Fired-up evangelism

Linebacker Evangelism

Flags and Icons

Chief Justice John Roberts, although a strong opponent of abortion “rights,” has stated that he doesn’t foresee a time when Roe v. Wade will be overturned. It’s the “settled law of the land.”

This year a proposed constitutional amendment which would ban flag burning as a means of public expression fell just one vote short of passing. Considered by some as a means of free speech, flag burning is regarded by others as especially heinous during time of war.

These two issues, flag burning and abortion, when placed in juxtaposition reveal how convoluted our values truly are. Normally the trails of flag burning (free speech) and a woman’s right to abortion (by way of right to privacy) have little to do with each other. They are perhaps parallel within the Bill of Rights and Constitutional Amendments, but they don’t necessarily intersect. That is, until Country Music steps into the foray.

Enter Natalie Maines and Tim McGraw. In the world of Country Music, it is more profitable to advocate burning babies in their mothers’ wombs than it is to burn American flags. That is the bottom line of it, folks.

When Natalie Maines exercised her right to public speech and spoke against the Iraq War and President Bush, the marketplace reacted. Her group, the Dixie Chicks, lost millions in bookings, air play, and record sales. Now, I can’t and I won’t defend what Maines said any time she spoke out the Iraq War. Yet she is right when she argues that her criticism against Bush and the Iraq War resulted in a backlash of defensive flag waving. In Country Music, it is not wise to be regarded as unpatriotic. It’ll cost you big time.

When Tim McGraw sang, “Red Rag Top”, a song about a “young and wild” couple who “did what they did” because they “decided not to have a child,” the marketplace barely hiccupped. The lyrics do not schwaffle. The young girl is as a “mother-to-be,” and she carries a child, not unidentified nebulous tissue. This reflects the dichotomy of thought found among many who consider abortion a permissible option. Even though they believe what is being carried inside the woman is a human infant, they will still proceed to terminate his life. The law of the land allows them this right. Although the song does express some remorse over the decision, abortion is still upheld. In fact, the song’s success may well be precisely because it allows the listener to take from it what he will, either a pro-choice or a regret-for-an-abortion message. How postmodern is that? So, McGraw's raking in the dough.

The dynamic message is this: It is less patriotic to burn a flag on a public street than to burn babies out of a mother’s womb.

Or maybe it’s this way: It’s more patriotic to a burn baby out of a mother’s womb than to burn a flag on a public street.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like burning flags as a means of public expression, especially during times of war. That is the time when our troops need a public display of support for them, and flag burning sends exactly the opposite. It is, if you will, a message of aid and comfort to the enemy. Specifically it says that the ideals for which Americans have stood and fought for are going up in smoke and dying with the embers and ashes of that burning flag. It is a cremation by effigy of the democratic dream for which this nation has fought and is fighting for. But what does it say of us as Americans when we defend the flag with great fervor on the one hand, only to applaud destroying our future on the other?

Women are the bearers of the future physically in a way no man can either be or portray. They give birth to future generations. Motherhood is the iconic symbol of a rich and vital future. It is not for idle whimsy that Liberty was portrayed as a female. She is the bearer of the future of democracy in the world. Women are not merely symbolic of motherhood; only a woman can be its symbol. Liberty portrayed by a female suggests she is capable of being a mother, even if she is not one in fact. She is welcoming and nurturing.

Women who abort are mothers who kill their own young. These are women who by that very act state that the future has room for only a select few. These women are the arbiters of those who will be culled out for death. That is not the face of Liberty, but of fascism. Yet this is the face of the new woman of America. This is now the woman of our songs.

Motherhood has its foundation in a God who gives gifts to men. After the first sin God told the first woman that pain would be increased in childbirth (Ge 3:16). This was a blessing. She had been told to be fruitful and multiply (Ge 1:28). Yet she sinned, and could expect all that to be taken from her. However, God mercifully told her that children would still come from her and her husband. For his part Adam showed how he received God’s words in what he named her. Eve means “mother of all living” (Ge 3:20). Not only would all future generations of human life come from this one woman, but also one woman from out of all those future generations would be chosen to bear God’s Son. He would crush the head of their enemy, the serpent (Ge 3:15). The future promised to Eve was met in Mary of Nazareth, the Blessed Virgin Mother. Because of Christ’s incarnation in Mary, a woman’s vocation is sanctified. The fruit of Mary's womb, Jesus, was sent to die for the sake of all the world in order that they would live eternally. Now every pregnancy ever since then is an icon of that one pregnancy still – a reminder to Satan of the One who overcame him on the cross. Abortion must be that much sweeter to him on that account.

Both flag burning and willful abortion intersect at one vital point: There is despair for the future. Flag burning says that the nation is headed in a direction that will lead to its destruction. When the future appears too bleak for either parents or the infant, abortion becomes the “logical” choice. In “Red Rag Top,” the couple chose abortion because “I was out of a job and she was in school/Life was fast and the world was cruel.” So, the infant paid the price of the parents' lousy choice of premature sex. That was an expensive lay. And the tote board just keeps on rackin' up each time the song plays, teaching its values to more and more listeners as it does.

Wherever for some there is no immediately self-gratified hope of a future, apparently the only option is to destroy any hope of a future for others – either burn a flag to symbolize the destruction of democracy or have an abortion, or both. Right now both represent the full-fledged “American Way.”

But if you’re a Country singer, be sure which way you sing. God has His icons and foundations, and that’s all just fine and dandy, but we just won’t nevermind about Him anymore, will we, now? For good ole American Country singers and their fans the truly American way is that abortion is “in,” but you had best watch your mouth when it comes to walkin’ the patriotic line.

It just seems to be a bit hypocritical to me, that’s all.

