that the father and uncles were dancing and wearing sunglasses?
All in all, the two weddings were completely opposite of each other. Isn't Christ the point?

In Old News. . .

Via the "I Wish I Had Said That Files" comes my take on the over-commented, over-played, over-blogged case of Carrie Prejean. I've come to the conclusion that Perez Hilton has become a byword. (According to my 10th edition of Mirram Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, a byword is "one that personifies a type.") In this case, he--or at least his actions--personifies the type of person who is zealous towards his cause, and will defend anyone who contradicts that for which he stands. There are many people as such. The reason he has become a byword, however, is that he embodies the contradictions of postmodernism. The Life Sherpa said it best:

"[Miss California] promptly got stomped on by the Politically Correct Liberal
Action Tem. The team motto: 'We respect your right to express an
opinion--as long as that opinion is the same as ours.' "

I have a feeling we're going to see more Perez Hilton questions in the future regarding abortion, same-sex marriage, and all those things of which Christians are opposed. I guess we shouldn't expect to win any beauty pagents any time soon.
By the way, anybody know who DID win?

'Cause Your Mamma Don't Dance And Your Daddy Don't Rock-n-Roll

An Ohio boy may be suspended from his Christian school if he takes his girlfriend to her public school prom. The Christian school forbids dancing; therefore, he would be in violation of his school's handbook which says that rock music "is part of the counterculture which seeks to implant seeds of rebellion in young people's hearts and minds."
I'll grant you, there's something to be said for some of the rock music which is out there. If one can actually understand the lyrics, there are some songs which are not edifying. On the other hand, there are plenty of Christians who imbibed in rock when they were young, and have grown up to be responsible members of society and the church. I admit--I still "rock out" to Queen. I don't necessarily hold to their life philosophies, but that doesn't stop me from the clap-clap-stomp sequence at a baseball game.
As for the prom--sure there will be rock music and other temptations. Drinking and driving, renting a hotel room after prom with the girlfriend. These are problems associated with proms across the country. Is it because the kids listen to rock-n-roll that they are tempted to drink, even though they are under 21? Is it because of a bass guitar and a drumbeat which tempts a couple to have post-prom sex? I venture to say that is not the case. It may be that there are lyrics which encourage behavior; however, the decision is the student's decision, and the upbringing is what guides the behavior. Sure, even good Christian kids make mistakes. Whatever happened to training a child in the way he should go? Christian adults need to give the children the tools they need to do the right thing rather than shelter them from the world "out there".
Another aspect of this story does bug me. What sort of witness is this school making? They have the American right to believe, teach, and confess what they want. On the other hand, how does it look when they are threatening to suspend or expel a student for doing what high schoolers do? Maybe they should be commended for sticking to their beliefs. On the other hand, there is something to be said for the freedom of the gospel.

Call Day

Call day at the seminary. The angst is over, but then again it is just beginning. I remember call day 10 years ago and when the congregation location was read, I thought, "Where's that?" Ten calls days have now passed. Graduates from St. Louis and Ft. Wayne have been sent across the country and around the world. Now a new group have been assigned, they are looking toward graduation, ordination, installation--and then, the immense task before them. There's only one thing wrong with the church today: It's full of sinners. As a wise pastor perpetually repeated, "They are sheep." I think of what these men may face in the parish. Maybe the angst hasn't subsided quite yet, or maybe it has morphed into apprehension.
Theories are fairly easy to handle. It's that whole "putting in to practice" thing which is a challege. Sitting in the church as the whole congregation boldly sings Easter hymns to raise the roof is quickly replaced with sitting at home watching the news which informs us that 17-year-olds may now buy the "morning after" pill.
The Lord is still Lord of the church, and he knows the men who will be "in the stead and by the command" and serve His people. Regardless.

