Take care of me --- I don't want to get involved

It seems that we are reaping the profits of the "entitlement mentality." Through our democratic systems, we have turned almost absolute power over to others with the empty promise that they will "take care of us." When things happen with which we are unhappy, like children, we stomp and pout, kick and scream, threaten, shout, cry, whine, throw tantrums, anything we can in order to try to coerce those in authority to "do something about it!" We often spend time and great expense complaining as loudly as possible for SOMEONE ELSE to do something.

Take, for instance, the recent demonstrations around the world protesting the rising fuel prices. A couple of questions come to mind... (1) How will using fuel and time, snarling up traffic, driving from hundreds of miles away, spending your hard earned money to get to a protest, help these people's individual financial situation or decrease demand (and thereby decrease prices)? (2) What do they really expect to accomplish? Do they expect the government, who is running deficits year over year and racking up debt to just print money and issue them checks to decrease the burden? (err.... I guess that might work...)

Moving closer to home....

When I heard about the planning of a gathering at the International Center, intended to get a response regarding the cancelling of Issues, Etc., I wrote an essay which I did not publish at that time because I did not want to be a "wet blanket" on the enthusiasm that seemed to have the potential to make a difference and get people involved. Also, in discussion about this piece with a friend, the question was posed, "What do you think people should do instead?" I'm, frankly, not smart enough to answer that question. However, I would imagine, of the 75 or so people who showed up, if they were to have sat down and started thinking about the question, "What project can I start or be involved in that would contribute to others hearing a clear articulation of the Gospel and a clear refutation of false teachings?" several good ideas would have emerged.

The following essay (originally written 4/5/08) is not intended to impugn motives, but to point out the results of the course taken. The momentum on the part of individuals has subsided. Our zeal has run cold. Most of us have returned to our "normal lives" which has been made poorer by the loss of Issues... This includes even those who vociferously pointed to how many people came to know the glorious light of the Gospel and the truth of the Reformation faith through the work of Todd and Jeff on Issues, etc.

=-=-
(4/5/08)

The situation surrounding the sudden cancellation of Issues, Etc. and the efforts that have followed have caused me to grapple with a number of topics.

The biggest, and probably most difficult, of these topics is the relationship between politics and the Gospel. I will admit no small amount of disappointment at the transformation of this situation from a crisis for the Gospel into a political cause. This is not to say that the political questions being raised are unimportant. On the contrary, they are very important. It is of the utmost importance that those structures which have been established to promote the proclamation of the Gospel are held to the highest level of accountability. And while I am unsure of how I feel about the tactics being used, the fact is that these questions need to be asked and fully answered.

By any reasonable person's reckoning, the shows cancellation meant the silencing of a clear articulation of the Gospel and a thoroughgoing defense of the faith. This, in itself, is a travesty - and those responsible should give a clear and complete explanation for what can be described as nothing less than an attack on the Gospel.

However, while there are efforts underway to re-establish what has been lost and attempting to put Todd back on the air and Jeff back in the producer's seat, the immediate and short-term effort is not directed at caring for those souls who have been cut off from the "Christ Centered, Cross Focused" work that Todd and Jeff were doing. Rather, the immediate and short-term effort seems to want to use them as pawns - considering their souls expendable for political gains.

I must commend Todd for his wise and measured public statement. In it, he has pointed out what is really important: "If you want to carry on the legacy of Issues, Etc., you already know what to do: Pastors, go to the pulpit and the altar, be faithful to God’s Word and the Lutheran Confession in everything you preach, teach and practice. Preach Christ crucified for sinners. People of God, require your pastors to do nothing less and nothing more than that. Hear the Word, trust Jesus, live for your neighbor. ... The only story I’m interested in telling is the story of the one Martyr, the story of the Lamb of God. That story has all the death and blood I will ever need."

While I don't know him personally, based on this statement, I think Todd would agree, EVERYTHING else is secondary - not unimportant, but secondary.

And therein lies my disappointment. I'm sure that those pastors involved in the various efforts are not neglecting their congregations in any way. They continue to preach faithfully and administer the sacrament rightly. They continue their teaching and their catechesis. But, since ISSUES has been unplugged, what about those thousands who listened and downloaded the show and listened regularly - those sheep without faithful shepherds? What did they do wrong?

It would seem that they have not only been abandoned by those who decided to silence a good, faithful proclamation of the Gospel by yanking the show from the air without warning, but, for now at least, by those who make claims that that this action was a blow to the Gospel. We fuss and lament that it took ten days to get a political explanation for a "Kingdom-of-the-Left" decision.

The "Kingdom-of-the-Left" work to seek an adequate explanation and resolution will continue for a long time. No doubt, there will be long, drawn-out battles over whether or not the decision was politically motivated, who made it, were they competent to hold the position they did, were the directed by someone else.... and the list goes on. In the mean time, the rumor mills will continue to churn. Like many other circumstances, conspiracy theories will continue to exist.

My question is, how long must it be before we take up the cause of the Kingdom of the Right on behalf of those who have been left alone, to their own devices, or to the ambiguity of "Christian Radio" (so called)?

Read Full Post...

Organizational Meeting

We had a number of people at the Initial Organizational Meeting to discuss what will be necessary to return Todd and Jeff to the air. There is a transcript of the discussion available.

One thing became obvious in the lead-up to the meeting and at the meeting itself - there are a lot of people working on things, but not a lot of coordination among all of the efforts. There are also a lot of GREAT ideas out there that are not directly related to the current situation and getting Todd and Jeff back on the air but definitely in line with a vision to extend the effort of "Christ Centered, Cross Focused" work that Todd and Jeff have been doing.

Visit http://uaclutheran.info and find out how you can get involved!

Read Full Post...

Bring Back Issues Organizational Meeting

Organizational Meeting - 2008/03/24 - 8:00 PM EDT

* Location: #issuesetc channel on starlink-irc.org - info and web interface can be found at http://www.starlink-irc.org
* Time: 8 PM Eastern, 7 PM Central
* Agenda will be posted by NOON Eastern at: http://uaclutheran.info/wiki/bin/view.pl/IssuesETC

Read Full Post...

Yes, Yes, Yes we do! WE NEED ISSUES, How About You? - A Proposal [UPDATED]

As most of us already know Issues, Etc. was unexpectedly cancelled last Tuesday (3/18/08) and its host and producer summarily dismissed from the staff of KFUO. Many of us are saddened at the loss of what was the best Christian talkshow broadcast on the radio and the Internet. Some are making plans to attempt to persuade the Synod and KFUO to reconsider their decision. Overall, I'm not sure that some of the efforts are the best course of action.

We can all speculate, complain, and cast aspersions over what happened, but the fact is, it happened. Even if we are successful in getting the show reinstated at KFUO, I believe that the effort would only be temporary at best.

From what I have read and know about the program, the following information seems to be evident:

1) There is already a loyal international listener base for Issues, Etc.
2) There is already a significant funding base for the program specifically because of it's "Christ centered, Cross focused" message.
3) There is already a network of stations with Sunday night (or other times) blocked out to carry the weekly 2 hour program.
4) There is already a significant Internet listenership.

Basically, from a cursory point of view, it's almost a turnkey program that needs a home. It has listenership, financial support, a network of guests, all committed to bring the pure, unadulterated Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world and protect the sheep from wolves.

My proposal is simple - instead of trying to temporarily put Issues back on KFUO where it's future will be uncertain in the hands of capricious bureaucrats - we attempt to build an infrastructure to support the program independent of KFUO and the Synod.

The plan would need to be enacted QUICKLY to avoid losing the existing listener and contribution base. Starting it will NOT be cheap as there will be equipment and infrastructure costs in the short term and in the long term there will be significant expenses for salaries, services (phone lines, internet connections, satellite time [?], etc.). But given the support I've seen so far, I don't think it is undoable.

Consider if 500 people spend an average of $200 on gas, meals, lodging, etc. to participate in a rally at the International Center (perhaps that's an optomistic number, but I'm not sure it's unrealistic) - that's $100,000 right there. Just guessing, but I would guess that it's probably enough to cover equipment and the first several month's operating costs & salaries to get the daily program back on the Internet and the weekly program on the Sunday night timeslots (assuming previous donors continue to cover airtime at affiliate stations). If we could syndicate the daily program too (like the Sunday night program), perhaps we could increase the footprint of "Christ centered, Cross focused" radio even further!

If you are interested in such an effort, let me know. I AM NOT AT THIS TIME SOLICITING DONATIONS - I AM GUAGING INTEREST IN THE EFFORT! I have a website that could be used to collaborate and coordinate our efforts fairly easily.

I believe the only way to truly SAVE Issues, Etc., is to make it free-standing and not dependent upon the caprice of those who would (intentionally or unintentionally) obfuscate the Gospel.

Leave a comment (including your email address) or email me (dentm42 at yahoo dot com) and hopefully we can get this off the ground quickly. If we are able to succeed, we may look at "Black Tuesday" in the same light that we see "Good Friday" - it may actually be the BEST thing to happen to the program!

Todd/Jeff - I'd also be interested in hearing from you about such an idea and whether you would be willing to consider participating in such an effort (assuming adequate compensation and benefits could be arranged). A basic list of "what we need" to bootstrap a temporary studio would also be helpful.

UPDATE:
Organizational Meeting - 2008/03/24 - 8:00 PM EDT [Edit]

* Location: #issuesetc channel on starlink-irc.org - info and web interface can be found at http://www.starlink-irc.org
* Time: 8 PM Eastern, 7 PM Central
* Agenda will be posted by NOON Eastern at: http://uaclutheran.info/wiki/bin/view.pl/IssuesETC

Read Full Post...

The Next Big Movie! (It's worse than you can imagine!)

Fans of fantasy come to life may be astounded by the next big fantasy trilogy coming out of Hollywood. The first of the movies will be arriving in theaters just in time for Christmas.

The movie boasts stunning scenery, spectacular special effects, and several big-name stars. It is also partly produced by one of America's premier producers of Children's Books, Scholastic Inc., as well as the company that produced and distributed the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Newline Cinemas.

It has all the makings of the next blockbuster fantasy! Except...

No one can possibly miss the Christian thematic elements of C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia. The books and the movies they spawned all have numerous parallels with the Christian message. From the introduction of Jadis, the evil queen, into Narnia by two unwitting children, representing the Fall of humanity from the perfect created state, to the sacrificial death of Aslan, the Lord of Narnia, on behalf of another treacherous child, the book uses the story of Christianity as the basis for it's fantastic journey.

Not as clearly thematic, but still a virtuous portrayal, Lord of the Rings is another book with a certain Christian nobility about it. The virtues of Christianity shine clearly, even if the underlying world is presented with too much emphasis on free will and a dualistic understanding of good and evil. Yet, the lines are clearly drawn. There is a fundamental right and wrong, good and evil exist. The structures of the world generally exist to put in check the evil of an invading force. Self sacrifice as well as a sense of duty and honor are fundamental themes. In spite of its theological shortcomings, LOTR is still a good movie that imparts the nobleness of virtue.

Philip Pullman, the author of the trilogy which Newline and Scholastic have partnered to turn into the next big fantasy feature film trilogy, has nothing good at all to say about Lewis or Tolkein.

An article in The New Yorker characterized Pullman's views this way:

“ ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is fundamentally an infantile work,” he said. “Tolkien is not interested in the way grownup, adult human beings interact with each other. He’s interested in maps and plans and languages and codes.” When it comes to “The Chronicles of Narnia,” by C. S. Lewis, Pullman’s antipathy is even more pronounced. Although he likes Lewis’s criticism and quotes it surprisingly often, he considers the fantasy series “morally loathsome.” In a 1998 essay for the Guardian, entitled “The Dark Side of Narnia,” he condemned “the misogyny, the racism, the sado-masochistic relish for violence that permeates the whole cycle.” He reviled Lewis for depicting the character Susan Pevensie’s sexual coming of age—suggested by her interest in “nylons and lipstick and invitations”—as grounds for exclusion from paradise. In Pullman’s view, the “Chronicles,” which end with the rest of the family’s ascension to a neo-Platonic version of Narnia after they die in a railway accident, teach that “death is better than life; boys are better than girls . . . and so on. There is no shortage of such nauseating drivel in Narnia, if you can face it.”

Pullman goes on to claim that Lewis wasn't even Christian, claiming that because the greatest Christian virtue is charity and that Chronicles readers wouldn't see that through the books, that it, therefore, isn't Christian. A hollow argument given an incorrect presupposition, but pointing out the characteristic vapidity of Pullman's conceptualization of the universe.

Pullman despises the concept that humanity has lost its innocence and good storytelling is an attempt to take us into a world where things are clearer. For Pullman, "growing up" - the throwing off of external authority and strictures - is the most important thing.

“The idea of keeping childhood alive forever and ever and regretting the passage into adulthood—whether it’s a gentle, rose-tinged regret or a passionate, full-blooded hatred, as it is in Lewis—is simply wrong,” Pullman told me. As a child, Lyra is able to read a complicated divination device, called an alethiometer, with an instinctual ease. As she grows up, she becomes self-conscious and loses that grace, but she’s told that she can regain the skill with years of practice, and eventually become even better at it. “That’s a truer picture of what it’s like to be a human being,” Pullman said. “And a more hopeful one. . . . We are bound to grow up.”