Take Eat, Take Drink

Take Eat, Take Drink
The Lord’s Supper Through the Centuries

Ernest Bartels
CPH, 2004
ISBN 0758600372
286 pages, including answer key

How has it happened that four little words, “This is My body,” have been so variously interpreted, resulting in such a myriad of applications and beliefs?

What is the doctrine and practice of the Lord’s Supper? From the Upper Room to its present-day setting on various altars, Ernest Bartels unravels the history behind this Sacrament, the various practices now in evidence and the doctrines which have resulted. Bartels presents a historical roadmap any novice can follow with ease, yet he is unflinchingly faithful to his own confession along the route. His markers are clear and obvious. Along the way the reader is able to understand where the various actors in history that shape the modern worship wars “fit.” Who was Luther? Zwingli? Bucer? Calvin? Did they affect any current denominations? How? Bartels makes the issue clear. Digging deeper, Bartels opens the history of terms like “closed” versus “close” communion. He also looks behind the issue of using individual cups over the common cup not only among Lutherans, but also among other denominations.

This book is written in a deceptively simple style. By that I mean this: The depth of Bartels’ insights and weight of his knowledge are revealed precisely by the fact that he could write in a manner that is accessible to a wide audience, much like Luther’s Small Catechism. This is a book that could be the source of much study and catechetical discussion in a congregation, especially one interested in the history of the early councils of the church. Bartels brings the reader full circle, uniting the present with the past as una sancta:

We have only the words of our Lord for our Christian life for our salvation. They are enough. Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). Christ’s words endure forever. That was certain for the early church and it is certain today.

Bartels, a native of Tecumseh, Nebraska, graduated from Concordia Theological Seminary in Springfield, Illinois. He served congregations in Wisconsin and North Dakota. He held several advanced degrees and wrote numerous articles for publication.

Also posted at Luther Library.

Little Manhattan

Love Story, the 1970 tearjerker starring Ali McGraw and Ryan O’Neal left me cold. Its famous tagline, “Love means never having to say you’re sorry,” has irritated and confounded me to no end for these thirty-six years. If there is no “I’m sorry” spoken, then when will the “I forgive you be heard”?

Here’s a new movie to set things straight, Little Manhattan. There are no big time stars, and no illicit romances to draw fawning fans to ask for this little film. It has nothing more to offer than a simple tale of a young boy’s first-time love.

I won’t spoil the rest, but Little Manhattan is truly love put into practice. Gather the family and a bowl of popcorn – and look for those catechetical moments. Here is a wholesome movie done well.


Also posted at Luther Library.

Spines and Flights

Recent x-rays of my spine look like a zipper on LSD. God has such a sense of humor. After years of chiding others to “get a backbone,” mine is crumbling because of arthritis. Ascending stairs has become a fuggedaboudit activity. Descending is easier, but how does one descend without having first ascended? Rather than the pain being the worst part of it all, it is the fatigue. I am simply not accustomed to being bone-weary until I have put in a 12-hour day. Now it takes considerably less than that. The future holds major surgery, and not a pleasant one at that. But that’s down the road a bit.

Now John has been benefiting from this business. I can’t do as much shopping as I once did. My limit is three stores. Getting in and out of the car pays its toll on me, so by then it’s time to get on home.

Yesterday I spent time encased in an MRI tube. I under-rated my claustrophobic tendencies at first, but eventually stilled them by reciting the catechism. There is nothing like a bit of familiar litany to calm nerves.

It was the afternoon that brought relief and good news by way of the physical therapist. He hooked me up to a T.E.N.S. machine and let it do its thing. What a wonder! It was better than drugs. He assured me that there is a portable unit I can wear to use daily. This might increase endurance through the elimination of pain. What a wonder that would be. Watch out, world! I’m on my way back!

I didn’t ask if the TENS would fix me up enough to go sky diving. Of course, I’d probably drift off course a lot seein’s how I’m listin’ to the right as it is these days.

The Lord teaches us always to die so that He might live in us (2Cor 4:11).

Dixie Wimps

Now here’s a quote worth noting:

“The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism. Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism.” Natalie Maines, Dixie Chicks

Read more at Michelle Malkin’s blog.

A cogent point is made at The Coalition of the Swilling.

Yes, it always comes back to McCarthy and Vietnam, that one-two combination of leftist martyrdom. Oh, I am called to task for a stupid comment! I'm being repressed! McCarthy! How dare people not buy my music because they think I'm an ass...

Really, ladies, there is a difference between being a victim, and claiming the status of victimhood for oneself. The Dixie Chicks have chosen the course of the latter. What the Dixie Chicks are engaging in is consumer blackmail.

They have no more of a right to expect anyone to purchase their product for any reason than this country has a right to expect them to pick up a flag and wave it at every concert. And they better get used to it without recourse to martyrdom cheap shots.

Grow up and quit your whining, tootsies!

A Sandwich...

...takes on a whole new meaning when your appetite has been pumped up after a long walk through the sites of the oldest city in Germany, Trier, on the opening day of the World Cup. Just behind this little gal is Porta Nigra, the largest of all Roman arches in the world still standing today. The cutie pie is my granddaughter. She lives with her mom and dad in Mannheim, Germany. I just got back from spending two weeeks with them.


Emi had also seen the Roman Basilica, which was Constantine's throne room (on the left here). It is now a Lutheran church. That's her daddy walking down the right aisle.

At the local Dom, or cathedral, she also stood within feet of the seamless tunic of Christ, and inches of one of the nails from His cross (so they say.) However, she was most impressed with the dancing cat toy her grammy bought her for two euro, fifty- the type of toy we used to pick up for a few pfennig years ago. The cat "dances" when you press your thumb under the base of the thing. Don't ask for a better description. I'm at a total loss at present to provide one.