"I Protest!" He Said Revoltingly

Warning: the statements you are about to read may be considered radical by those who are radical.
We wonder what kind of environment we will leave our children. We will leave them the environment we create for them.
The lesson is simple biology. There is a male and a female, they mate and produce offspring. Humans must be the exception to the rule. There are still male and female humans; it’s just mating and producing offspring aren’t what they used to be. In times past, humans married to make it official: the expectation was that only after this step was procreation acceptable. Sure, there were aberrations from the start—Lamech and his two wives, Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot and his daughters, Judah and his daughter-in-law, and the list goes on.
Yet what of our children? Society has created new rules for marriage. Don’t bother: move in together, try it out for a time. If you have kids, so what? If you plan to make it legal, you can always change your mind. There will be no fault, no blame, just a judge who will help you split the assets equitably.
These new marriage rules even fudge when it comes to male and female. That’s just a trifle. If you want to go male/male, female/female that’s fine. If you want some combination—well, that might be taking it a bit too far. . .for now. . .we have to have morals, after all.
Then there’s the whole mating part. Why wait for marriage since it’s outmoded anyway? Embrace your sexuality. We’re all to sexy for our [insert noun here], so if you got it, flaunt it. Email it. Kiss your date goodnight somewhere other than the lips on the first date, even if you are only a pre-teen who still thinks you can be Miley or Selena in a year or two. Experiment. Please your partner or significant other as necessary. If it feels good, do it, is our mantra. Spouses are so passé.
Don’t forget about the offspring part. We no longer need offspring on “baby come when ready” terms. If the baby comes when the mother or father is not ready, kill it. If the baby cries too much after it comes, shake it to death or drown it (this, ironically is still illegal in most states). If the baby doesn’t come, manufacture it in a test tube, Petri dish, and surrogate womb. It still does take two to tango, so if half of the components are not available the natural way, beg or borrow the necessary components. No thought of the children who have to accept that they may never know their paternal inseminator, maternal donor, or even the reality of their conception. How does one think a child will react to this when he is older? Children have many familial issues growing up to begin with. How might this effect them?
It seems to me that global warming and cooling are not the only environmental issues we need to consider when pondering our children’s future. More importantly, we need to consider the familial environment we want for them. We can’t connect the dots whichever way we desire, for our sake and theirs.

1 Year

What a difference a year makes. The only thing that seems to be similar between today and a year ago is that it is raining. There is a different President with different challenges, a differing ideology from mine, and we wait to see what happens . There is a different principal at my school. I am not on spring break right now. The economy has altered much of the country's outlook. Issues, Etc. is back up and running (although I have missed it quite a bit lately due to the hectic schedule I have been keeping recently), and our church body is facing some unique challenges due to economy and ideology--I sense a theme here. It will be interesting to see what transpires in the next 365 days.

I take back my second sentence. There is one other similarity, no, an identical fact. Christ is still Lord of all, and He knows what the future holds for each of us.

Ads

Having received junk mail to excess, and having seen the junk mail which arrives at churches and schools, I have wondered what kind of junk mail goes to the main office of a baseball/football/basketball stadium. I bet it's boring ads for trash cans or something.
While sorting the school mail, I found two amusing ads. Often I toss them in the recycle bin, some I keep just for my amusement.
Ad #1: T-shirts and sweatshirts from Apostle in Training Ministries. Their tagline reads, "A Fundraiser that Glorifies God!" Two questions: First, how, specifically, does a fundraiser glorify God? Is it because the product has a cross on it? I'm a bit skeptical on that claim. Second, what's an apostle in training? Is that like training for the marathon? I thought the apostolic age was over. Maybe if it read "Synchronious sinner/saint" or even "disciple in training" I might go for it. I'll pass on the "Follower's Testimony," by the way.
Ad #2: Continuing Education Units for Biblical Credit from "Living on the Edge with Chip Ingram". Among the courses offered are "Why I Believe," "Good to Great in God's Eyes," How to Land the Job of Your Dreams," and "How to be a Christian Without Being Religious." These studies "are rooted in Scripture" and "free of denominational bias." Again, I'm a bit skeptical. "Why I Believe" sounds pretty good, but can it truly be free of denominational bias? I wonder how one could be a Christian without being religious and remain rooted in the Bible. Thanks, Pastor Chip, all the same, but (a) I was always told me not to walk near the edge, especially when the slope is slippery and (b) I'll continue with my Book of Concord study.