I will likely blog more about this in the future... but for now, I leave you with this quote from the "New Yorker" article, which gives a good idea of how Christianity is treated by Pullman:

Pullman’s heroine, Lyra Belacqua, is a pre-adolescent girl who erroneously believes that she is an orphan. She has been raised in a slapdash fashion at Oxford, by the scholars and staff of the venerable (and fictional) Jordan College. The novels are set in an alternate version of this universe, in which people travel by zeppelin and refer to electricity as “anbaric power.” It is a church-burdened world, in which the Reformation led to consolidation, not schism, and the Papacy was moved from Rome to Geneva by John Calvin. This Church is responsible for the kidnapping of Lyra’s best friend, whom she vows to rescue; the exile of her father, whom she sets out to find; and, eventually, the homicidal pursuit of Lyra herself. In “His Dark Materials,” the Church is run by a cabal of celibate men who are obsessed with sin and its eradication. The Church employs torture and a doctrine of “preëmptive penance”—a program of self-flagellation that provides its adherents with a kind of get-out-of-Hell-free card, forgiving them in advance for such politically useful sins as assassination.

--
Additional Information:

"Life and Letters: Far From Narnia - 2005 "New Yorker" piece on Philip Pullman, the Author of the "His Dark Materials" trilogy. [WARNING: Contains lewd artwork]
An atheist's 'Narnia' knockoff - by World Net Daily movie reviewer Dr. Ted Baehr
"The Golden Compass: Unmasked" a video by Bill Donahue of the Catholic League regarding the movie.

Read Full Post...

Homiletics Textbook now available as download

I had previously posted about a reprint of J.M. Reu's Homiletics book being available. There is now a less expensive PDF download version of the book available! Enjoy!

Read Full Post...

Premature babies feel pain.....

Here's an article I never did publish. I meant to, but didn't. It's interesting that even after a year and a half, there is little coverage of this study by U.S. news outlets. I think this makes my point even more emphatically.


=-=- April 2006 -=-=

I admit it, I know media bias exists but often I've found myself either ignoring the issue or giving the media the benefit of the doubt. But this story about premature infants and pain is so egregious that I can't ignore it.

It has taken the New York Times a full week to find a way to temper the results of this scientific study in order to make it palatable to a country which doesn't want to think that the tens of thousands of babies it murders each year feel the pain associated with being dismembered.

Let's look at this horrific travesty in journalism, shall we?

From the University College London Press Release of April 5, 2006:

The research team used near-infrared spectroscopy to demonstrate that babies have an increased haemodynamic response in the brain following painful stimulation. This response is a reliable measure of pain as it directly relates brain activity with painful stimulation.

Also, a quote from the lead author of the study in the same press release:

"There is evidence that these repeated painful procedures are a significant stressor and lead to increased sensitivity to other non-painful procedures. Since pain information is transmitted to the preterm infant cortex from 25 weeks, there is the potential for pain experience to influence brain development from a very early age, as the brain is highly malleable at this stage of development."

Ok, to summarize: The study methodology (according the press release) uses a "reliable measure of pain." That is, the study proves that the infant FEELS PAIN. It hurts. It is a physiological fact that, when stuck in the heal with a lance for routine medical procedures, the child does not simply "react" to a "stimulus" but the child actually does feel pain. Are we clear on that?

Furthermore, evidence suggests that "repeated painful procedures" have a lasting impact on the child because they "lead to increased sensitivity" even "to other non-painful procedures." So the study authors theorize that there is a memory of this pain and an association of this painful event to the attendent circumstances so that when similar circumstances arise (i.e. other non-painful procedures), it seems they become anxious and have a heightened sensitivity.

Ok, the press release seems pretty clear as to the meaning and implications of the research. Babies as young as 25 weeks after conception (possibly earlier, but that wasn't studied) actually feel pain. Should be pretty cut and dry.... unless you're a NY Times reporter.

Under the headline: Even Tiny Babies Have Ouch Centers in the Brain, the NY Times decides to tackle this issue (a full week after the study was published).

My first reaction is, "Ouch Centers"?!?!?! Heaven forbid we use a clear headline like "Babies Feel Pain." That might offend someone. But let's use a nice soft phrase and say, "Tiny Babies Have Ouch Centers." From this alone, I should have known what was coming...

Opening Paragraph:

Premature babies may be aware of pain in much the same way as older children and adults, according to a British study.

This must be different research... Remember above when the research team said, "This response is a reliable measure of pain as it directly relates brain activity with painful stimulation." So we've gone from the study being a "reliable measure of PAIN" (emphasis mine) to some sort of faint, potential awareness of pain.

Closing two paragraphs:

Despite the identical brain activity, differences remain in the ways babies and older children experience pain, said Maria Fitzgerald, the study's senior author and a professor of developmental neurobiology at University College London.

"An older child will have a much greater emotional and cognitive understanding of pain," Dr. Fitzgerald said, "and therefore have associated anxiety. What we show is that the youngest babies have a pure sensory response, but we cannot assume that they interpret it or analyze it in the same way."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my recollection of psychology, "interpretation" and "analysis" come after experience. That is to say, in what way does it matter how babies "interpret" or "analyze" pain. The fact is, IT HURTS!

It's painfully obvious that the NY Times author was digging for a quote to soften the blow to the pro-abortion crowd as to the relevance of this study. For the pro-abortionist, why should it matter how babies "analyze" or "interpret" pain... the whole concept of abortion is to kill it anyway. Their whole argument to date has been that the baby doesn't (or it isunknowable whether or not they do) feel pain.

It's interesting that this story continues to get no coverage in the US press on this issue -- in spite of the fact that many states are considering bills requiring notification of the mother that a baby feels pain during an abortion (most bills specify after 20 weeks). Seems like a published scientific study into the question should be important news for many in the U.S... unless, of course, those whom we trust to give us the information we need have an agenda of their own.

-=-=Other Research

Late abortion and the 'fetal pain' fallacy - Author argues:
The USA's ban on 'partial-birth abortion' rests on flawed arguments about fetal development.
A new front in abortion battle: Questions raised on pain of fetus - Boston Globe, February 3, 2005
Controversial abortion bill passes in Arizona
'Fetal pain bill' may become law, other states passed similar legislation - MSNBC - Abrams Report - February 16, 2006
Local lawmakers active in committees - According to the article: "Planned Parenthood says there is no evidence to support pain to the fetus."

Read Full Post...

For Technophiles and Non-techies alike...

Ok, I admit it, I'm a technophile. It's almost as if technology is in my blood... like lead poisoning from my childhood.

I got my first computer when I was 9 years old and was more interested in programming it to succumb to MY WILL instead of playing computer games (Really, I'm NOT a control freak ... much). In sixth grade, I was asked to teach the "smart kids" (the "elite" group that I was *not* placed into until the end of High School ... but I'm not bitter...) how to do computer graphics programming.

I dropped out of the Computer Science program at the State University of New York at Buffalo to enter the Pre-seminary program at Concordia College, Ann Arbor. Between my days at CCAA and the seminary, I spent 10 years in the computer industry. The first 7 years in a regional Internet Service Provider (ISP) in Michigan. The last 3 years in the network engineering/consulting department of a Value Added Reseller serving small to medium sized businesses as they needed to implement technology.

I cut my teeth on the Internet before the first web browser (NCSA Mosaic) was "mainstream" and people still used gopher and FTP to share information. All of my computers run Linux and have for at least the last seven years. When I MUST use Micro$oft Window$ (for example, to complete my SET form or use LOGOS software), I do so in a "virtual machine" running inside Linux.

While I'm not in the computer industry, I still keep tabs on it. I've seen a LOT in the computer industry and it take A LOT to impress me - and today I ran across not one but TWO articles that impress me.

First is the XO Laptop. This little device at about $200 per unit seems to be technology perfection. It's designed as an educational tool and is a bit slower than systems you may be used but only boot-up and opening applications, when you're using the applications, it's reported to be very responsive. It boasts a 6 hour battery life (or more if you don't use the backlight on the display), is rechargable up to 2000 times (with options of plug, hand crank, or solar cell), is almost kid-proof (spill proof, rain proof, drop proof, and dust proof), and has almost everything one would absolutely need in a computer system for basic, every-day computing.

I've been watching the One Laptop Per Child program as it's unfolded. The original plan was to make these units for $100 each. While they couldn't quite do it for that, the $200 price tag is more than reasonable given the features. The goal is to put a laptop in the hands of every child in undeveloped/underdeveloped countries where electricity is scarce and education is even more scarce.

For two weeks in November, they are making the units available to people in developed countries at the "Buy 1 Get 1" price of $400. At that price you purchase a unit for yourself and one is purchased for a child in the developing world.

It'd be great if we could hand them out with textbooks at our Lutheran Schools each year -- unlikely, but great!

The second piece of news is the latest version of Puppy Linux. I will admit to not using it myself yet (I use Gentoo on my personal machines) but I've been watching the "LiveCD" Linux systems from a distance for a while now and this looks like a perfect tool for starting to use Linux and moving people away from the "Evil Empire" in Redmond.

With Puppy Linux and old laptops, it might be possible to create a One Laptop Per Child program at the local school level that would be cost effective. In any case, If you have ever considered playing with Linux, I would recommend starting with something like Puppy Linux. It lets you test drive without harming your existing M$ Window$ installation.

If anyone tries Puppy Linux, let me know how it goes. I may try it myself soon -- and I'll post my impressions here if I do.

Read Full Post...

Fugitive Safe Surrender

Would you encourage your congregation turn your church fellowship hall gymnasium into a temporary court room to allow people in your community with outstanding warrants to come in and deal with the situation?

From the website:
Fugitive Safe Surrender is a unique, creative, and highly successful, initiative that encourages persons wanted for *non-violent felony* or *misdemeanor crimes* to voluntarily surrender to the law in a faith-based or other neutral setting.


It's an interesting concept with interesting implications under Luther's "Two Kingdoms."

What do you all think of this idea?

Read Full Post...

The (il)logic of the "science" of Global Warming

While I haven't posted in a while, there are some things that just get under my skin. One of them is alarmist "global warming" news stories that contain significant logical inconsistencies.

I should say that when I was in grade school (late 70's early 80's), I was told that we should be preparing for the next Ice Age because the earth was cooling. Living in the Great Lakes region of the country, there were predictions that the glaciers would be bulldozing our houses at some point (ok, that might be an exaggeration, I didn't take good enough notes in 4th grade.) Now, 25 years later (wow- now I feel old), we're hearing dire predictions that the polar icecaps are melting and sea levels are going to rise and swamp our houses.

Don't get me wrong, I don't dismiss out of hand that human activity could be contributing to global climactic change. However, I haven't seen enough proof to make any sort of causal link. In fact, I regularly hear information which causes me to discount such possibilities (e.g. Discovery Channel programs about how much CO2 and other "greenhouse gasses" are spewed out by volcanos every year -- which, if my memory serves correctly exceeds man-made sources by several orders of magnitude).

One such tidbit of information comes from the latest alarmist news article, posted of all places on Fox News. No doubt in response to the new corporate policy to coddle the enviro-nuts by making a mountain over this environmental mole hill.

Anyway, in the article: Melting Arctic Opens Up Northwest Passage a big deal is made over the fact that the Northwest Passage connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans has opened up "several decades ahead of schedule" (the schedule being determined by computer models).

Yet, there are these two tidbits in the article that we are supposed to ignore:

Look at this paragraph which tries to hide the fact that the passage was open almost a century ago!

The legendary passage was first navigated with great difficulty and using a relatively small ship by explorer Roald Amundsen in 1903 to 1906. Predictions for the opening of the Northwest Passage have ranged from 2012 to 2080 at their most conservative.

Interesting, it was "first navigated" sometime between 1903 and 1906 - by a man with no satillite imagery to figure out whether it was opened or not, and probably very little evidence to assure him that it truly existed. Granted, it was navigated "with great difficulty" but the fact is IT WAS NAVIGATED without the use of any special equipment over 100 years ago!

Questions that remain unanswered are things like:

1) How long had the passage been open before the sailing by Amundsen? That is, how passable was the Northwest Passage 20,30,50,100 years before Amundsen attempted sailing it?
2) Was it just freezing up at that point, or was that a prelude to the thaw we are seeing today?
3) Just how "relatively small" was the ship? I have a mental picture of him in his sail-powered dingy with a crew of 1 or 2 - but it certainly must have been larger than that. "Relatively small" is a comparison which needs something to "relate" to - and the relation is missing. (Note: I found an article about the passage by Amundsen - the crew was a total of 8 and they had to have room for supplies.)

The subtext of the article would like us to believe that this passage has been frozen solid for "thousands of years." See how they say, "navigated with great difficulty," and "relatively small ship" as if to say it was unnavigable, but he did it - and without the aid of modern technological "advances" like GPS, satellite navigation or even a clear knowledge of where his travels would lead him.

Then, we find out that just TEN YEARS AGO the passage opened up, "for a short time." And further that, ""Through the years, it's become increasingly open." But lest we conclude that this may be a natural/normal occurance happening - oh, lets say every 100 or so years, we need to immediately follow that statement with the alarmist drivel, "...but still really had not remained open in any kind of viable way. Two thousand and seven is really the first year."

Really?!?! I thought earlier the article said it was opened in a "viable way" for a "relatively small ship" to navigate it 100 years ago! 2007 "is really the first year"?!?! Hmm.. perhaps the history books about Mr. Amundsen's trip are incorrect then, perhaps it wasn't really a "relatively small ship" after all and he actually developed the first hover-craft - or was abducted by aliens on one side of the passage - who got confused and dropped him off on the wrong side of the ocean.

