Archives from Old Blog Site: 2005

« November 2005 | Main | January 2006 »
December 30, 2005
A Psalm for New Year’sI was looking for the reference for the verse about how “all flesh is grass,” on how the things of this world all pass away, as a fitting meditation for New Year’s. It’s from Psalm 103. But then I saw how those rather sad verses are transformed by the context, which evokes great joy in the steadfast love of God, in all of its many manifestations, which never passes away. Psalm 103 gives us the promises that indeed give us a “Happy New Year” no matter what happens. Click “continue reading” and see what I mean.Psalm 103
Praise for the Lord’s Mercies_A Psalm of David.
Bless the Lord, O my soul; And all that is within me, bless His holy name! Bless the Lord, O my soul, And forget not all His benefits: Who forgives all your iniquities, Who heals all your diseases, Who redeems your life from destruction, Who crowns you with lovingkindness and tender mercies, Who satisfies your mouth with good things, So that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s.
The Lord executes righteousness And justice for all who are oppressed. He made known His ways to Moses, His acts to the children of Israel. The Lord is merciful and gracious, Slow to anger, and abounding in mercy. He will not always strive with us, Nor will He keep His anger forever. He has not dealt with us according to our sins, Nor punished us according to our iniquities. For as the heavens are high above the earth, So great is His mercy toward those who fear Him; As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us. As a father pities his children, So the Lord pities those who fear Him. For He knows our frame; He remembers that we are dust. As for man, his days are like grass; As a flower of the field, so he flourishes. For the wind passes over it, and it is gone, And its place remembers it no more.* But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting On those who fear Him, And His righteousness to children’s children, To such as keep His covenant, And to those who remember His commandments to do them. The Lord has established His throne in heaven, And His kingdom rules over all. Bless the Lord, you His angels, Who excel in strength, who do His word, Heeding the voice of His word. Bless the Lord, all you His hosts, You ministers of His, who do His pleasure. Bless the Lord, all His works, In all places of His dominion.
Bless the Lord, O my soul!
~ Posted by Veith at 01:16 PM

Looking ahead
Another thing I like to do to celebrate New Year’s is to look up people’s predictions last year about what the new year would bring. Subtracting out the psychics, here is one and here is another. What are your predictions for 2006?
~ Posted by Veith at 10:36 AMLooking back
Since this is a Monday through Friday blog, today--as is already evident--will be the day we reflect on New Year’s. Looking back on last year, what do you consider the significant events, developments, or trends of 2005?
~ Posted by Veith at 10:00 AM

New Year
I realize that New Year’s Day is not an official holiday in the church year, but it’s always been a rather meaningful and contemplative time for me. I always go through the recaps of the top stories and milestones of the previous year (for example, those listed in the end-of-the-year (World). I also look back at my own and my family’s highs and lows during the past year. It’s a salutary exercise, a meditation on time, change, eternity; a reflection on the mutability of life and the permanence of God’s blessings. I also look ahead, wondering what all might happen in the next year.And on New Year’s Eve, we stay up till midnight to see the old year out and the new year in. That’s not as easy as it used to be. We are always at home. When our kids were here, younger, and more easily deceived, we would wickedly make them think that the ball that dropped on Times Square that they watched on TV applied for us too, not telling them about the time zone differences so that they would go to bed earlier, while still thinking they had seen the old year out. We’ll still manage some kind of toast.

Then on New Year’s Day, we, being Oklahomans even while living in the Wisconsin arctic, eat black-eyed peas for good luck. (We have sometimes had to scour the area’s grocery stores just to find some! People in Wisconsin think that to have good luck you must eat herring on New Year’s day. Though I will sometimes hedge my bets by eating some of that slimy stuff, I still believe in the efficacy of black-eyed peas. I hold to that even though I cannot deny that in general the state of Wisconsin over the years has had much better luck than Oklahoma.)That’s about it. What do you do for New Year’s?
~ Posted by Veith at 09:49 AM