The Crucifixion

I discovered recently that the word assassination was invented by Shakespeare. Also recently a friend posed the following question: how important does one have to be to be assassinated rather than murdered? I heard a comment today in reference to a soldier who murdered Jesus. These loosely interconnected ideas made me wonder--was Jesus assassinated, murdered, or executed?
Assassination is politically motivated. [I am defining this myself and leaving Webster out of the picture, which is fine, because dictionaries do not tell what words mean; only how people use them, which is a different blog for a different day.] Assassinations are the killing of politically important people for political purposes. By that definition, Jesus was assassinated. The Jewish leaders wanted this blaspheming, status-quo disrupter silenced. The chief priests are quoted as saying, "If we let [Jesus] go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." (John 11:48, NASB)
Murder is the general taking of a life. Often there is a motive, sometimes it is random. Jesus was murdered. He had committed no wrong, there was no sense to His death. The chief priests had motive to eliminate Him; the Romans, not so much. The soldiers who killed Him were doing their duty.
Execution is the putting to death of a criminal. It is a punishment carried out through the government as payment for wrongdoing. Although innocent, Jesus took on our sin and our punishment. He was executed with common thieves, crucified as a common criminal.
To be executed, murdered, and assassinated is horrible. The tragedy underlying such acts is unthinkable. How much more, then the death of the Son of God? He was guiltless, yet executed for our guilt. He was murdered without cause. He was assassinated, yet His kingdom was not of this world. This is an awe-full mystery.

In Memoriam

There was a shooting at a church in the greater metro area today. The shooter killed the pastor during his sermon. I cannot even remotely fathom the fear and depth of grief of the people. My heart goes out to the family and members of that congregation.
There will be much said over the next few days regarding church and forgiveness. There will be much speculation over motive and why. It will bring up the questions of why bad things happen to good people and why someone would want to kill a pastor and what about evil. There will be discussions over the man's sanity. There will be debates over whether he was did such a thing because of something in his past that he became that way or not.
My sympathy goes out to the people who will be in the middle of this investigation.
The main thing to remember is that no matter what happens in this world, it is still Christ's church and He knows His own.

Says Who?

It came up again today: there are those who assert that the liturgy is too hard, too complex, too stodgy, too whatever for children to learn. There are problems with this assessment. Children can learn the liturgy, and the neglect thereof is a slippery slope.
I have heard the stories—the Lutheran school children are having field day at a local park and want to end with chapel. The pastor says, “We didn’t bring our hymnals.” No problem, the children can do Matins a cappella, and they do it flawlessly there in the park. Beyond the stories, I have seen and heard elementary school children pray and sing Matins. I have seen and heard high school students pray and sing Evening Prayer. To the naysayers I say that it can be done.
To neglect the teaching of the liturgy is to create a generation who do not know their past, nor are they building a connection to the historic church. For centuries the church has had liturgy. The Jews at the time of Jesus had a liturgy for Passover. The church at the time of Martin Luther had the propers and the ordinary of the mass in place. Why is this generation so bold as to think that the liturgy is now obsolete and we can invent something better, something more spiritual, something more entertaining than the liturgy? I guess this is no different than the baseball stadium which voted on a new song for the seventh inning stretch because “Take Me Out to the Ballgame” was passé and needed something better.
To neglect the teaching of the liturgy is to contribute to the “dumbing down” of America. We send our children the wrong message when we say that they are incapable of learning the liturgy. As we tell the children that they unable to learn it, they believe us. In years to come, they continue to believe they cannot learn it; therefore, they continue to make excuses for not learning it. It has begun to hit Lutheran colleges and seminaries where Lutheran pastors and teachers are formed; the students complain that chapel is dull because they are now expected to learn and do the liturgy, but it is too hard and too boring. They are merely repeating as adults what they were taught as children.
We also send our children the wrong message by implying there is no benefit in learning something so complex as the liturgy. Frankly, the liturgy is quite simple to learn; it merely takes practice. Could it be that the truth is that the adults have not the patience nor desire to take the time to practice and teach the liturgy? This attitude is reflected in the children who then make the connection that there is no benefit in learning what it is we do at church; therefore, it is of no benefit that we do church.
The liturgy is the framework of divine worship. To make it up as we go along is to move away from the understanding of what happens in the worship service. No longer is it what God does for us, it becomes what we do for God. To assert then that the learning or neglect of the liturgy is of no consequence is to move ourselves away from a Christ-centered focus to a self-centered focus. This is neither right nor safe.

