Phraseology

Really? You might want to rephrase that, folks.

Vaccinate? Now?

I'm all for vaccination. I don't want my child to get Whooping Cough or Polio. I'm undecided, however, on vaccinating my daughter for HPV. I don't want to give her another reason to decide that sexual promiscuity is acceptable. Let's get this straight: the HPV vaccine does not prevent cervical cancer. It prevents HPV, and it's good only for 5 years. What are we saying, "Go for it girls, you have five years to go at it?" Now we have even more encouragement for sexual promiscuity with the availablity of the HPV vaccine to males. (In this area, Planned Parenthood is offering it to boys as young as 9.) Males are little more than carriers of HPV, so we're vaccinating men to prevent disease in women. Does this make sense? Here's where education comes in. Don't spread it, and it won't spread.
Call me delusional, and unrealistic. People will be people and have sex, right? Make love, not war and all that sexual revolution garbage? The HPV vaccine helps save lives. We want people to be safe. We ban transfats and make vaccines, but we don't get to the root of the problem. Maybe a future First Lady will work to fight out-of-wedlock sex the way the current First Lady is working to fight childhood obesity (which is an important goal, don't get me wrong).
We all nod and say smoking, drinking, transfats are bad and are health risks, but how many people say "free love" (read sex whenever with whomever) falls in the same category? We have vaccines and pills for that, and if not we can yank out whatever "tissue" we don't want. When are we going to face the fact that there is massive fallout from the sexual revolution? When tween boys and girls are getting vaccinated for an STD, shouldn't someone besides a few blogger admit there's a problem? Go, get your shots if you want. I think I'll try the actual parenting approach and actually teach my daughter what scripture says: Thou shalt not commit adultery, meaning, monagomy is the only acceptable option, sex is limited to the marriage, and anything else is hazardous to one's mental and physical health and, yes, immoral and improper for a child of God.

Reliquiae

Think I'll pass on seeing the Relics of Mother Theresa here in St. Louis at Sts. Theresa and Bridget Catholic Church on Thursday. Curious as I am to see what might be there, according to the paper, the relics include the following: sandals, crucifix, hair and blood. I can understand the sandals and crucifix, but how does one even collect the other two? Sounds somewhat creepy to me. Who gets the job of collecting the biologicals even? Thanks for the invite, but no thanks.

Ripped from the Headlines

Three news stories and one ad measured on the BO-radar today.
1) The Today show has changed its wedding contest rules to allow same-sex couples to participate. If the squeaky wheel gets the grease, then it's little wonder same-sex rights are becoming mainstream. The secular media and church denominations have become so accepting of such that it is eroding family values. Sorry, guys, family values are not "make your own family of whomever you want" and call it good. Sure, there is a human bond of people, but a family is still mom, dad, children. We've eliminated dads from the picture long ago, now we're working on the rest.
2) An article in today's Post-Dispatch outlines why a person has decided not to say the Pledge of Allegiance. The reason given is as follows:

I've been uneasy with it for awhile, ever since I genuinely paid attention to the fact that I've been making a loyalty oath to a political system. In my heart, my life, I want no king but Jesus, and I want no association--political, geographic, ethnic--that transcends the Kingdom of God. The tension goes far beyond a pledge, of course, The question, as Shane Claiborne says, is not whether we ARE political, but HOW we are political.

Luther reminds us in his Table of Duties that scripture says we are to submit to the governing authorities. It is not wrong to formally declare loyalty as a citizen to the United States, our government under which we live. We're not merely addressing niceties to a scrap of cloth, but saying that we will submit to the authority of "the Republic for which it stands." It's better than being deported to Russia.
3) Presbyterians in their convention supported a proposal to encourage the U.S. government to end aid to Israel if the country doesn't stop expansion into disputed territories. It's fine to be globally concerned as a church body, but maybe the Presbyterians should work on getting their doctrine and church body in order before worrying about international incidents which do not involve them. Work, instead to realign your doctrine and practice. I encourage all church bodies so to do.
4) Need a bed? Try a John of God crystal healing bed. I don't even want to know.

Oh, Joy.