Mob psychology
Thanks to the comment from “Kletos Sumboulos,” a confessional Lutheran psychologist, who commented on our discussion about mob behavior. He runs an outstanding blog called Amore et Labor (which is Latin for “Love and Work”). It focuses on what he calls “the psychology and spirituality of work.” In other words, Luther’s doctrine of vocation.Anyway, he says that when we join to a mob, two psychological phenomena kick in. (My comments are in parentheses, which “Kletos” is welcome to correct.):
(1) A “diffusion of responsibility.” That is, the individual responsibility we normally feel for our actions is watered down and distributed among the group. (I would suggest that this happens not only mobs, but in groups in general. Look what often happens to individual effort in school when kids are given a “group assignment.” Usually that means that the smartest kid in the group ends up doing all the work, but the rest consider it less urgent that they do something.)
(2) “Deindividuation.” The individual loses a sense of his personal identity and takes on the group identity. (This is the goal under collectivist ideologies, such as Communism, Fascism, and other more benevolent-seeming political ideologies. In less harmful ways, we can feel it happen when we get caught up with our team and the crowd in a football game [as when my Sooners beat #6-ranked Oregon in the Holiday Bowl last night!]. Perhaps a positive example takes place in church, when we become one with the “communion of saints.” But this can become dangerous when the group-identity takes over at the expense of our individual beliefs, principles, and conscience.)
~ Posted by Veith at 07:45 AM

December 29, 2005
Going Dutch: Down the moral slippery slopeThe loss of Christianity in the Netherlands has also meant a moral vacuum, of course, as the FoxNews feature blogged about below also noted. Legalized drugs mean marijuana and hashish bars on street corners. Legalized prostitution means sexual window shopping in Amsterdam. But the Netherlands is also a useful bellwether on what may be coming next. Having transgressed one moral boundary, the Dutch--eagerly sledding down the slippery slope--keep looking for the next one to transgress. That may be useful for us to see what will be next after, say, gay marriage and legalized euthanasia.
Having legalized gay marriage, the Dutch are now conducting legal group marriages (two women and a man; two men and a woman; or whatever other combination). Having legalized euthanasia when a patient requests it, the Dutch have now legalized involuntary euthanasia for patients who cannot, including children. And now the pro-death lobby is pushing legalization of a suicide pill, for people who are not seriously ill but who are just tired of life.
Could this happen here?
~ Posted by Veith at 09:23 AM

Going Dutch: Seeing religion as “toxic”
I caught a fascinating feature on FoxNews yesterday, about the precipitous decline of religion in the Netherlands. (Sorry, it isn’t posted on the FoxNews site, at least not yet.) One hundred years ago, Holland was one of the most religious nations in the world, with some 90% of the population going to church. Today, it is one of the least religious, with only 8% going to church. Experts can’t really say why that happened. But that’s only part of the story. According to an expert who was interviewed, the attitude towards religion is not just neutral or indifferent, as one would expect with a sheerly secular point of view. Most people are aggres-sively anti-religious. The expert said that people in Northern Europe see religion as “toxic.” “They are afraid of it.”I have heard elsewhere that this is one of the reasons Europeans have become so anti-American. They hold President Bush in contempt largely because he is openly religious. And they fear America because they know our country is still religious. They think we are becoming a Taliban-like theocracy. (While remaining strangely tolerant of actual Taliban-like theocracies.)

The view that religion and Christianity in particular are “toxic” is indeed the view of much of our cultural elite. Perhaps Europe is in the cultural vanguard. Do you think Christianity in America will similarly collapse culturally in the years ahead? (Recognizing, of course, that Christ will always preserve His church, if only as a small remnant.)
~ Posted by Veith at 09:14 AMMobs and human nature
Here is an update on the mob beating in Milwaukee that we posted about yesterday. The victim, a black man, has awakened out of his coma and will apparently recover. Safety tip: It has apparently become the in thing for teenagers to gather in large numbers and block roads. If such a group blocks your way, turn around and go by another route. Don’t stand on principle and insist on driving through. Call the police.

There have been four other mob beatings in Milwaukee over the past year, with one fatality. That does not include the 2002 beating death of Charlie Young, which was committed by a group that included children as young as ten. But here is what I would like us to contemplate, a remark by Criminal Justice professor Alan Fox: “People in groups do things that they wouldn’t do on their own.”
I am confident that when arrests are made in this case, neighbors and family members will say of individual perpetrators what a nice young man he is, how he never hurt anyone, how they can’t believe he would have done such a thing. And they will be right. But groups bring out the worst in us. We see this not only in poor inner city kids, but in middle class college students who riot after winning a championship, European adults who go berserk at soccer games, and--in less violent forms--grade school cliques and the casual viciousness that can take place in a group of fellow workers or advocates of a cause, even in church. That doesn’t normally harm people physically, but the gossip, put-downs, and psychological toll can be great, and the moral and thus spiritual damage it does to the perpetrators can be serious.We try to teach our kids the dangers of “peer pressure” (even as school and church youth groups do “trust building” activities that teach them to trust the group). But I think peer pressure can be just as much of a problem for adults. Do you think so?
~ Posted by Veith at 08:02 AM

December 28, 2005
Compare these twoConsider the two posts, below. Is there any essential difference between the cruelty in an inner city assault and the theologically-motivated cruelty of Rev. Phelps? Are they essentially the same? Is one of them worse?
 Posted by Veith at 10:14 AM