Fw:Fw:Schlock

Dear Family and Friends,

Please, Please, PLEASE! For the love of my sanity, do not forward me any more emails which contain the following line: "If you love Jesus, forward this to every heathen in your address book. If you loathe Jesus, please sit on your rear and do nothing or delete this immediately." I sincerely doubt that on the Last Day Jesus will ask me and all other believers, "Did you forward every single email about me?" I'm guessing that the separation between the sheep and the goats is not contingent upon such.

If you feel compelled to forward me such items, then at least delete the last line so that my pietistic works-righteous side (which feels compelled to forward every such email) can stay thoroughly squelched.

If you must foward me items rather than tell me information about what's going on in your life or inquiring about mine, please forward me funny things. I'll pass on the motherhood-and-apple-pie bandwith devourers.

I hope I have been forward with my requests. Lastly, do not, I repeat, DO NOT send me the story about the atheist professor and the chalk. I average it about twice a year and I've sent it to everyone. Thank you.

Orianna

P.S. Send this to every person in your address book, or I will send you the Amish virus.

A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words

In proper Lutheran fashion I ask, "What does this mean?"

School Chapel

I offered to lead school chapel today. The 5-8th graders were gone on a field trip, so I had K-4 and talked to them about Transfiguration. (Our church is on the 3-year lectionary series, so they will observe Transfiguration on Sunday.) I also learned a couple of things along the way. They sing loudly when they know the song or hymn, but they don't seem to know too many. It seems as though we have become a society of music consumers, even in church, which is too bad. I found that the students were good listeners, or maybe they were good sit-quieters. I guess the teachers have trained them pretty well as to how to behave in church.

Here is what I said about Transfiguration:
Lent begins next Wednesday, but our first stop is on Sunday at the mountain of Transfiguration.

Peter, James, and John are led up a mountain by Jesus. Now remember, Jesus does some amazing things on mountains--makes a few fish and some loaves of bread feed 5,000 people--so Peter, James, and John expect to see something amazing; and they are not disappointed. Jesus is transfigured in front of their eyes. A big word, transfigured. It means changed. Jesus looks different. Brighter. More like the disciples expect the Son of God to look.

Then even more amazing than Jesus' looks is that Moses and Elijah are there, talking to Jesus. We know Moses and Elijah from our Bible stories. They saw some amazing things God does on mountains too. Moses--God gave the commandments to him on a mountain--he represents the Law. Elijah was a prophet. He stood up against the false teachers and won--on a mountain. He represents the prophets. When Moses (the Law) and Elijah (the prophets) are there, you get the whole Old Testament! Peter, James, and John are amazed.

In fact, Peter wants to stay. Let's build a tent--a tabernacle, just like in the Old Testament! Let's stay on our mountain top together. Peter says for the disciples and us what we'd say if we were there. We're having a blast. Let's party here for a long time.

Uh oh. Now we have a problem. When we foret about Jesus and focus on ourselves, that's a problem. When we forget who Jesus is and why He is here, we have a problem. God the Father's voice reminds Peter: "This is My Beloved Son with Whom I am well pleased. Listen to Him!" Peter, James, and John knew they were in trouble. Not because they interrupted Jesus' conversation. Not because they wanted to be with Jesus. They were in trouble because they put themselves before Jesus. They, and we, are sinners who want to put the focus on ourselves. We sinners cannot stand before Almighty God and not remember we are sinners. So Peter, James, and John fall to the ground, scared.