At any rate, how would any of you pastors like to preach with this as your view? It's a bit exaggerated, as the actual altar is that stone box sitting near the pews. This is taken from high above it near the shrine of the tunic. Keep in mind that tunic is enshrined behind you to give you strength in all you say and do. If that doesn't do it, then that nail is in the cathedral treasury off to your left. Failing that, one supposes thoughts of the remains of the Roman amphitheater just down the street would suffice. It could still be put back into use just in case you don't "get it right." How's that for a bit of encouragement?

As long as trust is placed where Christ has not given His Word, faith is not where He is. Then all one has is the Law. Pity that His Flesh and Blood are left uneaten and often eaten so capriciously, yet shreds of cloth and rusty chips of iron gather hushed and reverent crowds.

With Jalapeños...

One of the most sublime bits of humor yet to come along is Burger King’s newest commercial for its Texas Double Beef Burger.

Not only is the whole pitch a piece of Madison Avenue genius, it is also a slap in the jaw at feminist ideology. If you don’t recognize it, the tune is the anthem of women’s liberation, “I Am Woman Hear Me Roar” recorded by Helen Reddy in 1972.

I am woman, hear me roar
In numbers too big to ignore
And I know too much to go back an' pretend
'cause I've heard it all before
And I've been down there on the floor
No one's ever gonna keep me down again

CHORUS

Oh yes I am wise
But it's wisdom born of pain
Yes, I've paid the price
But look how much I gained
If I have to, I can do anything
I am strong (strong)
I am invincible (invincible)
I am woman

You can bend but never break me
'cause it only serves to make me
More determined to achieve my final goal
And I come back even stronger
Not a novice any longer
'cause you've deepened the conviction in my soul

CHORUS

I am woman watch me grow
See me standing toe to toe
As I spread my lovin' arms across the land
But I'm still an embryo
With a long long way to go
Until I make my brother understand

Oh yes I am wise
But it's wisdom born of pain
Yes, I've paid the price
But look how much I gained
If I have to I can face anything
I am strong (strong)
I am invincible (invincible)
I am woman
Oh, I am woman
I am invincible
I am strong

FADE
I am woman
I am invincible
I am strong
I am woman

Here are real men finally dropping their “chic-food” patience while at the same time they are not putting it over on the women. Women, graze on greeneries and teensy portions if you want to, but give the guys something solid and enough to eat now and again! Men and women have different appetites and different appetite needs. In 1:01 min Mad Ave admits what the Dogmatic Feminists refuse to: Men and women are different. To top it of, this is all done to the same tune that women marched to against men. This is priceless.

Geisha, Gigi, and a Queen

My husband and I finally watched “Memoirs of a Geisha” one evening. It was a beautiful film. The costumes were rich, the acting was graceful. I couldn’t help but think it was a re-make of “Gigi,”. The only connection was that both movies concerned the training of young girls to be courtesans. In “Geisha” the young girl moved up from apprentice to full-fledged geisha when her virginity was sold to the highest bidder. The goal for both a Parisian courtesan and the geisha was to secure a benefactor, a patron who would provide for her. Marriage was not the intended outcome for these women. Geisha sure sounds prettier than shack-up-honey or kept woman, doesn’t it? But that’s what she is.

Chiyo/Sayuri was sold by her fisherman father to become a geisha. Her life was miserable, filled with little kindness. Treated as a slave, she was beaten for wrongs she had not committed. She had no future of her own, no hope for any better life. “Geisha” ends on a very pretty note. Sayuri not only attains her dream of becoming a celebrated geisha with a sponsor, he is also the one with whom she has been in love since she was a very young girl. This is a love story. Still, there will be no marriage.

As for Gigi, she hardly knew any better than to become a courtesan. Her mother and grandmother were both Parisian courtesans. It was the family business. Both her mother and grandmother were famous courtesans. Eventually the free-spirited Gigi also succeeds in becoming a real head-turning lady’s man. She is the envy of gay Paris club society when long-time friend Gaston debuts her at his side.

Yet Gigi breaks with family tradition when she refuses Gaston’s first offer, that of being simply her sponsor without the privileges of marriage. She will have none of it. Is that love, she asks him, to have her made a laughingstock by his eventual infidelity and to be then tossed out into the streets? To have their private life made public knowledge? To be treated as less than a wife?

Gigi’s grandmother and mother are devastated by Gigi’s refusal of Gaston’s proposition, only to be elated when he returns and proposes marriage. Gaston’s love for Gigi has flowered into repentance. There can be no illicit relationship with this one- or another now that he is to be a husband. The household shattered by grief and despair is resurrected in jubilation by the return of bridegroom for his bride.

Things are not the same for “Geisha.” She becomes the “half-wife” to the Chairman, his “wife of the night.” Sayuri offers us a disclaimer of sorts. She says that hers was not the tale of an empress or a queen, but of a geisha. So we should not be disappointed, she says.

OK, so what are we to make of “Geisha”? If it her story was not offered as a tale to elicit disappointment for her sake from us, what was the tale supposed to do? First, “Geisha” was based upon actual events. Second, empathy ought to at least allow us to consider the fact that Chiyo/Sayuri had no real choice in her fate; nine-year-olds who are sold off by their fathers to be geishas generally do not have a say in the matter. Likewise, Gigi had little to say in the course of her training as a Parisian courtesan.

So what is the big deal with this film, “Geisha”? Is it even fair to compare it to “Gigi,” which is fictional and culturally disassociated to it, as well?

Here’s the Big Deal: Did you put a price on your virginity?

I ask that seriously, but I honestly don’t want any real answers.