I have to remember to change my car presets today and remove 99.1 as one of them. I'm not sure with what I'll replace it. It won't be JOY.
I'm not sure which is more bothersome: losing classical music or gaining CCM (contemporary Christian music). Perhaps it is losing one to gain the other.
I would not agree that the assesment of "JOY's Listeners as enemies of high culture--champions of derviative, evangelical schmaltz who killed off Brahms to win souls in St. Louis County." They didn't really kill classical. They seized an opportunity. That's business. In an era of arts-cuts, this is symptomatic of a different ailment, but that's another topic. Regardless, the classical station in the Gateway City will cease broadcasting tonight c. 10pm.
As for JOY winning souls, who knows? Their poster misquotes Joshua 6:16--gaining a radio station is not tantamount to the taking of Jericho. The article indicates people who call in and say their life has changed by listening. How permanent of a change are we talking here? Which soil, so to speak? Those who hear the word and receive it with joy and then fall away when trials come, or good soil? We can't say how the Holy Spirit works, but who's to say that Classic 99 didn't bring souls to Christ with some of their programs? Why does it have to be CCM?
As for people not wanting "to hear dirty lyrics when they get in the car with their kids;" sure, they lyrics aren't dirty, but do you really listen to the lyrics? There isn't much about Jesus there either. Come to think of it, the only Christian band I really listen to has the d-word in their lyrics. Their message about Jesus is quite explicit, too. Classic 99 music didn't have dirty lyrics either, as I recall. Why do we want to swap advanced music for CCM? The article is clear that the target audience is the same as those who listen to soft rock. I heard a snippet of CCM the other day as I was traveling. It sounded exactly like soft rock. I can hardly take soft rock for too long on a good day; to add ego-centered lyrics under the guise of being Christian is hardly tolerable. And I fit the demographic of JOY!
The whole premise bothers me. CCM is like undercooked hot dogs. Might be nourishing, but more often than not will make one ill. Christianity is all about Jesus. They say a Christian radio station is "more of a Christian community than entertainment," and they're "not church, but. . .a daily connection you don't get in church." Thanks. I'll take my church with Jesus as the focus, you can keep your praise choruses. . .we love you, so much for what you've done for us. . .what was that, exactly?
As a Post Script, buried in the article were two interesting comments: "The Lutheran Church has its own mission, and that's not classical music," and "We were told in our first meeting with KFUO, 'We're only going to sell if we get top dollar.' " In the words of Uncle Marty, what does this mean?

Scripture for Various Occasions

You've seen the scripture helps for various situations: What scripture to read when you are grieving, lonely, etc. I would offer two more.
1) For dealing with purile, pugnacious blog commenters or others of opposing ideology while being severely mis-informed: Proverbs 9:7-8.
2) For responding to students who use falsehood to get away with misbehavior or for those with rabble-rousing tendencies: Nehemiah 6:8.
I humbly submit these to you for your edification.




** Thinking aloud: I wonder if Jonathan Swift had to use an emoticon after all his satire to let the English know not to take him at face value?**

Not just Jell-o

I've grown weary of always seeming defensive. Why should I have to apologize for being everything the media and "open-minded, free-thinkers" find offensive? I believe what I believe, because I believe it is the correct way, just as others who hold to their own opinions believe theirs is. I don't recall having told any of them to "stop watching CNN and think for yourself." I may have attempted to engage them in rational, logical debate; however, there is nothing wrong with that. Since when is discussion wrong? If you can run a commercial about saving the environment, then I should be able to run a commercial about saving the fetuses. Right? No?
Being a Lutheran, apparently, is also wrong. Despite his kindesses about our singing, a certain Minnesota author doesn't really like us. By the way, since the invention of the "praise band" even Lutherans are losing their ability to sing--it has nothing to do with harmonies printed in a certain hymnal published in 1982.
We Lutherans are not all about guilt and stubbornness and coffee and Jell-o. It is not a mindset to be escaped--released from its prison-like constraints. It is a doctrine to be grasped. I know, I know--we're not the only ones going to heaven. We do, however, speak of our doctrine as a correct exposition of scripture. That's the point. We believe what we do because we believe it is the correct exposition of scripture. Why be that which one thinks is otherwise? Luther wrote 95 points about how the church of his time missed the mark; our forbears left their homeland because they disagreed with having a sterile, empty faith thrust upon them by a government wanting everybody to "just get along". This is why we tend to be vociferous when it comes to doctrine. A little bit of leaven leavens the whole lump.
Certain strains of Lutheran have gotten watered down over the years, and have fallen into the "just get along" mindset, going so far as to agree to disagree with Rome over that whole Reformation thing--one CTSFW professor referred to it as "The Augsburg Concession".
When it comes right down to it, what we believe is simple: We are sinners, Christ died in our place and rose so that we may be heirs of heaven. It's not that we did anything to help it. Maybe that's why Lutheranism is so hard in catching on. It's too simple. To much confession and absolution and not enough work on our part. Maybe I'm being defensive again.

Embedded

It is amazing how much scripture is embedded into common parlance. Case in point: Geraldo used the term "writing on the wall" last night. If you're not familiar with the story, it comes from Daniel 5 when God writes a warning on the wall to the king.
There are many more examples, especially from Proverbs. As an aside, "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is not an imperative, but rather an ellipsis. The elliptical words inserted would read thus: [if you] spare the rod and [then you will] spoil the child. Discipline debates notwithstanding, the phrase is well-known and well-used.
What if, just hypothetically thinking aloud, someone insisted that those who support freedom from religion be disallowed to use any scriptural idioms and phrases? It's just a thought.