Then the cloud and voice pass, they look up, and they see only Jesus. Only Jesus is now their focus. Only Jesus saves. Jesus' death and resurrection are what the disciples have to look forward to. It is not a mountain where Jesus becomes bright as light, but a mountain where Jesus becomes the sacrifice. The cross is on the mountain where Jesus does the most amazing thing ever. He takes our sins, He takes our place, He takes our punishment. He takes our eyes off ourselves and turns us to look at Him. Our Savior.

Looking from this mountain of Transfiguration, the mountain of the cross looks a long ways away. Look harder. It is right here. Water changed into baptism by His Word. Jesus' forgiveness is here. Bread and wine changed into the Lord's Supper by His Word. You and me changed by His Word.

Whom We Worship

Why does modern Christianity like to talk around the cross? We allude to it with nice-sounding phrases and talk in peachy platitudes. The “pop” Christian songs, when they do talk of Jesus’ work (as opposed to how much WE love Him) talk about His power and majesty, and maybe they’ll reference His crucifixion with a vague salvation phrase. If I were a seeker at a “seeker-sensitive service,” I might wonder why Jesus is so wonderful and worthy of praise and why should I love Him?
Why should we worship what we are reluctant to directly address, namely a Messiah who came to suffer and die and take our place on the cross? When humans extract Christ from Christianity, what’s left? “I”-anity.

My (ahem) Brilliant Blog

I had a great idea for a blog—really! I thought of it during the prayer during devotions this morning. Unfortunately, multiple aspects of my job stymied me before I could return to my desk to jot my idea down. It was later when I remembered that I forgot to remember it that I couldn’t remember what it was. I do know that it was quite witty and profound.
I did have what I thought was a good blog idea, and I did forget it; however, forgetting it made me realize that sometimes I get so wrapped up in my trying to make the world look more like I want it to look that I forget about the reality of where I am now. The contacts I had today with people will likely make more of an impact than the words I post tonight.
Too often it is easy to get involved in ourselves that we forget that it is not about us. Our human nature (aka original sin) makes us so utterly egocentric that we don’t realize we are focusing only on ourselves. We justify ourselves with nice-sounding phrases, but lose our real focus. Our real focus is on Christ. His life, His death, His resurrection; and then we turn that focus towards others and help them keep their focus on Christ. Yet human nature keeps popping up and turning us back onto ourselves. Lord, have mercy on us! We can’t even keep the first commandment, let alone the other ten!
I still wish I could remember the other blog idea—I know it wasn’t nearly so rambling. . .

Musings from the Week Past

If you stop by regularly (or not), you may notice that I update sporadically. I read some blogs where the author posts daily or even multiple posts daily. The must have more important things to say than I. A friend of mine back in college used to say very little. When he did speak, it was rather profound. I, on the other hand, talk constantly yet often stay within the realm of superficial. Maybe this explains the lags between posts. I am waiting for the profoundness to strike; however, it is rather elusive.
In lieu of anything profound, I offer a few reflections from the week:
February 2 was Groundhog Day. It was also the Purification of Mary and the Presentation of our Lord in the Temple. The masses wait for a marmot to determine the short-term future weather. Do the masses wait, as Simeon and Anna, for a Messiah to determine the future of humanity? We anticipate the onset of spring, but do we anticipate the onset of Lent? Do we look forward as anxiously to following the Christ to Calvary where He accomplishes salvation for the whole world as we do to finding out the future of meteorology? Do we echo the words of Simeon who said, “Lord, now let your servant depart in peace according to your word; for mine eyes have seen your salvation which you have prepared in the sight of all people”? Do we as eagerly as Anna to tell all those around about Immanuel, God with us? Or do we hunker down in the cold, waiting for a rodent to determine the coming of light and warmth?
* * *
We often get textbook ads at our school. This week it was for 7-8 grade religion curriculum (“relevant program for teens”) entitled Finding God. To quote Forrest Gump, “I didn’t know I was supposed to be looking for Him.” The advertisement touted the book’s “culturally relevant material” which will “engage young people on their faith journey” and its “attention-grabbing format” which “appeals to adolescents who are tired of ordinary textbooks.” It encouraged educators to preview the textbooks online with the line: “Help us preserve God’s environment!” The whole ad struck me as quite catch phrase heavy for Roman Catholic textbooks. I guess postmodernism is stealthily infiltrating all denominations.
* * *
To wrap up: I gave a friend a ride from a local church to the airport. Some of the campus’s buildings were marked as follows: Student Center, Worship Center, and Community Lobby. I wonder--why is the building which looks the least permanent the Worship Center, and what is a Community Lobby?