Virginity goes cheap these days. Usually goes for as low as a movie, burger, coke and fries. Maybe a shake. Or a pizza. Certainly not as high as the bid for Sayuri’s virginity. No sireee! The Baron paid enough for that piece to pay off all her debts, plus sock away a tidy sum. Let’s get real: A prostitute by any price is still a hooker even if she’s not a streetwalker. And what does that make the guy involved? So what does that make any gal who trades off for a burger and coke? Oh, I forgot. Youngsters in love? Not always. It is simply called “hooking up” on today’s campuses. That’s the terminology for quick, non-involved sex. Huh?

The irony of the term is priceless. It originates in Nena and George O’Neill’s book, Open Marriage, popular in 1972. (Sometimes it pays to be so ancient! I was there when this was all the craze!) Open Marriage was a feminist, liberal (redundant, I know) proposal for rescuing tired, boring marriages by- guess what- promiscuity. The idea was for each partner to seek out other partners, discover as many different “hook up” points about the others, and, well… relate. “Hooking up” has now devolved simply to mean one particular point of reference at which even dogs in heat casually passing each other on the street and never expecting to or even caring about seeing each other again will join themselves for a few brief moments. In other words, he’s got an “outie,” she’s got an “innie.” So they can hook up. That’s as far as the relationship goes. “Hooking,” and “hooker” also refer to that which some women are paid for with about the same emotional depth as the dogs in heat have encountered. How deliciously ironic!

Sayuri’s caveat that her tale was not that of wife or an empress tagged onto “Geisha” may have been correct insofar as the facts of the situation. However, in an arena that promotes the promiscuity of women and men, her words are hollow and her tale resounds as a promotion of more of the same. The most important line in the film was “Every step I have taken in my life has been to bring myself closer to you.” Yup. Love makes it all OK. So in the end of it all, “Geisha” is about choice. We are not all wives. We are not all empresses. But we all may choose. Choose your own path, women, and achieve your dream. Along the way, sell whatever commodity you have to the highest bidder.

What is the price of chastity? Gigi’s “No” still rings clearly nearly half a century later as witness against drivel like “Geisha.” It turned a courtesan into a wife, a gigolo into a husband, grief into jubilation. Quoting Roger Scruton, F. Carolyn Graglia (Domestic Tranquility; Spence Publishing, 1998. p. 344.) uses a marvelous term, “individualizing intentionality.” One who regards another in this light recognizes that one is an irreplaceable individual, not merely an instrument of sexual release. That one is to be known from the inside out, as a “creature who is part of oneself.” This is the Hebraic sense of knowing, as when a husband knew ([dy) his wife. “Individualizing intensity” aptly describes how God both set apart and pursued His wife, Israel (Ho 2:2; Ze 8:8). This is not the choice of the Bride, but of the Groom Himself. He chased and sought his intended until He made her His own.

Paul’s description of the Bridegroom, Christ, and His Bride flows from the gift of Baptism.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. Eph 5:25-27

Virginity might last until marriage vows are spoken, but chastity goes before and remains after. The price for chastity is marked by Christ’s own. He remained the unspotted Lamb for our sakes in order to take our sin upon Himself at the cross and then gives His righteousness to us in Baptism (Ro 6:3-4). Not with gold or silver, but with His holy, precious blood and His innocent suffering and death He redeemed us poor condemned persons by His flesh hung and blood poured out upon the cross. Christ takes a woman who has been soiled with sin- in Hosea God likens the church to a prostitute- washes her clean, and makes her His own chaste Bride. Not just as if she were sinless, but actually proclaims her to be sinless. What Jesus says is so is so. What He declares to be righteous is righteous. The Bride of Christ- men and women alike- are His baptized. She is His Queen, made so by His Father’s will.

“Geisha’s” value lies in its catechetical opportunity. In Women Who Make the World Worse, Kate O’Beirne exposes Rebecca Walker, the daughter of Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Alice Walker. She was recognized by Time magazine as one of the nation’s top 50 future leaders. Walker is routinely sought for speaking engagements on campuses as a guest lecturer. She and her lesbian partner are raising a son. She has edited an anthology, What Makes a Man: 22 Writers Imagine the Future. In her autobiography, Black, White & Jewish, she recounts her own first sexual encounter at eleven, and her abortion at fourteen. She frequently lectures at events like San Jose’s 2004 Girls for a Change Summit. Against this tide of moral influence, who is teaching our children? What is teaching our children? How are they being catechized? “Little Blue” – CPH now features it in red leather – hardly gets equal opportunity, especially if parents remain silent.

Women Who Make the World Worse

There are two important words to remember concerning Kate O’Beirne’s book, Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports: Get it. It is that good, that important. Read it for yourself. Read it to your daughters. Prescribe it to your sons.

It is not enough that the world of feminism is discovering their ideology is based upon tissues of improbabilities. Feminism is an ideology with itself as both the object and the goal. Therefore, dogmatic feminists would rather promote any lie in order to advance their own agenda rather than allow truth to be revealed.

What truth?

• A public that has never known a society without abortion is increasingly pro-life.


• Physiological studies between males and females repeatedly report similar results: girls and boys are genetically different.


• The military has been weakened by the inclusion of women because through various means to accommodate those differences for the sake of the feminist goal of equality.


• The family has been undermined and devalued in the cause of feminist sexual liberation. Philandering politicians were supported as long as they promoted the prize of feminism, abortion rights.


• Men’s sports activities and education have suffered and in some cases been eradicated due to the cause of feminist propagandizing. In the meantime, public education itself has become an experiment in social engineering rather than the source of teaching.


• That feminism is the largest bureaucratic job-maker in history.

This is a brilliant piece of work. Often downright funny, its genuinely wise insights into what makes feminism tick and what drives the movement makes this books a must have for parents of growing children and teenagers. Why? In a sense it is a mini-course in apologetics against what is being fed through the schools, the media and higher education. OBeirne has a solid grip on feminists, and pulls their “logic” apart masterfully. We should all learn to be so adept at doing the same.


Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports
Type: HardcoverISBN: 159230092

Also posted at Luther Library.

Contra Mundum

Albert Mohler speaks well not only regarding the DaVinci Code, but also to the whole issue of standing against the world and for the truth. You can read his comments in his May 19 blog entry, “A Response to “The DaVinci Code”: What's the Problem?”

Here is another question:

At the end of last year, Oprah Winfrey chose James Frey’s book, A Million Little Pieces, for her Book Club. It soon sold 3.5M copies. Last January the book was exposed to contain numerous fabrications. It wasn’t the non-fiction Frey said it was. The Press immediately said Oprah had been “conned.”

On Jan. 12 Frey appeared with Larry King to defend himself. Oprah called into the show and spoke up in support of Frey. She said, in part:

And I feel about “A Million Little Pieces” that although some of the facts have been questioned -- and people have a right to question, because we live in a country that lets you do that, that the underlying message of redemption in James Frey’s memoir still resonates with me. And I know that it resonates with millions of other people who have read this book and will continue to read this book.

According to Oprah at that time, the message of redemption in the book was more important than the fact of the fabrications by the author. Apparently Oprah subsequently changed her mind. When Frey appeared on her show she forthrightly stated, “I feel duped…”

On that same show Oprah also questioned Nan Talese, Frey’s publisher. Didn’t she check out the facts? Didn’t she research to know if he was lying? Talese continued to defend Frey and her choice to publish his work as non-fiction saying

A novel is something different than a memoir. And a memoir is different from an autobiography. A memoir is an author’s remembrance of a certain period in his life. Now, the responsibility, as far as I am concerned, is does it strike me as valid? Does it strike me as authentic? I mean, I’m sent things all the time and I think they’re not real. I don't think they're authentic. I don’t think they're good. I don’t believe them. In this instance, I absolutely believed what I read.

In other words, the facticity of the events didn’t matter to Talese. All that was important was whether or the book read as if it were authentic. That leads back to Oprah’s original statement, that a book can be redemptive even though it is not factual. Can a written piece be received as authentic and redemptive even though it is not regarded to be either entirely factual or historical? Now consider what Mohler writes

Beginning in chapter 55 [The DaVinci Code], Brown gets to the very heart of the story when the central character begins to reveal to another character the truth about the conspiracy. Consider what the character Leigh Teabing says: “The Bible is a product of man, my dear, not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds, man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times and it has evolved through countless translations, editions and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book.”

Now if that is true, then we are reading a kind of committee report when we open the Scripture. But it is not true. This is one of those insidious statements that makes sense to sinners, because in effect, that one paragraph has just declared that we do not have to take the Bible as the Word of God. It is just a human document, says the book.

So that would make Scripture one of those books that are authentic if the reader receives it as such, and redemptive in spite of the fact that it is essentially based on falsehoods. I say this because in so many churches today Scripture is regarded as not entirely, but merely mostly, or sometimes not quite true. Still, it is considered to be authoritative and redemptive. (Are we having fun yet?)

Now it must be asked, why did Oprah unleash all that ire against Frey because he was less than totally honest with the facts in his memoirs? Had all the redemptive qualities of his book suddenly been excised because it was revealed that he was a liar? For those who are so quick to dismiss much of Scripture as fiction and yet still claim it to be authentic and redemptive, why is more integrity demanded of someone like Frey than of the Holy Spirit?

Mohler gives Augustine as an example, and he is a fine one for us to remember. "Athanasius said, 'Well, if the entire world is against Athanasius, then Athanasius will be against the entire world.' In Latin, Athanasius' phrase has been summarized as 'contra mundum,' 'against the world.'" Here is another example:

And that you may marvel still more, the whole Christian church in its early days, and at its best, erred… only Peter, Paul, and Barnabas standing firm and holding that neither law nor good works are profitable and necessary for salvation. St. Luke clearly states it in Acts 15. There were great saints there, the apostles and their disciples who insisted and would have continued to insist that the law and good works were necessary for salvation, had not St. Paul and Peter declared against it. And even they themselves would not have known this had not God by miraculous signs from heaven confirmed them in their opinion that only faith is profitable and necessary for salvation, as we read in Acts 10:43. (Luther’s Church Postil, Epiphany)

Contra mundum might also be contra ecclesiam when it is for the sake of her repentance and reformation.

When confronted with explaining the difficult events of His own crucifixion, our risen Lord turned to Moses and the Prophets (Lk 24:27). Before ascending to the Father’s right hand, Christ exhorted His apostles to make disciples by baptizing and teaching them to guard all that He taught (Mt 28:19-20). It is He who said, “apart from Me you can do nothing” (Jn 15:5); abide in My word and you are My disciples (Jn 8:31). It is He who said that if His hearers were Abraham’s children they would not reject Him (Jn 8:39-40).

In the mind of this world truth itself is weighed judged for its value: What does it mean to me? Yet Scripture is God’s chosen means to reveal to us His Son as His Savior according to His plan of salvation. Jesus Christ is neither authenticated by nor redemptive because of what we make of Him. A savior authenticated and made redemptive by the recipient’s act is a god of one’s own making, an idol.

Instead, it is humanity that finds its authenticity in the flesh of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God who was born a human infant and was crucified on a Roman cross. Humanity finds redemption in Jesus Christ because in the life, death and bloody sacrifice of this Jesus all the sins of the world died. It is in His resurrection there is any hope for mankind- delivered freely in Baptism. Were Christ not raised from the dead, none have hope for resurrection of the dead (1Cor 15). Therein again is authentication of humanity in Christ alone.

What is authentic? What is redemptive? Look first to the Scriptures. All eyes on Jesus and what He redeems and declares authentic, then judge from there.