---
Historical note: Information about Amunsen's trip can be found here. It really was a difficult journey and not easy at all - taking many years of planning, reasearch, etc. But the fact is, it was open over 100 years ago. I guess we can give props to Fox for at least alerting us to the historical background of the Northwest Passage, but the article is still fairly one-sided - not presenting any facts about how open the passage may have been more than 30 years ago when satellites first started looking.

Read Full Post...

HOW MANY MORE AMERICANS MUST DIE?!?!

[begin rant]
President Bush has recently announced that he intends to increase the number of troops in Iraq in an effort to bring order out of the chaos that exists there due to those whose sole mission is to destroy the lives of those who disagree with them. In my opinion, the biggest mistake our president and the Pentagon have made in the war in Iraq is sending too few troops to begin with. From the early days of the war, when Turkey denied the use of their air-space, troop levels have been too low to execute an effective campaign against terror and insurgents. So, to President Bush I say, "It's about time!"

With that introduction, you may be confused by the title of this post. The fact is that, for over a year, something has bugged me about the reporting of the number of troops killed or injured in Iraq. Each time the media reports the statistic, I get angry. I get angry for two reasons. Number one, it's war. War is a terrible situation and by definition involves death and injury. The fact is, America should be thankful that our troops are well trained and, generally speaking, well armed and that the number of injuries and fatalities is as low as it is.

According to icasualties.org, 3,018 trained military personnel have lost their lives since March of 2003 when the war began. *To be sure, our hearts and prayers goes out to each and every family and friend impacted by their death. There is certainly no words that can express their grief.*

At the same time, a political issue has been made of these deaths. The concern is that these deaths would have been preventable and these Americans would be alive today if we were to pull our troops out of Iraq. The fact is, logically speaking, these valiant men and women would not have died on foreign soil in the line of duty if we pulled them out of Iraq. However, that would be no guarantee that they would be alive today.

It may be that they would have been killed by a terrorist attack on our own country. They may have lost their life in a training accident on U.S. soil. Or, they may have been murdered while on leave. Perhaps they would have developed a disease and died, had a heart attack, stroke, or lethal drug interaction. We must admit that at least SOME of them would possibly have died even if they were "safe and sound" on American soil all this time.

"Safe and sound?" Perhaps not. The fact is, in the same time period as the war in Iraq, *over 50,000 Americans died in our own country in a manner that is 100% preventable*. That's right, over 15 times as many people died in America during the same period from something that is completely preventable.

Yet where is the outrage? Where are the protests? Where are the marches on Washington, state capitols, city halls to put an end to this travesty in America - this slaughter of innocent men, women, and children on our own soil?

Why are we cheapening the sacrifice of our noble men and women in the armed forces who are giving their lives in service to their neighbor? Why are we calling it "senseless" that they are attempting to bring peace and stability to a country ravaged by war and hate for hundreds of years? The fact is, those who died in Iraq are heroes. PERIOD. They lives were not meaningless, their deaths were not senseless. They gave their lives in service to their neighbor while living their life in their vocation and obedient to their calling.

But I have to wonder if we really need such a well trained military that has only 3,018 fatalities in a war that has lasted nearly 4 years when the Americans they are supposedly "defending" have killed over 50,000 fellow citizens and injured tens of thousands more - without even a periodic mention of this fact in the media.

Don't believe my numbers?!?!? Take a look for yourself and do the math! - The Iraq war began in late March, 2003. Based on 16,500 deaths per year (2004 there were 16,919 and 2005 there were 16,885), there have been approximately 60,390 alcohol related deaths in the U.S. since the beginning of April 2003 -- over 20 times as many Americans have died from drunk driving than US troops have been killed in the Iraq war - a situation that was 100% preventable.

[end rant]

Read Full Post...

"The Myth of Expository Preaching" ??

David Fitch, author of the Great Giveaway and a voice in the emergent church has a post on his blog (also entitled: The Great Giveaway) about The Myth of Expository Preaching and the Comoditization of the Word.

The post brings up numerous issues, and I'm tempted to run a series on the post over on Learning Greek since it's my site dedicated to such things and I have some spare time now that intensives are over.

But to whet your whistle a little, here's a couple of quotes worth considering and some brief comments/questions. Discuss among yourselves, I think I'll be posting more in the days (hours?) ahead.

His definition of Expository Preaching:

Implied is, if the preacher but applies the exegetical historical-critical skills (s)he learned in seminary and studies the text in its original language, aided by the Spirit, (s)he can arrive at the meaning of the text all by him/herself. Expository preaching, done right (with good exegesis), sticks to the already existing stable perspicuous meaning in the text. Interpretation therefore comes second and can only follow the text. In this way, expository preaching allows God’s Word to drive the message and any interpretation is automatically subordinated to it.

The danger he sees:

The reality therefore is that what guides interpretation is not scientific individual interpretation of the text. It is the broad consensus interpretation for the Biblical texts found in the ongoing history of church doctrine.

I have to say, I generally concur with his assessment. Take a look at commentaries and the tools we have available to us. How are our lexicons, for example, created? How does our preconceived notions of what grammatical structures "mean" inform our exegesis? If we "see" something that those around us, or previous commentators didn't, how do we evaluate who is right? It seems to me, most often, it's by saying, "They're right... 'cause they wrote the book." This is really no different than defering to the papacy or to the "tradition" of the church -- so to some extent, we all often march back to Rome in some ways.

A good example: Is John 6 "Sacramental"? The Lutheran "tradition" says it's not. Scripture doesn't say one way or the other. There are many who say it is, many who say it's not. Surely, God knows whether or not He intended it to be so... so there IS an answer to the question... but what is the answer? (More importantly -- how do you know?)

Another problem he sees:

Secondly, even if we could agree that each individual mind under the Holy Spirit can come to the one propositional meaning of the text using exegesis, we cannot assume then that these truths as communicated by the preacher will necessarily be heard as the same thing to the isolated hearer in the pew when (s)he hears them.

Definitely an issue. How often has this happened to you? You preach a sermon on topic A, and the people leaving your church said, "I loved your sermon about topic XYZ today." How often does something similar happen even in just common every day conversation? This is definitely a problem - but what's the solution?

Fitch is talking about "Expository Preaching" as it's found primarily among Evangelicals... so his comments regarding "three points and an application" that people then take home to try to live out "the Christian life" (i.e. sanctification) may not be entirely true in a proper Lutheran context (at least hopefully). But there's still some sense where many sermons are "three points and an application." Even if the application is, appropriately, "Jesus."

I found what he said about "comoditization" of the Word provocative... and something I'll have to think further about. I have some thinking to do, anyway, about how we define, "the Word" both in our confession, practice and Lutheran understanding.

As usual, I agree with about 70-85% of Fitch's description of the problem, a possible 50% of his diagnosis and approaching 0% of his remedy (more on that later). Of course, he's very much an "anti-Lutheran" (For example, in his article: Theological Issues Confronting the Emergent Church he calls an emphasis on Pauline justification as Justification by grace through Faith, "Over Lutheranized") -- Although, interestingly, I think the Lutheran Church is probably best positioned to answer the problems he sees in modern Evangelicalism -- an interesting paradox.

He references Chapter 5 of his book... I don't recall if I read that far. I read almost exactly half of the book then things turned from problem description and diagnosis to remedy -- where he was too far off for my taste.

Well, how about it? What is the proper preaching "Methodology"? My answer will be forthcoming... Do his descriptions of the problems ring true?

Read Full Post...

PSA: Copyright and Digital Rights Management

Beware the Corruptables.

Perhaps you've heard about technologies such as the "audio flag," "digital rights management," etc. You may even have heard about Sony/BMG music installing trojan software on people's personal computers when they play their Audio CD's on their PC... (yes, they did it, without the PC owner's permission. Yes, it IS a federal crime to tamper with another person's computer without permission. No, they didn't get prosecuted for it).

I came across this short video produced by the Electronic Frontier Foundation - A group dedicated to "defending freedom in a digital world" - which can serve as an introduction to this issue.

Copyright law has something called "fair use" (Section 107 - quoted below) embeded in it. Under Fair use, reproduction, "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." (emphasis added) This right has already been significantly curtailed by various court decisions.

Many of the initiatives by the entertainment lobby, book publishers, and others aim to limit fair use by "Digital Rights Management". In many cases, it is a back door way of abridging the right of fair use.

It's important to defend fair use - a right which we as scholars and the public in general have as a right guaranteed under copyright law. Without it, quoting the work of another for any reason -- including for purposes of comment or critique would be illegal as well as many other uses.

Abuse of fair use is theft - and can be a problem. However, initiatives which curtail legally defined rights through back doors is oppression. I don't deny that the publishing industry should be able to protect their rights in a work. However, those rights were established for a purpose and are not "inalienable." The express constitutional purpose was "to promote science and the useful arts." I wouldn't call most of the trash talk in the music world nor the garbage on TV and in the movies "useful arts" -- neither would I call it "science" (I guess some case could be made for biology and psychology -- especially on the soap operas and reality TV).

As a side note, plagarism on the web is one of the biggest forms of copyright infringement there is - even in the Lutheran blogosphere. Including large portions of newswire stories, other web sites, etc. without the express permission of the owner of the material is also theft. That means if you extensively quote from the AP, Reuters, CNN, etc. or even another blogger's website without their permission and aren't providing significant commentary, YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW!

For this reason, I recommend all bloggers examine creative commons licenses to apply to their websites. This gives others permissions (which you can define) to use your material, at the same time, allows a free exchange of ideas to occur.

--
Anyway, enough comments about that. Here's the "fair use" section of Copyright law. I also recommend reading the copyright law regarding non-infringing uses. Note especially section 110 (3).

--
Title 17, Section 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Read Full Post...

Life must have been simpler before the Tower of Babel

I tend not to take the word of others very easily-- especially when it comes to hearing second hand what someone else thinks or said. I'll often take the "evidence" or report of a second hand source under advisement, but I will often not readily "accept" it without additional corroboration - preferably from primary sources.

Such has been the case in Luther's "break" with Augustine over the nature of grace.

I had taken a seminar on Augusine in the mid 90's when I was at Concordia College, Ann Arbor. Since then, I have rather liked his writings and found a lot of "good stuff" in them (and on this, I haven't really changed my mind).

When I took a seminar on Luther, there was mention of a 'break' between Augustine and Luther on the nature of grace. Aside from the assertion that such a break occurred, there was no real evidence of it. And even though I had read a fair amount of Augustine's writings, I just couldn't "see" (or rather believe) it.

In reading Augustine, I had often come across the word "grace." Sometimes it seemed to refer to how Lutherans would understand the grace of God in relation to justification (imputed righteousness). Other times, it seemed to refer to the gifts of God which effect our sanctification. Therefore, as I read Augustine, I simply interpreted the word, "grace," in the appropriate way based on the context and my own ("Lutheran") understanding -- figuring he just hadn't been careful about separating the two, but assuming he meant what I thought he meant.

This, of course, meant that I didn't see the gulf that exists between the Lutheran understanding of "grace" in terms of justification (imputation), and Augustine's understanding of "grace" (infusion). It also explained my perplexity with those who saw this gulf. I, therefore, assumed that other people had misread Augustine, seeking to be critical of him where no such criticism was necessary.

Well, I found it today. For anyone else out there who may believe that Augustine's conceptualization of grace was misunderstood and that there is no difference between Augustine and Luther... I recommend that you read the following quotation:

As therefore in Abraham the justification of faith came first, and circumcision was added afterwards as the seal of faith; so in Cornelius the spiritual sanctification came first in the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the sacrament of regeneration was added afterwards in the laver of baptism. And as in Isaac, who was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth, the seal of this righteousness of faith was given first, and afterwards, as he imitated the faith of his father, the righteousness itself followed as he grew up, of which the seal had been given before when he was an infant; so in infants, who are baptized, the sacrament of regeneration is given first, and if they maintain a Christian piety, conversion also in the heart will follow, of which the mysterious sign had gone before in the outward body. And as in the thief the gracious goodness of the Almighty supplied what had been wanting in the sacrament of baptism, because it had been missing not from pride or contempt, but from want of opportunity; so in infants who die baptized, we must believe that the same grace of the Almighty supplies the want, that, not from perversity of will, but from insufficiency of age, they can neither believe with the heart unto righteousness, nor make confession with the mouth unto salvation. - Augustine, On Baptism, Book IV - Chapter 24

It's clear that Augustine viewed grace as an infused substance which must be acted upon in order to effect our justification. Oddly enough, this treatise was against the Pelagians... So, sadly, Augustine has been taken down a notch in my eyes. It's sad... but I probably idolized him too much anyway. I think I'll probably continue to reinterpret Augustine as I read him... but at least now I know I'm doing it.

As I've mused many times, life must have been so much easier before the Tower of Babel. Then, at least, we knew what each other was saying.

Read Full Post...

Simply horrifying

Medical tourism to the U.S. for designer babies....

I must admit... In general, I'm a capitalist because I find that capitalist competition tends to be the best way to balance competing interests in a secular society. But this is a case of capitalism run amok.... I'm repulsed and embarassed enough to almost turn red!

DM42

Read Full Post...

Media Responsible if VA Records gets misused?

I understand the watchdog mentality of the media and that it serves an important function in the process of government of our nation by providing information on what goes on in the world. However, it seems to me that there is some responsibility to consider whether the disclosure of facts advances the story and what damage the disclosure might do.

A case in point is the recent loss of information from the Veteran's Administration including Social Security numbers and personal information of former military personnel. The fact is that hundreds and thousands of computer disks and systems are stolen in our country every year. The fact is that personnel who may have access to this information may have been anywhere in the country when the theft took place.

