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."

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.