Issues On Oprah

There is no question that Oprah is a magnetic personality. Her persona draws people to her. Tickets to her one-woman events sell out days in advance. It is difficult to speak harshly about someone who is so self-sacrificing and philanthropic. She gives away millions yearly in goods and cash to those less fortunate.

Rumblings of Oprah as “America’s Pastor” began several years ago. Now this article seems to make it official. Todd Wilken invited me to speak about this on Issues, etc., today. Dcs. Pam Nielsen was with him in the studio. He asked- among several- two particularly insightful questions.

1. Oprah isn’t ordained, doesn’t profess herself to be a pastor. Does she have a responsibility to bring Christ into the discussion in her TV show and her magazine if she is a Christian?


2. Isn’t her spirituality actually similar to that of what we find in many churches?

These two questions are actually dynamically linked. The premise is this: Even though Oprah’s magazine, O, is not a theological publication, even though The Oprah Winfrey Show is not a religious broadcast, Oprah recognizes the moral obligation for both to be a reflection of who she truly is. So her values will be made evident through both just as how a Christian lives out his various vocations will give evidence of his on-going life in Christ.

Now, it would be difficult-if not impossible- for any Christian to admit that in every conversation he has he speaks of Christ. However, if God’s name is kept holy when it is taught in its truth and purity and we as Christians are to lead holy lives according to it, then the Christian’s life is lived by a certain framework. That framework is shaped by the cross. Just as it is our sins which caused Christ to willingly die in our place, a Christian's willing participation in what God calls evil re-crucifies Christ (He 6:6). To call good what God calls evil is a willful participation in sin. Does Oprah do this? Or does she speak clearly to issues of morality as God speaks from His word? Climbing up from poverty into designer suits and fancy shoes won’t change what is most needful.

Let us, therefore, look with admiration at this holy father Abraham, who does not go about in gold and silk but is adorned, surrounded, crowned, and clothed with the divine light, the Word of God. Therefore his story must be preferred to all the accounts of the world. At their best these merely spread some clouds of works, which are pleasant in appearance but without any true fruit, and are generally even sad and full of fear. For they are devoid of the Word of God, which alone is the true light that gladdens and teaches the heart; and God’s judgment and wrath are more noticeable in them than are His mercy and grace. (LW, Vol 2)

So while it may not be that Christ is mentioned in O or on her show, what is noticeable is what Oprah advocates and omits.

This leads directly to the second question. Albert Mohler wrote in another entry on his blog:

Oprah’s newly-packaged positive-thinking spirituality is tailor-made for the empty souls of our postmodern age. She promises meaning without truth, acceptance without judgment, and fulfillment without self-denial.

Oprah's spirituality is a blend of old-fashioned holiness living (you can keep God’s law perfectly), rugged American individualism (as Dcs. Nielsen said, “pull yourself up by the bootstraps”), and New Age oneness (we are all interconnected by one spirit, one nameless, faceless god rules us all). Her methodology is simple: Examine yourself; admit your weakness; determine a course of action; pamper yourself with luxuries and indulgences; achieve your dreams yourself by transforming your life. You deserve it. You are a wonderful person. Be grateful, and bless others so you may be blessed. There is just enough Christian religiosity melded into her message and life to keep her familiar and comfortable.

Oprah’s do-it-yourselfism appeals to and blends well with the Sunday morning schpiel of every preacher of salvation by works, including Mormonism. According to Oprah:

Understand that the right to choose your own path is a sacred privilege. Use it. Dwell in possibility. O magazine.

One of my favorites [Bible verses] was “Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.” I believe that when you stop renewing, and are no longer open to change and the possibilities that continually unfold, you stop being alive and are just getting through the years. …Transformation doesn't happen unless you’re willing: It’s your choice. … This year I’m choosing to live beyond my wildest dreams. I wonder where they’ll take me. Jan 2005

In an especially revealing entry Oprah writes:

I used to fear being alone. I understood why after John Bradshaw, who pioneered the concept of the inner child, appeared on my show 14 years ago. John took my audience and me through a profound exercise. He asked us to close our eyes and go back to the home we grew up in, to visualize the house…. Come closer, look inside the window and find yourself inside. What do you see? And more important, what do you feel? For me it was an overwhelmingly sad yet powerful exercise. What I felt at almost every stage of my development was alone. Not lonely—because there were always people around—but I knew that my soul's survival depended on me. I felt I would have to fend for myself. I now think that the sense of being apart from others is what led me to trust so firmly in something bigger than I could articulate, and feel a connection to God. … So on any given Sunday, you will find me alone. Filling myself up. Cherishing life and loving every solitary moment. July 2005

If Oprah is alone, with whom is she filling herself up? The spirituality Oprah expresses she found for herself is the same many churches promote: God in the raw, an experience of God without means. God becomes an experience. Testimonials are an important part of these worship services, just as they are on the Winfrey Show. Absolution takes a back seat (if ever present), for that requires “a middle man,” the pastor. That would also remove personal choice, individual determinism, and moral transformation as the agents of forgiveness. The confluence between certain Sunday worship morning offerings and the Winfrey Show are as if the one were grafted into the other. Can there be any doubt as to why her message- even though she never mentions Christ- is to easily absorbed by so many as genuinely Christian despite the overwhelming evidence that speaks against it because of what she openly advocates?

Wilken’s questions held a double-whammy! What of those empty souls Mohler wrote about? Oprah is certainly not filling them, for she does not bring Christ to them, rather actively leads souls to further emptiness. Her religion is one that avoids Christ. Oprah professes to act in love for all peoples and to be seeking a world where all people may live in love without judgment. Yet fidelity to Christ is exclusive if it is to be truly loving. It is exclusive because He Himself says that He is the only way to the Father, that is, God the Father Almighty (Jn 14:6).