The important facts to be reported are that equipment was stolen containing potentially important information. This should be reported and those affected should be notified. But is it necessary to include in reporting that the equipment was stolen from a residence (my thought is that fewer laptops are stolen from residences than from, say, airports, hotels, and other areas) and the geographic location (city and state) where the theft took place?

With the play that this is getting in the media, it seems very likely that any person who recently stole computer equipment or disks from a residence in that geographic area is now put on notice that they have a disk with very valuable information on it. It is now less likely that equipment stolen from that geographic area will be erased until they are checked for that data.

How is the story advanced by knowing the city that the theft took place in? It doesn't. How is the story advanced by knowing that it was a residence and not a hotel or airport theft? It doesn't. In both of these cases, the only thing that this information does is to provide thieves who stole stuff from residences in that area on notice that they may have something valuable which they might otherwise have overlooked.

If the data is used to defraud anyone, I think the media should be held somewhat culpable for putting the crook on notice of what to look for and making it easier to determine where to look.

Read Full Post...

AP Report on Da Vinci Code somewhat balanced

Color me suprised. There is an AP report on CNN.com entitled The Battle of 'The Da Vinci Code' which gives a moderately balanced description of the debate about the movie. They even quote Larry Hurtado who was a guest at Concordia Theological Seminary's 2005 Exegetical Symposium.

While I won't say that the media "gets it" with regard to the theological issues surrounding this film, I'm happy that they at least are providing some details of the truth opposing Brown's fictional story.

Read Full Post...

J.M. Reu's "Homiletics" Textbook Now Available!

I've made my favorite homiletics textbook available. It's title is Homiletics: A Manual of the Theory and Practice of Preaching by J.M. Reu D.D. of Wartburg Seminary. The publication is a reprint of images taken from a 1922 first edition. There are three versions available. Hard Cover ($33.22), Paperback ($23.74) and a "Coursepack" ($14.77). Descriptions of each are available as well as a PDF file which contains a preview of the introduction.

The introductory pricing shown here will be available for at least two weeks.

The hardcover and paperback editions maintain the pagination of the original (nearly 650 pages total) and have been scaled to be slightly larger making the print easier to read. The "coursepack" edition is printed two pages of the original book per page of the reprint, like when you had books reproduced in a college coursepack.

Fulfillment is Print On Demand, meaning when you order a copy, it gets printed. I have no pre-printed inventory. There are bulk discounts available for orders over 26 copies -- however, an even lower price can usually be negotiated if you contact me directly.

Read Full Post...

Making Evolutionists "Go Ape"

A recent discussion I've been having regarding evolution in the classroom has wound down.

In the process of the discussion, I seemed to have worked a couple of zealots into a frenzy trying to defend the existence of evolution in the science curriculum of our public schools. The argument is simple and has been stated before on this site.

Below is a repost of my latest comment. There are two definitions under discussion. Both are definitions that have been formulated by the National Academy of Sciences in their materials for the National Science Education Standards that they are trying to get every state to use as the basis of their science curriculums in the public schools.

[MORE - Click Read Full Post below]
These are the two definitions:

(1) Science: "Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from confirmable data - the results obtained through observation and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence ARE NOT PART OF SCIENCE" (emphasis mine - quoted from: Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, by the National Academy of Sciences, page 27).

(2) Evolution: Evolution is a series of changes, some gradual and some sporadic, that accounts for the present form and function of objects, organisms, and natural and designed systems. The general idea of evolution is that the present arises from materials and forms of the past. Although evolution is most commonly associated with the biological theory explaining the process of descent with modification of organisms from common ancestors, evolution also describes changes in the universe. (quoted from: National Science Education Standards, National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, National Research Council, p.119 (available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/4962.html)

These two definitions interact in such a way that evolution is either declared unscientific or is based on a religious presupposition about the eternal existence of matter. Either way, the result is that it has no place in the science curriculum of our public schools.

You can read the whole discussion on First Person Life (Posts: But Isn't Science Unbiased?, and Faith in Science. See also: the December 2005 and January 2006 Archives for my discussion of the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision)as well as Axinar's (Posts: Science and Religion, The Thumpers are Attacking, And God Said, "Let there be cow.", Finding Our Boy Tiktaalik Roseae In Genesis, And Stir, and Separation of Education and State) .

You'll see we ran the gambit in the discussion, but I think I've finally got the underlying issue stated clearly.


=-=-Repost of Comments-=-=
"Evolution is change" and that change "accounts for" the present form of everything we see around us. Furthermore, "evolution also describes changes in the universe."

While we can quibble about shades of meaning, the fact is that under this definition evolution says "there was a previous form yesterday" and "there is a new form today." "Hopeful monsters" are not excluded because of the "sporadic" nature of some of the changes.

One may argue that the Big Bang could be classified as a "sporadic change"... however, from what I understand, all of the laws governing the behavior of matter were fundamentally (unobservably, untestably, and therefore, "unscientifically") different in the first few microseconds of the existence of the universe under the Big Bang theory.

You are correct, the phrase, "accounts for" is a bit difficult because it does carry with it a connotation of "explains how" or "explains why." But even removing that phrase and replacing it with "describes" does not avoid the underlying presupposition that there was something there at moment N-1 which formed the bases of what is there at moment N.

"...never intended to answer the metaphysical question..."

There is no "metaphyscial" question -- and that's my point. By the definition of evolution as it is taught in our schools, things are assumed to always have changed, "sometimes gradual[ly] and sometimes sporadic[ally]."

Change, by definition, requires a preceding state and a consequent state. For each "present," there must be a "before." Otherwise, there is no "change" there is simply "was not" and "is now."

Science, by the definition I've quoted earlier, does not allow for such a statement as, "it wasn't there, now it is there." Evolution posits that what appears to have been not there before but there now is the result of a change of what was there before into what is there now.

Therefore, based on the two definitions we have been discussing, there are only two possible conclusions.

(1) Matter has eternally existed and the materials and forms of moment N-1 are the materials and building blocks for the forms of moment N. Taking N to (-infinity)+1 still means there was something at (-infinity) that changed.

or

(2) Evolution is unscientific according to the definition of science that is promulgated by the National Academy of Sciences and was codified into judicial precedent in the Kitzmiller case.

Statement (1) is a religious statement and is therefore (arguably) barred under the First Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America. Statement (2) means that evolution has no place in a "science" curriculum because it does not fit the definition of "science".

Either way, evolution should not be taught in our nations public schools in the science curriculum.

I'm happy to entertain discussion regarding how this analysis is wrong, but I simply do not see any alternative except (1) and (2) above based upon the definitions we've been discussing.

If you disagree with the definitions, you disagree with the National Academy of Sciences - a group of the most prestigious scientists in the nation that advise the government on matters of science and policy. You are free to disagree with them, but I submit such disagreement would put you outside of "mainstream science."

Read Full Post...

Wright: Right, Wrong or "muddled"?

A recent interview with Bishop Wright in an Australian newspaper has sparked a response from Pastor McCain of Cyberbretheren. In his post, Wright could not be more Wrong, Pastor McCain rightly points out that to deny the resurrection is to be an unbeliever. You cannot truly believe in Christ and deny the bodily resurrection from the dead. As St. Paul says, "If Christ has not been raised from the dead, then our faith is in vain."

I too am on my guard when it comes to Bishop Wright's work. Having spent a little time examining his understanding of Romans as part of a class last quarter, I see several dangers in his line of thinking -- especially his, "new perspective" on Paul.

But I'm not quite willing to throw Bishop Wright aside based on his comments in this article. In reading it carefully, I find that he does say some worthwhile things. This doesn't mean I think we should extend him Altar and Pulpit Fellowship, mind you, but I think we should examine what he says and at least be willing to point out our agreements and disagreements.

[MORE - click on FULL POST below]

I've been accused of "overreacting" in the past, perhaps this time, I'm "under-reacting"... but on closer examination of what Bishop Wright says, I think in the context of this article, we might learn a lot from his appearance in the media.

Quotes are from the article: Resurrecting faith by Jill Rowbotham.

"I have friends who I am quite sure are Christians who do not believe in the bodily resurrection," he says carefully, citing another eminent scholar, American theologian Marcus Borg, co-author with Wright of The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions.

"But the view I take of them - and they know this - is that they are very, very muddled. They would probably return the compliment."

I'm not sure Bishop Wright is taking that much of a different view than St. Paul took of the Corinthians who questioned the resurrection (Cxref I Corinthians 15:13). While I would assert that nobody ought to be preaching or teaching in the name of Christianity who does not subscribe the the Christian Creeds, this doesn't appear to me a statement that advocates a position that "It's OK to not believe in the resurrection and call yourself a Christian." Quite the contrary. Bishop Wright calls those who attempt to do so, "very, very muddled." Not a ringing endorsement by any stretch.

Bishop Wright further says of those who fail to acknowledge to bodliy resurrection:

I actually think that's a major problem and it affects most of whatever else he does, and I think that it means he has all sorts of flaws as a teacher, but I don't want to say he isn't a Christian.

Perhaps Wright doesn't want to say, "he isn't a Christian," because that's not his place. Yes, he does not profess Christianity rightly. Yes, his reason has led him astray. And, true, if one truly denies the bodily resurrection, fully understanding the ramifications of that denial, I don't see how they will be in heaven. All of these things are true -- and I don't think Bishop Wright would disagree (I don't want to speak for him, though.)

On the other hand, Bishop Wright does not exercise any sort of spiritual jurisdiction over this (these) person(s) he's talking about. Further, it would seem presumptive (and a possible breach of the eighth commandment) for Wright to assert that Mr. Borg is not a Christian. We must remember that Wright is here talking about a specific person. It is the author of the article who extrapolates this to a more global statement.

I'm more dubious when Wright talks about how the church should behave in the culture of postmodernism. His answer is summarized by the article's author as:

The detail is reduced to the notion that actions speak louder than words and the best proselytising is done when non-Christians are so struck by the example of a believer's life that they ask what makes them so different.

Wright goes on to say:

"The church has it the other way around. It has tended to say: 'We must say it, say it, say it as clearly as possible and if there is any energy left over, we'll do a bit of it as well.'"

My quick response is, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." (Rom. 10:17) Whether you take "the Word of God" to be proclaimation of the Scriptures or a proclaimation of Christ crucified and risen is irrelavent since the Scriptures simply testify about Christ.

I disagree with Wright that, "Jesus was going around 'doing the kingdom.'" While true, it is only true to a point. Jesus also said, "My kingdom is not of this world." So this must somehow be reconciled with, "doing the kingdom." His activity on earth was a moral example, that was not his purpose on earth. His purpose was as atoning sacrifice. He did not, "provide a way for the world to be saved," He actually saved the world. That was the message he came to proclaim. His miracles were testimony to his work of salvation, not simply works to be emulated. Unfortunately, the hardness of the human heart rejects that salvation and so many will not partake of the salvation won by Christ.

However, the generalized critique that as the Body of Christ, the Christian Church is often too self-centered and lacks outward expression of their faith is not wholly without merit. It is misdirected and easily misunderstood, but not completely wrong. Further amplification on this point will need to wait for another post when I get all my thoughts together.

Overall, writing off Wright as wrong based on this article seems a bit harsh. Given the medium, I would say he articulated the truth of Christ's bodily resurrection unambiguously. That doesn't mean that it can't somehow be misunderstood or misinterpreted, but those wishing to do such things probably wouldn't listen no matter how much clearer he could have been.

I think this article shows that (at least in Australia) the media will print the truth about Christianity. It's true, in this country it is harder to get stuff like thie printed, but I'm not sure it's impossible. I'm toward the top of the list when it comes to seeing institutional bias against the historic truths of Christianity in the media, so I have to give kudos to Bishop Wright for seizing an opportunity to at least proclaim one truth foundational to our faith...

Now, if we could convert him from his intrinsic calvinist/reformed covenantal roots, perhaps altar and pulpit fellowship will follow of their own accord...

Read Full Post...

Faith in Science

I recently found myself needing to respond to the "dinosaurs aren't referenced in the Bible, so science and Scripture are incompatible" argument (see comments to:But Isn't Science Unbiased?). Here's my response (it became too long to be a comment -- and blogger wouldn't let me format it the way I wanted as a comment).

MORE - click Full Post below

but, you know what, there are bones of "lizards as big as a house" all over this planet. Yes, there are things that are hard to infer about them, but, they were here, they laid eggs, they're not here any more, and the ancient Hebrews knew nothing about them ...

This is a false argument. There are a couple of reasons there is a limited amount of information about dinosaurs in Scripture (I'll get to what is there later).

First, the Scriptures show us the nature of mankind. Namely, we are sinners. "Sin is the revolt of mans will against the will of God, a revolt of the creature against the Creator, a revolt of man's selfishness against God's holy love." (J.M. Reu - Faith and Life, 1935).

While revealing sin is one of the purposes of Scripture, its highest purpose is to show us how God has answered the problem of sin. Namely, He sent His Son to be born, suffer and die. Jesus Christ was not simply a "hero" in the Christian religion, He is God himself who took on human flesh and "dwelt among us" (John 1). He suffered the punishment that every man, woman and child who has lived, does live, or will live deserves for their willful revolt against God. And after His death, He rose again to life, proving that he had fully accomplished that work and mankind now stands in a right relationship to God. This is the core of the Scriptures -- and thereby the core of the Christian faith.

These two things, knowledge of our sinful condition and God's work to restore us to fellowship with Him are the purposes of Scripture. In that narrative, there is little need to reference the minute details of the other creatures that God created on the earth. Scriptures are not intended to be a science textbook. They have a specific purpose -- to tell us of Jesus.