Tolerance

I am rather weary of the word “tolerate” and its other related word “tolerance.” I remember these words cropping up like weeds in high school. Despite growing up in a “conservative” area, the ideology of my public high school was very secular humanist. Even then, however, I was wary of the words. I always defined “tolerate” as something one really didn’t like, but lived with because there was no choice—like lima beans for dinner. The one eating must tolerate the lima beans in order to get to the dessert. (Let me say for the record: I actually like lima beans. Maybe I should say celery instead, as I loathe celery.)
Today “tolerate” and “tolerance” carry the implied definition of “one of the majority must deal with any minority-influenced ideology or lifestyle or habit or action one disagrees with and must not say anything lest one be branded a closed-minded bigot.” Okay, maybe that’s over the top, but can people fully disagree when they hear it used in such a manner in media soundbites?
Tolerance is the natural outgrowth of postmodernism, it seems. There is no right and wrong, only what works for the individual. There are no universals left. Since we can’t agree on things because we have no foundation for what is true, good, right, and decent, the only available option is to agree to disagree. Such agreement becomes tolerance because we are both immovable.
The problem is that whether one recognizes truth or not, it is still there. There are still issues that cannot be “tolerated”. If it were truly so, the police would have to tolerate speeders, murderers, and those driving while intoxicated. Rapists must be tolerated for their lifestyle choice, as would child and spouse abusers. They have every right to live the way they wish. Yes, this is demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. There seems to be a point where common society cannot tolerate certain ideologies.
I would agree with the man who stated that tolerance is not love and suggested one tells their spouse, “I tolerate you,” instead of, “I love you.” It’s awfully cold to be sleeping in the doghouse these days. We should love people and not tolerate them. We should not tolerate their behavior but help them change. I will fully recognize gray areas here. In a perfect world this would work perfectly. Of course, in a perfect world this would not be an issue. A teacher cannot tolerate her students hitting each other on the playground. The behavior would be addressed, and the students would work towards correcting the behavior. The teacher would still love the students. To do otherwise, the teacher would not be diligent in her vocation. How can it be any different with us and our neighbor?

Commentaries on Recent News

The bishop prayed to "The God of our many understandings." It’s like singing “Happy Birthday.” He’d like it to be when the singers reach the point when one inserts the name into the song and some people say “Mom” and some say “Aunt Julie” and some say “Mrs. Brown,” yet all mean the same, erstwhile it commences on cacophony. In reality, the “God of our many understandings” is more like singing “Happy Birthday” to multiple people, and some say “Becky” while others say “Jim” and others say “Mr. Rumpleheimer.” The incoherent babble blathers on, and none ever get recognized for who they truly are.

In other news, embryonic stem cell trials moved ahead at Washington University. It is not testing to see if it works; it is testing to see it is safe. This is the next step in clinical trial procedure moving toward FDA approval.
The researcher’s comment was interesting:. "The most important part of course of the Hippocratic Oath is 'due no harm.' And this is the test to see that we do no harm." I would like to pose this question: “What about the harm it causes the embryo?” Perish the thought that society doesn’t “continue its medical pursuits” at the cost of embryos made just to be used for their parts. Do the parts really equal more than the whole? If society cannot recognize the value of one life, how can it determine whose life is valuable to save?