Fidelity to Christ is exclusive because it is a mistake to think that any of us can approach God without means; that is, we do not have direct access to God now that the Temple curtain has been torn. (Yes, a thousand and one post-Reformation presuppositions are shattering, I suppose.) No one has access to God except in Christ. No one has faith in God the Father except through Christ (Jn 14:1). The prayers of a righteous man avail much. But who is righteous when all his good works are as filthy rags (Is 64:6)? Only those who have first been buried with Christ in Baptism and then raised up in His resurrection are righteous (Ro 6:3-4)- righteous because He declares them to be. Prayer in His name is heard and is powerful because Jesus is our advocate and intercessor before the Father (Jn 14:12).

So here’s the million dollar question: What’s all the Oprah-self-improvement for, what’s all the Oprah-love for, what’s all the Orpah-preaching for, what are all these Oprah-prayers for if Christ is not only not revealed, but instead denied by obesceince to society's demands for diversified, pluralistic pantheism?

OuthousingTwins

My tolerance for little boy barnyard and bathroom humor reaches its limits quickly. Now anyone who rushes to mark me as a prude is one who simply doesn’t know me well. There is a difference between crass potty-mouth for the sake of being obnoxious and the refined art of articulation that could still cause my granny to blush. Boors pride themselves in the former; Luther was a master of the latter. I appreciate Luther and quote him (sometimes with discretion for the sake of the audience) while at the same time I discipline my students in the ways of a “wise and eloquent piety” because of their use of the former.

Every year we take the darlings to a local pumpkin patch and petting farm. Last year my crew was too cool for school. They stood back from the “little kids” and observed. They also maintained a running commentary on the animal behavior, announcing what each one was doing. The more bathroom-related, the more delighted they became, barely stifling their snickers and giggles.

“What? Like you don’t do what they do?” I’d ask.

“Well, no. It isn’t that,” they’d lamely say. “It’s just funny to see it. And they’re using the outside as their bathroom.”

Imagine that. Animals actually using the out-of-doors for a bathroom. What was the world coming to?

When we got back to school I was called out of the classroom for a few minutes. As soon as I retuned they all converged on me. “Deaconess! You should see what Isaac drew! It is awesome.” They shoved a full-page cartoon in my face. Isaac is quite an artist even at ten.

It was a running sight-gag with only four words, “Oh, my rear itches.” These obviously provided the source of their hilarity. The students could see from my face and demeanor I was not amused. Jacob immediately told the crew to sit down. I grabbed two books, told them I would return soon, and left the room.

Dead silence met me when I came back. I went straight to the board and began to write:

A R T I C U L A T E

After defining the word, we got down to business. The animals they had seen were performing certain functions. I was not aware of the fact that I had picked up different colored marked with which to write, so it came out on the board like this:

flatulent (brown)
defecate (brown)
urinate (yellow)

When I finally noticed that I had written in different colors, I said, “Well, lookie see there. The colors are perfectly picked out to suit our purposes.” The poor little dears were grossed out! GOTCHA!

We moved on.

The point was articulation. The cartoon displayed none of that. Bathroom humor appeals to the widest audience because it is the lowest common act of humans and the animal kingdom. So what is so special about that?

Finally I dropped the word they liked to sneak in when they really wanted to be “cute.” It was Friday, and for the first time they would have weekend homework.

“Since you all think writing only four words about an itchy rear is articulation; and because you all think talking about flatulent animals urinating and defecating is the highest form of intelligence, this weekend you all are going to do what you like to do best. You are going to spend it writing about asses.”

They were appalled. The Deaconess had gone nuts. They were certain of it. She had sworn in front of them. One looked as if he was going to call his mother and report me post haste.

“You said ‘ass’ they accused.”

“So I did,” I confessed. “And you say ‘hell’ every single day in chapel.”

“No we don’t. That’s a cuss word.”

“Yes you do. ‘He descended into hell…’ Now, you want to know how ‘ass’ can be used properly?”

Their assignment was to read an Aesop’s Fable and re-write it, the “Ass and the Dog.” They also illustrated it. They thoroughly enjoyed doing it, which was good, because they got several more of Aesop’s “Ass” tales ove the following weeks. Eventually they became so used to the word they no longer giggled when they heard it. Nor did they any longer consider it unusual when finding goose droppings on our long walks. “Where else would a goose do that ‘d’ thing?” they’d say.

God created our mouth to speak and sanctifies the language which comes from it. It is we, through sin, who have made the one a cesspool and the other spewed sewage. A word has its proper use as well as its abuse. We reclaim its proper use when we catechize our children to use their sanctified common sense and articulate rather than either act out or react.

This year’s class is different. It includes the Troublemint Twins, who find giggle-source in the word “bathroom” itself. Say it and Jeremiah will look at Byrne with a wide grin and both will need to work hard to suppress their giggles. Today they couldn’t.

Sean has difficulty reading sometimes. He’ll let his brain over run his eyes. He saw the letters b-a-r and never got to the n before his mind rushed to assume “bathroom.” Rudeness knows no limits when there is giggle opportunity for a Troublemint Twin. They erupted into great fits of glee. Sean was beet red with embarrassment.

What to do? Easy. Jeremiah and Byrne received sentences for mocking their neighbor’s difficulty in reading. That was a given. The next part was to cure them of the bathroom giggles.

Jacob could sense it coming almost before I spoke it out loud. “The extra desks?” he asked.

“Yup.”

Jeremiah took the Boys’ room; Byrne the Girls’.

For the sake of privacy, I posted an “Out of Order” sign on the Girls’ door.

Normally it takes Jeremiah a good half-hour to write his seven sentences. He nailed them in ten minutes flat.

Great Reading

From time to time I have been referred to as “the anti feminist” for my staunch defense of God’s order of creation against the tides of feminism.