On the other hand, Scriptures do contain a lot of information about the world that God created because they contain factual accounts of that world in history. Unfortunately, the scientific method didn't exist during the writing of the Old and New Testaments, so like the ancient "dragon" stories, we have to be careful how much "science" we do with them.

But to counter your statement that the "ancient Hebrews knew nothing about them," I offer the following biblical evidence for both dinosaurs as well as very large sea creatures and creatures that sound very much like "dragons" (fire breathing and all). Here's an excerpt from Job chapters 40 and 41:

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him . Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. (Job 40:15-24 KJV)

Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn? Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee? Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever? Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens? Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants? Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears? Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more. Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him? None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me? Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine. I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion. Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle? Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about. His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him. The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved. His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone . When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves. The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon. He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble. Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear. Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire. He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment. He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary. Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear. He beholdeth all high things : he is a king over all the children of pride. (Job 41 - KJV)

There's also Psalm 74:13-14 (KJV):

Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters. Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

[My apologies for the stiff KJV, but it's public domain and I won't get sued for using it.]

Then there is other literature, like Enoch 12:1:

And I looked and saw other flying elements of the sun, whose names (are) Phoenixes and Chalkydri, marvellous and wonderful, with feet and tails in the form of a lion, and a crocodile’s head

[NOTE: Enoch is not considered "Scripture" by most Christians because it has a questionable textual tradition (i.e. we don't really know who wrote it or when) and it doesn't much treat the main theme of Scripture -- namely the salvation of mankind.]

So, to say, "the ancient Hebrews knew nothing about them," is (dare I say it), "unscientific". Looking to the observations recorded by ancient writers of the Hebrew Scriptures, we see evidence of very large, fire-breathing creatures roaming the earth. Now, THERE'S science by observation!

I'm not arguing, like many misguided fundamentalist bible-thumpers, that science and scripture are completely incompatible. I am saying that science should stick with what it's good at - making observations and inferences based upon those observations. Until they create a time-machine and go back 4.5 billion years to watch the universe explode in the big-bang, I'm under no obligation to believe that it's true.

Furthermore, until they observe transitions between discernable "kinds" of creatures, there is nothing but faith in a fancy story about how it might have happened. At this point it becomes two faith systems arguing against each other -- what is that but two different religions arguing against each other?

That is why I have concluded that "walking fish," "big bang," "evolution," and a plethora of other creative stories are not scientific (according the the National Academy of Science's own definition, mind you). Science needs to stick to observation and inference based upon observation. As the judge in the Kitzmiller decision said:

NAS is in agreement that science is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data: Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science. (emphasis mine)

Let's stick to that definition of Science and all of these arguments between "faith and Science" disappear. In addition millions (if not billions) of dollars in research money will be freed up to fight disease, pollution, and other problems that affect the world now rather than chasing after E.T. with ham radios or trying to figure out where we came from.

From a scientific vantage point, why does it really matter where we came from anyway? We're here now, we have problems now, let's use research money on those... leave the rest of it to the theologians and philosophers to argue about.

For more information about the Christian Faith and Dinosaurs, I recommend Genesis and the Dinosaur by Erich A. von Fange, Ph.D. It's apparently out of print right now, but that may change soon.

Read Full Post...

But isn't science unbiased?

More evidence that the scientific establishment doesn't like criticism of it's pet theories and ideas can be found in this recent op-ed piece from the Wall Street Journal regarding Global Warming... It appears that the libel and slander in calling Intelligent Design a "non-science" extends to anyone not towing the party line within the ranks of the accepted scientific community. I suppose if the National Academy of Science thought that the earth was flat and Galileo showed up to prove them wrong, they'd have him declared a heretic...

What does this mean? (a good Lutheran question) - basically - for all it's pretense to the contrary, the institutions of science do have an agenda and they will actively work to quash anything that doesn't fit in with that agenda. This makes them more religious cultists than objective scientists... but that doesn't seem to bother them. As long as they don't invoke "God" in their analysis, they are non-religious (in their minds). To some extent, I agree, but ultimately I'd have to say that it simply makes them irreligious-zealots.

So fallen human nature proves itself stupid again -- unable to question it's own assumptions. It's sad really, because science has historically been such a benefit to humanity --- then again, most of that progress came when (in general) scientists recognized that there was order in the universe and attributed it to the One who spoke the universe into existence. Now science is less interested in truth (cxref: Pilate - "What is truth?") and more interested in lining their own pockets and pushing their own agendas -- which oddly enough, for some includes the extermination of up to 90% of the worlds population.

It makes me wonder who else would be interested in the extermination of 90% of the population of the planet... hmm... Could it be...... [wait for it] .......
....
...
....
...
....
...
Satan?!

The scientific cult is an extension of a fallen human ego -- a plaything for Satan to manipulate and use to oppose God. Since they replace the One True God with human reason and worship themselves, they can be nothing else. This doesn't mean that all scientists are evil or that good doesn't come out of science. It does mean that we must be careful when we listen to "scientific facts" that are contrary to what the Scriptures teach about the Universe and the One who created it -- especially when they posit things like ice-flows for the savior of that Universe to walk on, or dig up 1700 year old gnostic writings and attempt to place them on par with Holy Writ.

I could go on... but I've already given them too many pixels... suffice it to say, be careful when reading "science."

Read Full Post...

Wow! Thanks!

I'm both honored and humbled to be selected as the recipient of a coveted Aardie for the post, Allah is Impotent?. Thank you Aardvark for considering it worthy of consideration.

Also, in view of the Islamic [mis]understanding of the afterlife, thank's for avoiding the Cialis and Viagra jokes about the headline... (Well... Somebody had to....)

Read Full Post...

So you want Government Run Healthcare?

Try signing up for a dentist in the U.K. right now!

Government figures show that about two million people want to register with a dentist but are unable to do so. (Telegraph News, 2000 Dentist have not signed NHS contract, 4-7-2006)

Read Full Post...

Da Vinci Code Movie given Green Light

It's "good news / bad news"...

On the one hand, part of me wished this would stop the movie's release and we wouldn't have to deal with it. On the other hand, such an interpretation of Copyright Law would be bad as well.

So I guess I have a very mixed reaction. The danger to people's faith is real with all of this heresy and falsehood being spread, but most of it is something the Church has weathered before. Once bad law gets institutionalized, it's nearly impossible to fix. Since the God doesn't promise to come to us through the legal system but only promises to come to us through His Word and Sacraments, I guess I'm happy that reason and good legal interpretation prevailed in this instance.

Now it's up to the Church to work carefully at combatting the spiritual ramifications of this movie -- but PLEASE don't do it on Sunday morning during the Divine Service -- people need to hear more about the real Jesus who died, unmarried and childless, after walking on water not ice, without making a compact with Judas, in order that all mankind would be saved from the punishment of their sin. [And those are just the heresies and lies that the popular media have been talking about in relation to Jesus this week -- wait till next week, there'll be more.]

Read Full Post...

This explains the media's behavior....

They're on drugs!

This explains poor judgement and an inability to tell the difference between scientific fact and unsupported conjecture.

I think we should support Bonds in this. In fact, let's open congressional inquiries on journalistic drug use and the effect on the quality of research that goes into stories. Perhaps random drug testing and/or drug tests based on the authorship of outrageous stories that have little basis in fact (or those that dredge up a 1700 year old story as if its new).

The difference being... baseball players are becoming better at doing their job... apparently establishment journalists are getting the leftovers and simply rotting out their brains.

Or, maybe the spend too much time hiding in potted plants skulking for a story.

Read Full Post...

The Reason Apologetics Are Important

Interestingly, two of the three articles I've highlighted as examples of media bias against Christianity are the top two articles being emailed from the NYTimes website. One ("Fish with Legs") is on the list twice (two different stories). So if you think people aren't interested in this, think again.

As a theologian in preparation for the Office of the Holy Ministry, the question that arises for me is, "should I (or the Church collectively) be concerned about this?"

Since conversion is fully an act of God, people cannot be "prepared" to be converted or argued into faith. So what difference does it make if all of these things are "out there" in the global consciousness?

Underlying these questions is a question about the role of Apologetics in the Ministry of the Church. Lutheranism has struggled with the role of Apologetics in the church. I would submit this because we too often define it in the same way as the fudamentalists and Arminians do. They believe that the task of the apologist is to either prepare one for conversion or actually argue someone into believing in Christ.

I fully admit, apologetics is not (and can never be) a tool to argue someone into the faith. However, I would argue that it is one of the weapons we have in removing reasons to abandon the faith in favor of more "reasonable" views of reality.

We all know that reason is the whore of Satan when it is not properly in a subjugated relationship to faith in the One True God who has forgiven the World through the death of His Son, Jesus Christ. Reason without Faith in the Gospel leads to pride and conceit. It destroys humility in a believer. Its ultimate end is to supplant God with the false truths generated by human intellect. It thereby destroys faith in God and the work of His Son, Jesus Christ.

However, when properly subjugated to Faith and the Word of God, reason can be an effective tool on behalf of the Gospel.

Scripture clearly teaches that Faith and conversion are fully an act of God. Unbelief and rejection are fully an act of man. Mankind is damned by his own rejection of God's free salvation for the sake of Jesus Christ who died to redeem men from sin.

Simply put, mankind is saved because Jesus died to pay the price for the disobedience of the sin of every man, woman, and child who has lived, lives now, or ever will live. Faith is not a choice to be made. A person can only choose disbelief and reject this free gift of salvation that God has accomplished in Christ.

News articles like those that I have been discussing make it easier to reject and chose to disbelieve. Ultimately, there is little concern about the effect these stories have on "conversion" (properly speaking). However, articles like these can (and do) harm or destroy faith in those without the means to discern truth from error. This is a real danger.

These articles make it easier for the evil one to "snatch away" the seed that has been sown. The Word and the means of grace are the tools that God uses to cultivate the seed. Apologetics, however, can be conceived of as a fence to protect that seed from the crows and ravens which seek to snatch it while it grows and is nurtured by the Means of Grace. Lutherans do not believe, "Once Saved, Always Saved."

The utility of apologetics is not as an evangelistic tool. The only true evangelistic tool is the Gospel (narrowly defined -- which includes Baptism as Water and the Word). But those who have heard the Word and may be struggling with these "competing voices" must be protected lest they be deceived and turned away from the voice of the One True Shepherd.

Part of our duty as the Church is to protect the sheep of the Good Shepherd by pointing out the falsehood and dangers that these "other voices" pose so that they do not harden their hearts and reject the Word that was planted within them.

Therefore, apologetics are extremely important within the church, possibly now more than ever in America. Not in the way they have been employed by fundamentalists and Arminians who believe that we can argue a person into faith or at the very least "prepare" someone for faith, but rather as a tool to repel the assaults of false prophets who would destroy the faith that Christ's sheep have in the Good Shepherd who has laid down his life for His sheep.

Read Full Post...

Need more proof of Media Bias?

In case you need yet more proof of a concerted effort to discredit Christianity, the following links to a story that the AP is running about a gnostic writing (the Gospel of Judas) which supposedly has attestation of Ireneus, Bishop of Lyon's writings.

This is the THIRD STORY this week which has eclipsed a scientific study that babies 5 months after conception actually do feel pain. Wonder why that story got buried behind scientific conjecture about Jesus walking on Ice and fish walking on Land. And in case that wasn't enough, now we have the Gospel of Judas (which is NOT news -- since Irenaeus wrote about it in 180 AD --- talk about digging up the past in a slow news week).

National Geographic has translated a 1700 year old papyrus which claims that Jesus asked Judas to betray him.

Rather interesting that this story seems to have broken today and there are already major news organizations running full stories on it... not just the AP wire stories either.

I suppose I should expect this type of thing, but it still bugs me.

[Click on FULL POST below to see some of the articles -- some articles require registration with the news organization (e.g. NY Times and Chicago Tribune)]


Here's some of the links:

MSNBC

USA Today

NY Times

National Public Radio - Surprise, Surprise....

The National Geographic has also created a website devoted to the Gospel of Judas.

Even if we accept the patent assault on Christianity as something that is to be expected (which I do), the fact that these stories get play over the murder of innocent babies that we now now know feel pain as a scientific fact is even more irritating and disturbing.

Christianity has always been under assault, and I make no pretense that I expect anything else. And with the Da Vinci Code book and upcoming movie, we can expect a certain amount of stuff like this. But when Jesus walking on ice instead of water, a gnostic gospel, and a fish with arms gets more play than a scientific study that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that babies (who can be legally disected while still alive in the mother's womb) feel pain --- one wonders where the priorities of editorial policymakers are.

Read Full Post...

Media Biased Against Christianity?

The following, I think, provides a pretty clear answer.


[SUMMARY: Three stories have come into the popular media this week that have a direct impact on people's view of the voracity of Scripture and the position of Christianity on substantive issues. Two of the three were contrary to Christianity and its teachings, the other was confirmation of the understanding that life does begin at conception.

This post looks at the coverage of these three stories in American Media since they broke earlier this week:

1) 4/4/2006 Babies 24+ weeks after conception feel pain. (hardly any coverage in the U.S.)
2) 4/3/2006-4/4/2006 Jesus walked on Ice not Water. (Significant press and broadcast coverage)
3) 4/5/2006 - Recently found fossil provides missing link between fish and land dwelling animals. (Even more coverage than Jesus walking on Ice instead of water).