City Streets

The streets in the city of St. Ann, a suburb of St. Louis, has many streets whose names begin with "saint." I am not exactly well-versed in saints, but there is St. Philip, St. Stephen, St. Matthew, St. Lawrence, St. Leo, St. Monica, St. Joachim, St. Xavier, St. Damian, St. Kevin, St. Henry, and St. Cosmas, among others. We often joke that the city founders merely decided to pick a random smattering of names and add St. (or San) in front of it. Maybe that's just the Lutheran in me. Every child of God is both saint and sinner. Maybe they'll name a street after me next. . . or not.

Cerebreoredundogram

The common term is "earworm," but I prefer "cerebreoredundogram". It sounds less parasitic. Both words mean the same thing--that song that gets stuck in your head for an extended period of time. Often cerebreoredundogram turns into "humnauseum"--the outward vocalization of said song.
Yesterday morning I had a choral arrangement of the liturgy stuck in my head—the piece was Joyous Light of Glory, Carl Schalk's arrangement of the Phos Hilaron. Being a portion of Evening Prayer, it didn’t quite fit the time of day.
This morning it was Tell out My Soul, an arrangement of the Magnificat by K. Lee Scott. It remained there all day. I suppose getting the liturgy stuck in one's head is not a bad thing. It gives one a chance to ponder Christ, even if the words pop up inadvertently.

Oh, That's Just Your Opinion

Today’s guest on Issues, Etc. was speaking about abortion and confusing objective claims with subjective claims. During the conversation the guest mentioned a bumper sticker which said, “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one,” and indicated that this misses the point of the whole issue. He likened it to saying, “Don’t like slavery? Don’t own a slave,” or “Don’t like spousal abuse? Don’t beat your wife.”
I would glibly offer this statement in response to the original bumper sticker: “Don’t like life? Don’t conceive one.” One on the pro-choice side of the issue might say that this statement is too self-righteously derisive, yet the same person passing judgment on this response would likely not have the same opinion on the original statement. Why is that, do you think? Could it be that one’s right to reproduce and abort is morally acceptable, yet indicating one’s displeasure with such an approach is morally reprehensible?
I will agree that morality cannot be defined by personal opinion if humans are to co-exist and survive to tell the tale. Truly, if morality is defined by personal opinion, then Hannibal Lector is fully self-justified in consuming his victims. After all, they are rude and obnoxious and no one will miss them; in fact, he could be a hero. Oh, wait, there I go again being self-righteously derisive. . .

BO on Vacation

I am back and had a nice Christmas break. That’s the nice thing about doing what I do—I still have a Christmas break, even if it is only half of what it was in college. Even if I take a vacation, though, I am still on the lookout for BO material, and I am never disappointed by the superfluity of available material. Some highlights are as follows:
Watching the dancing fountains in front of a certain hotel “dance” to The Hallelujah Chorus—with text. How idiosyncratic it is to hear “The kingdom of this world is become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ” being blared while nearby men hawk female companions (which is illegal in most states, if you know what I mean).
Passing a billboard on the interstate which on one side simply reads, “GOD.” The other side says, El Shaddai, Theos, I Am, God and Allah.” I suppose I should be used to this day and age in which false claims are made about the true God to promote unity in diversity.
Reading the bumper sticker which said, “Defend Reproductive Freedom”. I’m not sure what that means. Does that mean no limits on abortion? Abortion is not freedom of reproducing—it’s limiting reproduction. Maybe they’re protesting the concept of mass sterilization, but that topic is passé, so I guess I’m not so sure what their point is.
Wondering about the billboards in the airport. There were two billboards encouraging conservation and green living. One showed a profusion of lightbulbs, the other showed row upon row of water cooler-sized water bottles. Each one demonstrated the amount of resources (energy or water) wasted by frivolous use of our resources. This got me wondering—why does no one indicate outrage these images portray about the wasteful behavior of people? Is it not my personal choice to leave all the lights on in my house? Is it not my personal choice to use as much water as I want? Why does no one deface these pointed billboards? Yet, put up white crosses in a field to represent humans who were denied the chance of life (forget about liberty or property or the pursuit of happiness), yet see how they seethe. . .