Free Thinking

Since when has having a conservative perspective been considered closed-minded? I've heard it said to me, I've heard other people say they've been told it. It happened when I was in high-school and took the modest stance in a mock-debate on women being allowed to go topless as men can. (If only I had enough sense and rhetorical ability back then. . .)
Now it's even happening in the church. Liturgy is for stodgy old fogies who are backward thinking. Confessions and Christological preaching is for maintenance-only ministry. Pastors and wanna-be pastors and laymen and laywomen who hold to such are exclusivists. And I dare you to find a faculty of conservative teachers, Lutheran or otherwise. Few exist.
Maybe the problem is that we have considered the possibilities with an open mind and come to the conclusion that a liberal bent is not the way to go. We are asked in society to be free-thinkers and conclude that the values held by pro-choice, anti-family, anti-religion, large socialist government folks are correct. We are asked in church to think for ourselves and conclude that the social gospel with 7-11 music (7 words sung 11 times with a key change between the 10th and 11th time) and empty of Christ is proper worship and will make people flock to church. It is not unlike the commerical where the folks are staring at cars with a blank look and saying, "I have been told to desire a car. . ." Sorry. I will not fall for the identical-mindedness under the guise of free thought.

Not Only Them

Some time after 9/11, a traveling memorial came to our area. We went and viewed it, then signed a beam from the fallen World Trade Center. Consequently, we were put on an email list for updates regarding the memorial. One came yesterday regarding the anniversary of the first attack on the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993. As I was reading through, the following sentence caught my attention.

In remembering the victims of both the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade
Center, we demonstrate the value we place on human life and protest
indiscriminate mass murder.

I couldn't agree more. Now what about those little babies? The ones who are casualties of the sexual revolution? Let's remember them too. Who is going to protest a 9/11 memorial? Would those people who protest the crosses planted in the ground to remember abortion victims protest a memorial in New York City, Pennsylvania, or at the Pentegon? Let's remember the victims of the 1973 attack on the unborn and demonstrate the value we place on human life at all stages and protest indiscriminate mass murder. Let's call it what it is.

Testing, 1-2-3, Testing

Let me state at the outset--I am NOT for animal cruelty. I watch the Humane Society commercial and practically cry every time. I say to whomever is around, "Oh! The poor puppies and kitties!" in the same tone one uses to describe a baby as cute.
I am sick, however, of people who are opposed to animal testing for medicines. A friend recently commented that she felt that when asked on her test what happened to the mice injected with strains of pneumonia she should have responded, "They died because the idiots tested on animals." You know, if it were a hairspray test, I'd agree. Forget the animals. Test on faux fur. For medicine, one can't do a faux test. Rats and mice are expendable, sorry if you disagree. Rats and mice are disease-bearing, destructive creatures. Why not at least let them redeem themselves and show themselves helpful to humans?
Sorry, I guess I speak as a speciesist who believes that humans are dominant. I understand there are those who do not believe that, and I disagree. Humans are to live in the world in harmony with animals, and if that includes using them to make humans' lives better, then that is part of the harmony. Why should humans be a casualty of protecting animals? Why should 4-inch smelt be preserved at the expense of the people living in the valley? Why should rodents who spread disease and chew wires and cause house fires be spared pneumonia, but those who helped their fellow humans be expended? No, I wouldn't like you to take my dog or cat and test a new cancer drug on them, but I will let you take them over my daughter.

Encounters of the Baby Kind

So Grandma and I took my daughter on her first trip to the mall. Everyone duly proclaimed her cute or beautiful. I'm biased, she's the cutest baby in the world. We were in a national chain store of the "stink 'em-smell 'em-good 'em" kind as I pushed the stroller past these two teenaged girls; they looked to be about 15 or 16. They saw me and did the "Awww! How cute!" thing, and then one asked, "How old?"
"Almost 12 weeks," I replied in a proud-mommy fashion. Then instead of the typical responses of more aw-ing or comments on how little she is (she seems big to me, but she was quite small when she was born), I received a funny look from the two girls--something akin to disgust. I stood there smiling bewilderedly, waiting, because I could sense there was something coming next. Then one commented about my size. Let me insert here that I didn't look very pregnant when I was pregnant, and when my little girl came out, there was no mistaking me to be pregnant any longer. If this is not your experience, I apologize--I had nothing to do with it. Anyway, the long and short of it is that the one girl was slightly miffed that after 11 weeks I looked like I do. She then proceeded to ask, "How'd you do it?" I said I didn't know. She then points to herself and says, "This is after 18 months." Uh, yeah, okay.
I felt rather awkward because I didn't even see that one coming. How could I have even guessed that the teenager shopping with her friend in the mall was a mother--of a toddler, no less? I casually ended the conversation and went to rejoin my mother-in-law.
I shouldn't be so naive. I grew up in a county which had the highest teen pregnancy rate in the state, so it's not something new. I suppose what surprised me most was the blase manner in which the girl engaged the conversation. Like two moms in the park talking while the kids play on the swings.
Okay, here's where the moral of the story comes. The pithy, witty summary of the encounter. Mine forgot to show up for this blog post. I'm proud of the girl for having the baby. Good for her! I'm sad that she got pregnant when she was so young. I'm in my 30s and find it difficult to take care of a baby. I can't imagine doing it at half my age.
I guess I'll take the cheap way out for ending and quote Forrest Gump: "That's all I have to say about that."