All of these stories broke this week. In the final analysis we have two stories which are (at best) based on theory and conjecture and one story which is based on provable scientific data. Which of the three is NOT reported? Of course, the one that is based on FACT.

Note also, of the three stories, two of them attack the voracity of the word of God as revealed in Holy Scriptures and one of them is congruent with the revelation of the World as God has caused it to be written in His Holy Word. Of course, which one isn't reported? The one that is congruent. Which two are splashed all over the "popular press"? The two that attack the Scriptures.

Somehow that burns me more than enough to spend an hour and a half putting together this blog piece. This is utterly disgraceful for a "press" that prides it self on facts and accuracy. In this case, we get no facts --- and thus, accuracy is a null question.

I guess I'll let you decide how "unbiased" the media is... but I think there's a pretty clear specific pattern that emerges from this... Satan is alive and well in the world. The "popular press" is only one of the tools he has under sway.

Click "Full Post" below for more information]



I figured I'd check out with GOOGLE NEWS how many American newspapers have decided to carry the story that REUTERS (and UPI) distributed on April 4 about babies 24 weeks after conception being able to feel pain. You can do the full search yourself, but when I looked at about 1PM today, here's the list.

Brocktown News - Not sure what city or state this is in. Their site seems to be a simple aggregation site of some wire stories and not a "real" news organization.

Herald News Daily, ND Oddly - has the same page formatting with some slight differences as "Brocktown News" (above). Probably run by the same group. I didn't have much time to check it out.

Oberline Times, KS - Uses the same web server as "Brocktown News" (above)... (http://www.localnewsleader.com) - so is obviously run by the same group.

Jackson Tribune - Hmm... I'm seeing a definite pattern here with the look and design of the web site's I've seen the article run on so far.

Kindred Times - Same as above

Ely Times - Ditto

MSNBC's Web Site - A somewhat extended Reuters article.

ABCNews Wirestory - Same wire story as MSNBC

PHYSORG.com - running a shorter UPI story

So, we have two major news agencies, Reuters and UPI, with articles written on this subject. We have no mainstream newspapers picking up the story.

In case the sample from GOOGLE was flawed because of indexing problems, I repeated the search in YAHOO! News. I got the same results... no major US news organization doing anything with this.

But I realize, space is limited. Maybe there was a more important story... let's look at two other stories that recently hit the news.

On the same day that it was reported that babies really do feel pain, the story that a University Professor in Florida claims that Jesus walked not on the water as the Gospels report, but on ice was run on the same wires (UPI and Reuters -- I didn't see an AP story, but there probably was one for both stories at somepoint). I must note, however, that articles on this story occurred before April 4. So to be fare, the story isn't quite as new. It apparently broke on 4/3/2006. I didn't research the YAHOO! archives, since there were enough references in GOOGLE alone to prove my point.

Here's a SAMPLE of the organizations which ran stories:

Houston Chronicle

USA Today - this is a link to some controversy around this story.

Seattle Post Intelligencer

NY Times - Ran the story 4/3/2006 - the same day it apparently broke. In fact, even the press releases I found had dates of 4/4/2006.

Discovery Channel Web Site - 4/6/2006

Kansas City Star - 4/6/2006

NY Post - 4/5/2006

There were others... but this gives you the idea...

Now, let's look at one more story: Fossilized fish found which "proves" evolution.

To begin with, I simply do not have enough time to cut and paste all of the links... so again, I will give only a SAMPLE. However, this is a much smaller sample than even the one appearing above.

This story broke AFTER the story about babies 24 weeks or more after conception feeling pain. Google had 11 pages of references, the MAJORITY from U.S. publications. I didn't even bother looking at Yahoo! Let's see what we have:

SF Chronicle

Detroit Freepress

Chicago Tribune

Boston Globe

Akron Beach Journal, OH

Forbes - multiple updates to the article.

Ft Wayne Journal Gazette

Tibune Democrate, PA

San Luis Obispo Tribune, CA

Grand Forks Herald, ND


In this survey, I attempted to at least filter by headline so that the stories that carried the same headlines (ostensibly from the same wire story) were mostly filtered out. But I think this is an interesting situation. Here's a synopsis of the 3 stories:

1) A research study which proves scientifically that babies 24 weeks after conception do actually feel pain. This story has existed for 2 full days, has been run on Reuters and UPI and has received next to NO attention in the U.S. press.
2) A meterological researcher who claims he may have an explanation about how Jesus didn't walk on water but rather walked on ice. [Admittedly, there is controversy surrounding this that doesn't exist with the other, which accounts for some of the additional coverage.] This story gets a large amount of press both written and air-time.
3) A fossil (the mere existence of which can have multiple interpretations) is said to be the missing link between fish and land dwelling creatures. This story gets a larger amount of press than even Jesus walking on Ice in spite of the fact that it's been around much less time than that story.

Read Full Post...

[Study says] Premature Babies Feel Pain [UPDATED: 4/7/06]

A BBC Report of a sudy about premature infants and pain confirms what most of us intuitively knew... fetuses feel pain.

Oh, of course the media won't say THAT... and of course, the research technically doesn't say that either.

According to the BBC Report:

Lead researcher Professor Maria Fitzgerald said: "We have shown for the first time that the information about pain reaches the brain in premature babies.

"Beforehand, although we could assume it, we did not know for sure that these babies could feel pain.

"These babies' brains are so immature that it was difficult to genuinely know that the pain was going to their brain."

I like that, "Beforehand, although we could assume it..." -- of course, we DIDN'T assume it, but we COULD assume it.

Also, I like the interestingly crafted phrase, "information about pain reaches the brain in premature babies." -- They still didn't say they "feel pain." That's quite an interesting bit of obfuscation.

Since they only studied infants who were born prematurely (25+ weeks) and not those that were still in the womb, I'm sure there'll be some backpeddling when the question gets asked, "Does this mean that a 5 month old fetus feels pain?"

[Click on Full Post below for More (NOT recommended for those sensitive to discussions about abortion procedures)]
I can imagine the answer will be something like, "well, this study actually only included babies that had been born, we don't have information about babies still in utero. We also don't have data about babies before 25 weeks, so there's no reason to assume that they feel pain... "

The pro-abortionists will, of course add something like this: "Therefore we can go ahead and chop them up in utero and vacuum them out with a good conscience until 25 weeks. But if we partially birth them and suck out their brains, they can't feel pain anyway since the brain is what interprets pain. Therefore, we can do that until full delivery."

[I have little sympathy for the abortion industry and those who promote this despicable practice. I do have a lot of pity for them though. They will have to live the rest of their lives knowing that they maimed and killed the most innocent members of our society -- and that they inflicted pain while doing so.

On the other hand, I have a lot of sympathy for those who have been decieved and have succumbed to the lies and half truths that abortion is O.K... they were lied to and decieved. Now they must live in the knowledge that they participated in such a barbaric act.

My message to both is that there is forgiveness in Christ. You are not beyond salvation. Jesus Christ died so that the sin of both the abortionist and the woman who has had an abortion would be forgiven. And that is an accomplished work. This was made sure by His resurrection from the dead which was witnessed by many. I pray that all would hear and come to the knowledge of that truth.]

=-=-Conclusion-=-=

Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I expect this will either be buried somewhere in the dominant press in the U.S. or be spun into something else. I'm actually kind of surprised that it made the BBC Front Page RSS feed.

=-=-UPDATE-=-=
And then there's this story: Babies < 25 weeks should be left to die. Also: here and here

Read Full Post...

I'm not a Chic Geek

Apparently the qualifications to enter "geekdom" have changed radically since I was a geek.

Your score is 30

30 to 60: Heading to Geekdom
=-=-
0 to 29: Stuck in the Last Century
30 to 60: Heading to Geekdom
61 and up: Seriously Nerdy
(Source:Newsweek Geek Quiz)

This makes me think about how much my life has changed since going to seminary. The fact is, I've been a geek since sixth grade when I was teaching my classmates who where considered "accelerated" (I was not tracked as "accelerated") how to program graphics on the Apple IIgs computers in the computer lab. I was selected to do this because the computer teacher didn't know how -- and I did.

[MORE]

I started college in Computer Science at the State University of New York at Buffalo. It was there I was introduced to Unix (Sun Solaris and others) when I got a job in the Academic Computings Services Department. I was a tech who was installing packet drivers and related software on 286 computers so they could access the Internet and the Novell file servers. People there began asking if I was related to "Arthur Dent" -- and I was introduced to the number 42. (If you don't understand this reference, you are NOT a true geek!)

When I was leaving there, I downloaded Linux 0.98a to a set of 30 floppies so I could install it at home.

I went from SUNY Buffalo (SUNYAB) to Concordia College, Ann Arbor (CCAA) after a year and a half... Various things in my life led me to consider entering the ministry. While there, I set up a Linux box to connect the college to the Internet for email and usenet news as well as some "gopher" access. During my time there, I noted that the flat network they had was being over-run with traffic. I pushed an initiative to have the network segmented into multiple subnets (Academic and Administrative).

When I had to cut back on school, I began working for the Internet Provider that the college was connected through. This was before NCSA Mosaic was popular -- most people were still using text only connections with very limited graphics. 3/4 of the US didn't even know what the Internet was much less how important it would become in most of our lives.

I won't bore you with all the details of my life there, but we did some pretty "cutting edge" stuff. For example, in connection with another company, we were the first to virtualize web services so more than one web site could run on a single machine. I personally developed an accounting system that would allow us to monitor the amount of data each customer sent and received so we could bill them more as a "utility" (i.e. pay-by-the-byte) -- (I still predict that this will be the way you pay for your Internet service in the not-too-distant future.) I did some other cool stuff like develop (in the C computer language) a customer service application.

Basically, I was in the cutting edge of development of Internet and related technologies in the 1990's. The company survived the dot-com collapse and is still in business today. I can't imagine where I'd be if I didn't leave there (due to office-politics)... I worked there about 7 years and left and worked as a consultant for 3 years someplace else. I really missed my days at ICNet.

But my, how the mighty have fallen. I went from "dot-com" geek who (still) can do almost anything you ask me to with a computer -- mostly with open-source software that won't cost a dime (EVER!) -- to a virtual "luddite" according to Newsweek's survey.

I guess I won't talk about the major flaws with the survey (oops... already started -- can't stop me now! And in reality -- I can't believe you're still reading!). It seems that the survey was geared more toward the "chic geek" than true "geekdom."

One thing that was interesting in the consulting firm I worked for... we could tell based on a small number of seemingly unrelated factors how good of a network engineer someone would be. Here is a sampling of our assessment:

*What is the answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe and Everything? (42)
*How much of Douglas Adams, "Hitchhikers Guide" series have you read? How much can you recite from memory?
*How much Monty Python's "Holy Grail" can you recite from memory?
*Which is better, Babylon 5 or Star Trek? Why? (Babylon 5 - there's a better story and the costuming is better)

It was strange... without fail, the answers to these questions were a good barometer of how good of an engineer they would be. Usually the one's who walked in *looking* high-tech, whiz-bang geeky with all of the Microsoft Certifications to "prove" it didn't last long. Of course, getting these questions in the official list used by Human Resources didn't go over well...

Our best and longest engineers were pretty unassuming - had the geeky toys but didn't flaunt them. In fact, they typically thought everyone else already had them (or couldn't be bothered to ask why they didn't).

So, I think that's the flaw in this survey. It's really measuring "How much have you been taken in by the marketing hype of geeky toys?"

So I lay before you the evidence for my true geekiness:

1) Until my new vocation required it, I had not owned a Microsoft Operating System that was in use for 8 years. (I recently had to purchase MS-Windows in order to run Libronix -- they REALLY need to make a LINUX version!!!!)
2) Even when I run Windows, it's in a "Virtual Machine" (i.e. I run Windows in a "window" on my Linux computer).
3) I have found at least 2 major security holes in online websites (Look up USPS Billpay Security Dent for proof. The other was a smaller problem with an online bookstore that sold ebooks where you could download without purchasing) -- in both cases I helped fix the problems.
4) I can still usually diagnose a computer problem reported by an end-user in 3-5 minutes of conversation. I can usually "get around" the problem in less than 4 minutes if I can sit in front of the machine that is having the difficulty (It usually takes at least an hour to talk the end-user through the solution over the phone.)

There are many other things...

Geekiness is just as much a "habitus" as theology. The toys and gizmos you own don't make you a geek, just like owning a Greek New Testament, a BHS, and commentary don't make you a theologian.

While it was an interesting survey -- I wouldn't call it conclusive by any means. But it was fun walking down memory lane remembering the way things "used to be" in my life. It will be even more interesting to see how God uses everything he's trained me with to date in the future...

Soli Deo Gloria!

Read Full Post...

Tidbits from Afganistan Law

Here are some tidbits from Afganistan's Laws... I found these on the net and included links to the original sources. These goes along with my previous post regarding a legal solution to the Afgan Christian who's being tried for converting from Islam.

[Click Below for Full Post]


2004 Constitution
1976 Penal Code

I wasn't able to find an "official" copy of the current constitution. But here's what I found. The source is http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/af00000_.html and was linked through the U.S. Library of Congress... so it's been vetted a little at least.

(Please note the EDITORS NOTE regarding this English translation at the above website. According to the website, this constitution has been in effect since January 2004)

Article 2 [Religions]
(1) The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.
(2) Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.

Article 3 [Law and Religion]
In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.

Article 6 [Purposes]
The state is obliged to create a prosperous and progressive society based on social justice, protection of human dignity, protection of human rights, realization of democracy, and to ensure national unity and equality among all ethnic groups and tribes and to provide for balanced development in all areas of the country.