Hogwash and patooey!

For the finest confession of femininity and woman as God created her to be, no one speaks with as fine a voice as that which comes through at Favorite Apron and Sew Liturgical. Libraries of books and pages of rhetoric cannot speak with the eloquence of one faithful wife and mother joyously engaged in her vocation.

Both of these blogs are a “must read” if only for this reason.

Eudorian Pietism

What my husband won't do for himself he doesn't hesitate to do for me. He has the 7 year old system with barely 2GB, and no room for anything more to be put onto it. I've been after him to upgrade, but he's happy to live with it. Recently my 3 year old laptop crashed- the DMA controller simply fried. Without a blink he ordered a new system for me. He's quite a man!

That means I have Eudora newly installed, including the recent upgrade (they've offered it at a cut-rate). Normally I turn off the Mood Watch, those little pepper thingies that tell me to watch my language, or that screen the language of emails coming through to me. I'm a big girl. I can both govern myself and handle what comes along my way. I don't need little peppers to warn me. Still, like I said, I've not turned Mood Watch "Off" in the "Options" section yet. So what's the first piece of email that gets flagged as "too hot to handle?" One of Rev. Scott Murray's "Memorial Moments." Consider:

bloody
bound by chains and cords
vices
binding
passionate and bloody embrace
skin to be nailed upon the stake
guilt
punishment
Footwashing
Passion

This reminded me of a web-based computer program a while back that scanned your system to see of you had any pornographic and potentially illegal material on it. I tried it once. My computer was flagged as in "critical danger" because it had a huge amount of literature dealing with blood, sacrifice, sex, and violence. Every flagged source led straight back to Libronix (Logos) or Bibleworks files- all scripture and theology resources.

On the surface this demonstrates only that machines and the computer programs used to search for specific words can't sift between the connotation and denotation of a word. All the programs look for is a specific word. Once it is flagged, it is marked and regarded as suspect. Machines and programs do not, nor can they, understand how words are used according to the Faith. They simply know certain words are to be learned, marked, and outwardly avoided by little peppers, regardless of their connotation in any circumstance. This highlights mystery.

The First Commandment teaches us that we do not love God as we ought, for we do not "fear, love and trust in God above all things." Therefore, as the Third Article teaches us, we cannot believe in Christ by our own reason or strength. Yet the Holy Spirit calls us by the Gospel and sanctifies us with His Gifts. Without the working of the Holy Spirit upon our hearts and minds, we are very much like those machines and programs processing words, but with little use for their actual God-ordained meaning. God's Word remains as a list of words and nothing more. To those without faith in Christ, scripture remains a tangle of undecipherable contradictions. According to His gift of faith, those of the Body of Christ- His disciples- are the ones who remain in His word . To these He says, "The truth shall set you free" (Jn 8.31).

XXI is up

Lutheran Carnival comes of age with number XXI! Dan does a fine job at Necessary Roughness pulling it all together.  

Telly Award for Vox Visuals

Vox Visual's first production, The Lutheran Faith: A Mighty Fortress, has won another award, a bronze Telly Award in national competition. The Lutheran Faith had already a second-place Addy Award in state-wide competition in Florida.

"The Telly Awards honor outstanding outstanding local, regional and cable television commercials and programs, as well as the finest video and film productions. Last year's competition received over 12,000 entries from all 50 states and from 5 continents. "The Lutheran Faith: A Mighty Fortress was submitted in the category of non-broadcast video production and received a bronze award.

Thanks to everyone who has been supporting us. We are looking forward to beginning our next production- Holy Baptism: Water of Life- this summer, Deo volente!" (Quoted from Pr. Sawyer's email.)

Check out Vox Visuals. The crisp, clean filming and production is suprpassed only by the solid Lutheran- i.e., Christological- scripting that grabs the attention and holds it.

Of Course. . .

There's another way to consider this article.

We now have scientific proof that women ought not be ordained: Men aren't able to hear their preaching properly.

As if that is what was necessary to settle the issue in the first place.

Ain't we just havin' fun?

Hearing and Believing

Now I know why my boy students don't listen to me.

Of course, it doesn't explain why one of them closed his eyes and zoned out during the sermon in chapel yesterday. Or why he denied knowing any of the Latin verb endings he's been learning since the beginning of the year. I don't preach, and I don't teach Latin. Pastor does.

At least now I have the comfort of scientific proof for why my boy students don't listen to me. Pastor doesn't.

Maybe one day there will be a pill to control or cure that boy's listening problem, like there is for ADD, ADHD and toe fungus. Then I would have a class filled with boys listening to me. Poor pastor. He'll just have to struggle along with simple ignorance and disobedience.

How will I know the boys are listening? Because they will also be boys who are doing what I tell them to do. My, my. What a wonderful thing that would be. I like that idea: a room filled with boys who become men listening to me and then doing what I tell them to do. Why, isn't that the very image of... well... we'd very nearly control MEN, wouldn't we, gals? How goddess-like!

And all the while there's still the problem of guys falling alseep during the sermon and then not doing. No scientific reason for that little problem, so that one's just going to fall through the cracks, it seems.

On the one hand, science is soooooo feminist! On the other, it can ultimately demonstrate God's truths. God said following the first sin that men and women would now struggle against each other. Our physical being was affected by the fall. Distortion in hearing is one of these ways. To use findings such as these an excuse for not listening to each other, especially to "parents and other authorities," is another way that Satan continues to wage the war between the sexes.

Men don't listen to men any better than they listen to women. This is nowhere more evident than where God's word is rightly preached and His Sacraments administered accordng to His institution of them. For it is in such places that men will despise what is proclaimed and seek ways to remove the messenger- just as was done to the One who sent them.

YO!

What a welcome site!