Article 24 [Liberty, Human Dignity]
(1) Liberty is the natural right of human beings. This right has no limits unless affecting the rights of others or public interests, which are regulated by law.
(2) Liberty and dignity of human beings are inviolable.
(3) The state has the duty to respect and protect the liberty and dignity of human beings.

Article 27 [Punishment]
(1) No act is considered a crime, unless determined by a law adopted prior to the date the offense is committed.
(2) No person can be pursued, arrested or detained but in accordance with provisions of law.
(3) No person can be punished but in accordance with the decision of an authorized court and in conformity with the law adopted before the date of offense.

Article 45 [Unified Educational Curriculum]
The state shall devise and implement a unified educational curriculum based on the provisions of the sacred religion of Islam, national culture, and in accordance with academic principles, and develops the curriculum of religious subjects on the basis of the Islamic sects existing in Afghanistan.

Article 54 [Family]
(1) Family is a fundamental unit of society and is supported by the state.
(2) The state adopts necessary measures to ensure physical and psychological well being of family, especially of child and mother, upbringing of children and the elimination of traditions contrary to the principles of sacred religion of Islam.

---

Source:International Development Law Organization
1976 Penal Code

Article 14:
(1) Provisions of this Law shall be applied to persons who commit crime within the area of the Republican Government of Afganistan. The area of the Republican Government of Afganistan encompasses any place under its jurisdiction.
(2) Afgan air-planes and ships, whether inside or outside Afganistan, are considered from the area of Afganistan, unless they are, according to general principles of international law, subject (to authority) of a foreign state.

Article 15: Provisions of this Law are also applicable to the following persons:
(1) Any person who commits an act outside Afganistan as a result of which he is considered the performer of or accomplice in a crime which has taken place in whole or in part in Afganistan.
(2) Any person who commits one of the following crimes outside Afganistan:
(a) Crime against internal or external security of the state of Afganistan;
(b) Crime of forgery as contained in articles 302 and 303 of this Law;
(c) Crime of counterfiting as contained in arcticle 310 of this Law or import of forged or counterfited articles to Afganistan.

This is by no means a comprehensive assessment. Just some tidbits for consideration by others.

Read Full Post...

You know you've watched Perry Mason too much when...

I think I may have found a solution to Afganistan's problem with the Christian Convert from Islam.

The problem for them is that under the law of their constitution, a convert from Islam to Christianity must die. This is because their constitution is based on Sharia law which is derived from the Koran. However, they are under intense international pressure to release him.

In this instance, as it appears from the press reports I've read, the man actually did not convert from Islam to Christianity in Afganistan, but rather in Pakistan while he was there helping Afgan refugees. He then spent 9 years living in Germany before returning to Kabul in 2002.

If all of this is true, the Afgan government technically has no jurisdiction. The alleged "crime" (i.e. his conversion) did not happen in Afganistan. Therefore, he did not convert while under the jurisdiction of Afgan law.

Let's look at a different example. Johnny, an 18 year old high-school senior lives on the border between Indiana an Illinois. Let's say the drinking age in Indiana is 21 and the drinking age in Illinois is 18. Johnny's friend (a designated driver) takes him out to a bar in Illinois and Johnny drinks himself into a stupor. This is perfectly legal since Johnny is 18 and he's drinking in Illinois.

As I understand it, when he returns to Indiana, the Indiana police could not arrest Johnny for drinking because he was not drinking in Indiana (where it is illegal). I know that this concept in fact applies in international cases (i.e. Canada and the U.S. because I used to live near the Canadian border when Canada's drinking age was 18 and New York was 21 --- Of course, *I* never did it... but I've got this friend... oh, never mind.)

It seems the same basic rule applies. If he left Afganistan a Muslim, converted in Pakistan, then lived in Germany and returned to Afganistan a Christian, he did not convert from Islam to Christianity under the jurisdiction of Afgan law. Therefore, they can not put him on trial for converting to Christianity from Islam because they had no jurisdiction when the crime occurred. (This same concept is used by Abortion activists to evade parental notification laws all the time in the U.S....)

As I see it, the only way he can be tried for converting is if it is illegal to convert from Islam to Christianity in Pakistan. Pakistan could extradite him and try him for converting. But the Afgan government has no ability to try him since the "crime" he is on trial for did not happen in their jurisdiction.

=-=-
Anyone have Condolezza Rice's phone number --- I doubt she reads my blog.

Read Full Post...

In Memorium

Dan's post One more saved at Necessary roughness brought to mind the passing of my mother (Neuroblastoma [cancer], Fall, 2002), my maternal-grandfather (Aortic Aneurism, Summer, 2004), and my maternal-grandmother (stomach cancer, Summer, 2005). With their passing, I have no living ancestors.

Being an only child, it also makes me quite lonely.

[Click below for more]
I had the mixed blessing of spending the last days and hours with both my mother and my grandmother. These are probably the most wrenching memories I'll ever have -- formative for my future vocation, no doubt, but "real life" is a grueling teacher.

I was also privileged to spend the last weekend of my grandfather's life with him. He died in the middle of the week immediately after me and my family visited.

It's good for me to remember them, but it hurts too. The joy of the resurrection still seems distant sometimes.

By the same token, I'm indebted to all of them for the legacy of faith that they left with me. My father (died of metastatic lung cancer, Fall, 1991) converted from Roman Catholicism when he married my mother, so Lutheranism is from my mother's side of the family.

My grandmother had asked me to speak at my grandfather's funeral. In her last days, she also asked me to speak at hers. Below are the messages I prepared.

---

Richard Andrew Voelker April 25, 1918 - June 22, 2004

Born April 25, 1918 in Knowlesville, NY, Richard Andrew Voelker was the loving son of a Christian mother. Through her influence, his faith grew and he was able to touch many lives with the love of Jesus Christ.

Through his faith, God blessed so many of us here today. And as a faithful witness to Christ, he was a model to be emulated.

As a father and grandfather, he was supportive and forgiving. I often think of him as a father to me. And not only because he and my grandmother often accidentally referred to each other as “your mother” and “your father” when talking to me. But while my relationship with my father left something to be desired and was cut short by his death, he stepped in and filled that role in my life.

Of the many memories I cherish, one is of him teaching me to ride a bicycle in the driveway on Manor Lane.

Others include the many hours we would spend together after school when I would walk to their house and we would sit and talk.

He was also a model husband. For 57 years, he was faithful and loving to his wife Pearl.

All marriages have their ups and downs, and theirs was no different. But for 57 years, they worked hard and continued to love each other in spite of whatever circumstance arose.

No time has that been more evident to me than the past few years.

Several years ago, my grandmother was in a car accident. Complications from that accident resulted in a prolonged hospital stay, surgery, and rehabilitation. But he was ever the constant companion, supporting her and taking over many household chores, never seriously complaining and always trying to be the best husband he could.

And after they lost their daughter, my mother, Jo Anne to cancer in November of 2002, his own wife was diagnosed with cancer. And through surgery and chemotherapy, he cared for her, comforted her, and helped her cope with the effects of her treatments.

And even to the end, he was thinking of her. The one regret that I know was that he would no longer be able to care for his beloved wife.

He knew that by being a good husband, he was upholding the model that marriage is supposed to be. Namely, the relationship between Christ and His bride, the church.

My grandfather's greatest joy was in serving the Lord and being about God's work. He supported his church financially through his tithe, and felt blessed that the Lord generously supplied for all his needs, beyond his expectation.

He also enjoyed God's creation through many different activities.

He always liked the time he spent tilling God's earth and gardening. And he felt blessed to be able to improve and maintain his home himself.

He enjoyed fishing and boating with his son, Doug.
They began with a small inflatable row boat and when they finally gave it up, they had a sixteen foot motorboat. They spent many hours in the canal and on Lake Ontario fishing and pleasure boating.

He wouldn't trade for anything the time with his friends like Ken Berner and their fishing trips together to Canada.

He enjoyed God's green earth as a charter member of Shelridge Golf Club and spent many happy hours on the greens – none of which to my knowledge pre-empted Sunday morning worship.

And he felt blessed to be able to travel throughout the U.S. including Hawaii and Alaska. And to make trips to Europe and the Holy Land.

In later years, his greatest pleasures were to continue to walk with God. Whenever health permitted, he and my grandmother would attend Church.

It was a blessing for him, and me, to be able to attend church together in this sanctuary last Sunday. And I know many of you were blessed by his presence here as well.

And, until it was no longer possible, he enjoyed Wednesday morning Bible class and Saturday Morning Gideon prayer breakfast.

He dearly loved his sister, Lois as well as his sisters-in-law, Evelyn and Mavis.

He was very much saddened at the passing of Mavis, in March of this year.

Evelyn and her husband Harold were best friends and he was greatful for their help in so many ways.


----
My grandfather, Richard Andrew Voelker, born April 25, 1918, living a full and faith filled life of 86 years until June 22, 2004, touched many lives and will be sorely missed by those who knew him.

But he would not have us dwell on what we've lost. If we look at his faith and his life, we know he would have us remember that our parting need only be temporary. And because of his faith in Jesus Christ, he is truly home now.

And I know without a doubt that his prayer for us would be that God would grant each of us the faith to say that Jesus Christ, true God and True man died and rose again to save us from our sins and that we may all know the peace of God which surpassess all understanding and that it would keep our hearts and our minds in this same Christ Jesus. Amen.

---

Pearl Ruth (Heim) Voelker, September 28, 1926 - August 29, 2005

Pearl Ruth Heim was born September 28, 1926 to Joseph and Selma Heim and baptized into the Christian faith on October 24. She grew up with her two sisters, Mavis and Evelyn, and was confirmed in November, 1939.

Pearl married Richard Voelker on June 26, 1947. In their 57 years of marriage, they modeled what it means to “love, honor, and cherish” one another, “for richer and poorer and in sickness and in health.” They were separated by death on June 28, 2004.

Through trials and difficulties, their marriage was sustained by their faith in God and their fidelity to one another. In the joys and triumphs, they never failed to praise God, recognizing that it is from Him that all blessings flow.

Throughout her life, she followed the advice of her confirmation verse, Psalm 37:4, “Delight yourself in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart.” She drew strength from her faith in “God's care, secure in His love for [her] and trusting in the salvation purchased for [all of us] through Christ's suffering and death.”

She assured that this faith was passed on to their two children, Jo Anne, who was received into glory in November of 2002, and Doug, who resides with his wife, Margaret in Middleport.

Pearl loved and was concerned about all of her grandchildren, step-grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and step-great-grandchildren. In speaking of them shortly before her death, she said, “They brought great joy into my life.”

Of her sisters and her brother-in-law Harold she said, “I was blessed with many good times and I appreciated all they did for me.”

Pearl found great comfort and hope in Holy Scripture and especially enjoyed Wednesday morning Bible Study. She also felt it important to share God's Word with others and supported Gideon's International. She enjoyed attending Saturday morning Gideon's Auxiliary Breakfast.

Like any good German Lutheran in Western New York, she enjoyed the game of Euchre and especially enjoyed the regular games she played with her cousins.

Anyone who knew Pearl at all, knows that she loved cats and had an extensive collection.

Nobody could say life was easy for Pearl. She grew up during the great depression and knew the value of a dollar. In her late teens, our country was at war and she learned first hand about sacrificing for your neighbor. Several years ago, complications from a car accident resulted in a prolonged hospitalization, surgery, and rehabilitation. Nearly three years ago, she lost her daughter to a rare form of cancer, Pearl herself was diagnosed with cancer and just over a year ago, she unexpectedly lost her husband.

It may seem strange to discuss the difficulties she endured in her life as we gather today. But throughout all of this, she remained steadfast and immovable in her faith. She endured these trials patiently, trusting in God's unfailing love. Herself being firmly convinced of St. Paul's words, “that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, no things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Her delight was certainly in the Lord. And those that knew her well know that through her family and friends; through her church and work; through trials and joys she received from Him the desires of her heart.

Pearl Ruth Heim Voelker was born September 28, 1926 and lived nearly 79 years until she was received into Glory on August 29, 2005. She will be sorely missed by those who were granted the blessing of knowing her.

But she would not wish us to dwell on her or our own loss. To those among us who share her faith in Christ's redemption and know Him as both savior and friend, she would assure us in the same way she assured my wife during our last visit by saying, “I'll see you again.”

With her husband, she shared the prayer for all of us that God would grant to each of us the faith that she had. Faith to “trust in the salvation purchased for [us] through Christ's suffering and death.” And she would leave all of us in the comfort of knowing that she “died in this faith and has now joined her Lord in eternal glory.”

May God make this so for all of us. Amen.

Read Full Post...

Just what is a sermon?

I'm not sure why, but I'm subscribed to Rick Warren's newsletter. In a recent issue he has an article with 9 "tips" for better preaching.

It's unfortunate that some who have confessed that the contents of the Book of Concord are a correct exposition of the Scriptures hold Warren in such high regard. The fact is, Rick Warren preaches something completely contrary to a right understanding of Scripture. He preaches a "different gospel."

There are ways to "Lutheranize" what he says, but it usually involves rewording what he has said to mean the opposite.

Here is how he opens his "9 tips":

I'll say it over and over: The purpose of preaching is obedience. Every preacher in the New Testament – including Jesus – emphasized conduct, behavioral change, and obedience. [dm42: emphasis added]

And here are his "tips":

1. All behavior is based on a belief
2. Behind every sin is a lie I believe
3. Change always starts in the mind
4. To help people change, we must change their beliefs first
5. Trying to change people’s behavior without changing their belief is a waste of time
6. The biblical term for “changing your mind” is “repentance”
7. You don’t change people’s minds, the applied Word of God does
8. Changing the way I act is the fruit of repentance
9. The deepest kind of preaching is preaching for repentance

My question: Where's Jeus?

No doubt, we can agree with some of these statements if they existed in a different context. It's not the statements themselves which are problematic, but it is the meaning that they convey when put together that is the problem.

And this is the entire problem I find that I have with Warren and his ilk. They sound "just enough" right that people are taken in by what they say. For example, we can all agree, "You don't change people's minds [by preaching], the Word of God does." It's a correct statement.

But what is the “Word of God” that does this changing.

I've recently republished J.M. Reu's Homiletics textbook from 1922. He was a professor at Wartburg Seminary in the early 20th Century and wrote some really great stuff.

Unlike Warren who claims “Obedience” is the heart of a sermon, Reu has a different approach.

The centre of the sermon will always be the Gospel, i.e., the testimony of the grace of God, forgiving sin and conferring righteousness; for “the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” [Jn 1:17]. - (J.M. Reu, Homiletics, A Manual of the Theory and Practice of Preaching, 1922, p.60)

As a more complete answer to Warren's “9 tips,” I include below additional information from Reu (pp. 44,57-59):

[p.44] Apart from the Word of God there can be no sermon; On the Word of God the sermon is based, from the Word it draws its contents. Indeed, the sermon is nothing else than the offer and proclamation of the Word.

[pp.57-59]The heart and centre of the Word, as well as of the whole saving revelation of God, is Jesus Christ. The Old Testament points to Him as the coming one; the New Testament testifies of Him as come. To preach the Old Testament alone would be a deplorable relapse to the stage of pre-Christian preparation. God the Father can be known only through the Son, in whom He has revealed Himself; the Holy Spirit speaks not of Himself but takes the things of Christ and declares them unto us. If God, in all the fulness of His grace and truth, is to be brought to the souls of men by means of preaching, and if men are thus to know and appropriate Him, in order to an ever completer communion between God and man, it is necessary that the sermon be Christocentric, have no one and nothing else for its centre and content than Christ Jesus. This is true not only of the missionary sermon as Paul practiced it, but also of the sermon before the established congregation, as is clear from the whole epistolary literature of the New Testament, and as John expressly states at the close of his gospel. Indeed, this follows of itself from the fundamental truth that a genuine Christian faith and life can exist only so long as it remains a daily appropriation of Christ. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,” must ever be the watchword, until we ascend from faith to sight. The sermon must, therefore, continually placard Christ before it's hearers' eyes and glorify Him before men; otherwise it ceases to be a Christian sermon. [emphasis added]

But Christ cannot be the content of the sermon as mere revealer of God's will to men, as teacher, prophet or exemplar. These sides of Him will indeed never be absent. The sermon will need to present the holy will of God as revealed by Christ, if it is to inculcate New Testament and not merely Old Testament morality, and evangelical and not a mere natural or legalistic piety. No other embodiment of the divine will can exert so strong an attraction upon men as its embodiment in the person and life of Christ. But the sermon of which Christ is the heart and centre must come nearer than this to the heart and centre of Christ. No one can so completely and reliably reveal the riches of the Father's will to salvation as the Only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father. Whoever undertakes, therefore, to declare the saving will of God must bring men the message of Christ concerning the Father in heaven. He cannot omit from his message, notwithstanding the objections of modern theology, the miracles of Jesus, nor will he treat them as a mere nimbus round His person, but rather as the inner expression of His personality and His proper works and “signs.” As little will he conceal from his hearers the mystery of the person of Christ, as it is confessed in the Small Catechism, - “True God, begotten of the Father from all eternity, and also true Man, born of the Virgin Mary.” This will rather form the constant undercurrent of all his preaching, breaking forth again and again in unmistakable clearness and spontaneous adoration.

But the preacher will need to rise higher and delve deeper even than this, if his sermon is to be truly Christocentric in the sense of Jesus Himself and of His great Apostle. It must be a witness to the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me, in His whole life from the manger to the cross, and who rose on the third day and lives and reigns forever as Savior and Lord. Such preaching alone can produce faith, justifying and saving faith, which can have no other object than Jesus the Son of God, who gave His life as a ransom for all. Christ crucified must ever be the alpha and omega, the heart and centre, the life and soul of the sermon; for nowhere else has God so fully revealed Himself as on the cross of Calvary, where, in order to declare Himself both just and a justifier, He set forth Jesus as propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Here is the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Here the veil is completely rent in twain, and God bares to us His inmost heart. The sermon, if it is to set for God as He really is, so that He may draw men to Himself, must present Him as the God who was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. Only then will the sinner venture to draw near to Him and rejoice in His salvation.



=-=-

Perhaps I should send Rick a copy of J.M. Reu's book.

Read Full Post...

Allah is impotent?

"Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate and was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban before the hardline regime was ousted in 2001. (Foxnews: Clerics Call for Christian Convert's Death Despite Western Outrage)

The old adage goes, "If you want something done right, do it yourself." Apparently some dieties can't be bothered to do things right.

I mean, let's think about this... Can't the "god" of Islam take care of himself? Does he really need the protection of a lynch mob of puny human beings? It seems to me that any "god" which needs a mere mortal to protect him from being humiliated isn't really much of a god.

My take on this is that here's a good opportunity for the "god" of Islam to prove himself. Let Allah deal with this "blasphemer" himself and stop hiding behind human mercenaries. If Allah was truly upset at this man's apostasy, there'd be no need for a trial. When Nahab and Abihu offended YHWH, he just torched them himself -- he didn't need someone else to do it. When YHWH wanted his people released from bondage in Israel, He stretched forth his mighty arm and led them out. He didn't have Moses start a rebellion. He didn't command His chosen people to strap explosives to their bodies and massacre the Egyptians until the Egyptians relented. YHWH did all the work -- Himself.

This begs the question, who is the bigger God? The one who deals with things Himself or the one who needs others to do his dirty work for him?

The God of Christianity is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. He is a God who forgives sin by taking the punishment for sin upon Himself. In the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God condescended to take on human flesh and be born of a virgin. Jesus lived a life of perfect obedience, and died the death that we deserve. He did this in order to pay the penalty for our sin. His victory over sin was made sure through His resurrection from the dead on the third day.

The God of Christianity dealt with sin Himself. He established peace between Himself and all mankind through His sacrifice and His work. Through His work, He made things right.

The God of Islam apparently can't be bothered with doing things right -- so he has others do his dirty work for him.

=-=-
Once again, we see the true stripes of Islam. A "moderate" Islamic cleric is insisting that a man be put to death for insulting "god." With this type of "moderation," how can they be considered a forgiving and peaceful religion?

And what kind of "god" hides behind his followers demanding that they destroy those who "insult" him? Why wouldn't he just prevent infidels from being born in the first place? At least he should be able to exact his own punishment without relying on others to do it for him. -- Could it be perhaps he's not an omnipotent "god" but an impotent deceiver masqerading as "god"? Is it really possible for God to be "humiliated" by the apostasy of one of his own creatures?

-=-=
May the One True God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, continue to protect and defend all who are persecuted for the sake of His name. May He grant that they boldly confess Him who is the object of their faith - the one through whom we have forgivness of sins, Jesus Christ - even in the face of adversity. May He keep them faithful through whatever circumstance he permits them to encounter and assure them of their victory through Jesus Christ who overcame the power of sin, death and the devil. Amen.

Read Full Post...

Afgan Facing Death Penalty for being Christian

Ok, just what kind of nations are we building when we overthrow governments? According to a BBC Article a man who converted to Christianity 16 years ago is on trial in Afganistan and could face the death penalty if he does not renounce his Christianity and reconvert to Islam.

"We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of tolerance. We will ask him if he has changed his mind. If so we will forgive him," the judge told the BBC on Monday.

But if he refused to reconvert, then his mental state would be considered first before he was dealt with under Sharia law, the judge added.

Here's a clue for those in the world who still think Islam is a "tolerant" religion. Just because they use the word doesn't mean that they use it properly. To translate what this demonically influenced judge said into a more modern english idiom, "Convert back to Islam, or else." In spite of the use of the word "tolerant," this isn't tolerance - it's coercive.

If this is the type of nations we're "building," aren't we thereby complicit in the murder of Christians through the agencies of these other nations? Isn't that part-and-parcel of being a citizen of a Representative Republic? We're all culpable for the actions of our government? Food for thought anyway.

In the mean time, I'm sure all of our prayers are with this man that God would deliver him from the clutches of the Evil One but more importantly, strengthen his faith and grant him perseverence in the face of whatever lies ahead that he may maintain a faithful witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God's peace be with you - brother.

Read Full Post...

Wish I could do that....

Having just finished a 2 hour review session for an exam tomorrow morning, and still not feeling prepared --- I really wish I had AJ's problem. Apparently, she simply can't forget stuff. I know-- I know... "The grass is always greener..." But even so, I can think of worse "problems" to have...

Read Full Post...

Chats, and Blogs, and Wikis -- Oh, My!

The recent issues surrounding East leaning pastors has put me back in mind to consider Lutheran Blogging, the use of technology and how these things intersect with our Christian witness to the world and fellow believers.

One of the reasons I took up blogging was not simply to have a forum to express my ideas, but rather to have a forum in which my ideas would be critiqued, evaluated, and if necessary corrected. I know that there are others in the blog-o-sphere (especially those of us who are seminary students) who have taken up the "art" for this reason - with mixed results.

I think the online world holds numerous posibilities for this type of communication. However, it seems we have fallen into a number of pitfalls.

First, the immediacy of the web and the Internet sometimes gets us in trouble. I think we all know better than to try to make a strong theological or exegetical point based on Luther's Table Talk, because most of this was off the cuff discussion. We prefer to look at his more intentionally considered works. This is because these works have additional thought and editing that his Table Talk lectures do not.

In cyberspace, it's easy to read something that was written in a "Table Talk" type moment and end up discussing it as if it were some intentional thesis. Then egos get involved and attitudes flare. Sometimes the anonymity of the keyboard gives rise to "running off at the fingers" when a more temperate and controlled spirit is necessary. It's one of the dangers of the medium that, when combined with our human nature, often causes trouble.

Second, the "meritocracy" paradigm that has led to some great things in the world of computing isn't an easy thing to establish and maintain. A recent Economist article on Open Source development points this out.

A "meritocracy" depends on the community at large being able to determine who is meritorious and who is not. Unfortunately, there are few, if any, tools available to make such classifications in the blogosphere. Consequently, we use our own subjective opinions rather than any objective standard. Many of us tend to listen to those who scratch our itching ears, then pile on the bandwagons of those who are most like-minded. All of this futher fragments that which many of us pray will become unified. This too is dangerous. Anyone who's played "LEMMINGS" knows the ultimate result.

Third, the Internet is a public medium. Our behavior (good and bad) is in plain view for everyone to see -- and I do mean everyone. This includes the weak in faith and those who would attack the church for being full of "hypocrites." Say what you want, this is a reality of the medium. Often our "sqabbles" are important, but the manner in which we carry them out hurt our witness to Christ.

I'm intrigued with Pastor Peterson's idea for a wiki and I'll probably watch that somewhat closely to see how things go there.

I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that some sort of a "tiered" approach ought to be considered. The first level is already well established. The use of blogs or similar mediums which would be best. This tier would be the day-to-day "polemics" and "commentary." This tier shouldn't be taken "too seriously" (that's not to say that there aren't some EXCELLENT bloggers out there who are worthy of serious consideration - but let's face it, most blogs [including mine] are more like the editorial page of your local newspaper -- not the place you go for in depth news and information).

The next tier might be something like a wiki. Basically, something more of an information repository. Perhaps issue based. Topics might include things like comparative symbolics, quotes from church fathers and historic figures on various topics, etc. Keep it to the facts and avoid commentary as much as possible. A couple of editors would probably be necessary and some specific community guidelines regarding content.

The third tier would be some sort of peer-reviewed site with tighter controls. The controls would be more about process than content. Basically, something to keep each other from saying something stupid -- or something easily taken out of context. What I'm envisioning is something like a peer-reviewed electronic theological journal for Confessional Lutheranism. This is something I've been considering for some time, but I'm not sure what type of interest level there is.

The greater immediacy of an online forum coupled with some sort of editorial policies and controls, I think would help avoid some of the pitfalls of blogging. I think the trick would be to design the editorial policy and controls such that it's a forum to vet ideas and clarify argumentation and not necessarily have an editorial agenda.

The only exception to this would be that Scriptures and the Confessions are held inviolate. While a contributor would not necessarily need to hold a "quia" subscription, any article must conform to the teachings contained in it.

To make a "go" of it, would require functional editors as well as reviewers and contributors. So what are others' thoughts? I'm very interested in such a project, but is anyone else out there interested in it? What other things can you think of to increase the "signal to noise" ratio of the Lutheran blog-o-sphere and improve true dialogue and thoughtful discussion of the truly important issues facing Lutheranism and our Synod? Or should we all continue to "shoot from the hip," and not be too concerned about the "collateral damage" we do in the process?

What are your thoughts?

Read Full Post...

WOW, Look at the time!

Through a combination of being quite busy and working on a couple of pet projects, I haven't had much time to blog (read or write) lately. Thought I should let everyone know I'm not leaving the community, I just need to get a handle on some other things and this is lower on the priority list right now.

When I'm back to reflecting on things rather than just getting them done, I'm sure I'll have more to say.

Read Full Post...