Depravity watch
As G. K. Chesterton said, the doctrine of original sin is the one Christian doctrine that can be proved. The daily newspaper provides an abundance of evidence. This is what happened Monday night right here in Milwaukee: A 50-year-old Milwaukee man was dragged from a car he was driving and severely beaten Monday night by a group of at least 15 teens and young men after he honked at them to get out of the street they were blocking.Witnesses said the attackers jumped off cars and did flips onto the man’s head, laughed and blasted music as if they were having a “block party.”
The victim, identified by family as Samuel McClain, suffered “severe head trauma” and was in critical condition late Tuesday at Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital in Wauwatosa, a hospital spokesman said. His family was gathered at Froedtert, awaiting word on McClain’s fate. It was unclear whether he would survive Said a witness who called the police: “They just started stomping on him, beating him. They were having fun, like it was normal, like it was an everyday thing … I was in shock.”

Most sins give the sinner some apparent good: Theft gets you money or some desired possession. Murder can give the satisfaction of revenge or it can protect one’s freedom by eliminating a witness. Other sins give illicit pleasure. But to harm someone for no reason exhibits a viciousness that is pure evil, explainable only in terms of an innate human depravity and an alliance with the devil himself.
~ Posted by Veith at 10:01 AMWhat side is he on?
Michelle Malkin posts on the latest activities of the Rev. Fred Phelps. He and members of his church, Westboro Baptist of Topeka, Kansas, got attention for picketing at the funerals of gay murder and AIDS victims, with signs such as “God hates fags.” Now the group is branching out, picketing at the funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq, with signs like “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” Rev. Phelps believes the Iraq war is God’s punishment for the government’s tolerance of homosexuals.

Now, is there anything more likely to build sympathy for homosexuals than what Rev. Phelps is doing? Is there anything more likely to discredit Christianity?
I have known a lot of Baptists and even fundamentalist Baptists. They certainly do not approve of homosexuality, but they are all oriented to conversion. They are more likely to say “God so loved the world. . . “(John 3:16), than to say “God hates you.”And I have known a lot of Kansans and cultural conservatives--some of them on the extreme side--but I cannot imagine any of them--nor any Baptist nor fundamentalist--showing up at a soldier’s funeral and holding up a sign saying “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”

This made me wonder whether Rev. Phelps and Westboro Baptist might not really be fronts for the other side, an elaborate example of postmodernist, ironic, transgressive performance art.But checking the church’s website, I guess the group is real. According to the church’s doctrinal statement, the theological basis of what they do comes from a hyper-Calvinist emphasis on the Limited Atonement, that Christ died only for the elect and so hates everyone else. They picket funerals and use such inflammatory language because they think this is an example of “the foolishness of preaching.”
If Rev. Phelp’s ministry is not a conspiracy of atheists, it is at least a conspiracy of the devil.
 Posted by Veith at 08:05 AM

December 27, 2005
Theistic Evolution vs. DarwinismMany people in Christendom are “theistic evolutionists.” They accept Darwin’s theory of evolution, but believe that this is merely the mechanism by which God created His world. Many theistic evolutionists are crowing at the legal defeats of Intelligent Design as an alternative theory of origins. (See the comments on the many posts on the subject on World Views, WORLD’s main blog site.)

The problem is, Darwinism is just as incompatible with Theistic Evolution as Intelligent Design. Darwinism insists that changes in species are RANDOM, and that it is through these RANDOM--that is, undirected, unpurposeful, undesigned--mutations that life adapts and different species evolve. Theistic evolution teaches that God directed the process of evolution, which has a purpose and an end. To believe that God directed evolution is to go squarely against the most important tenets of Darwinian science. The notion that God guided the processes of evolution is, in fact, to believe in Intelligent Design.
 Posted by Veith at 09:35 AMStem cell scandal
We earlier blogged about Dr. Hwang of Korea, whose pursuit of cloning got him into trouble for harvesting the eggs of his employees for his experiments, an ethical violation. The point of that post, entitled Straining at a gnat, swallowing a camel, was that ethicists were getting all worked up over a technical infraction of a regulation (though the ethical violation was certainly real), while still assuming that the major moral infraction of generating embryos to kill them is OK.

Now we learn another lesson: seemingly minor ethical lapses are often signs of deeper and more significant ethical lapses. Investigations into Dr. Hwang’s methodology have found that his whole cloning research is fraudulent, that he never made the cloned embryos he claimed, that he faked his data, that his scientific papers hailed as the groundbreaking research that will open the door to all kinds of medical miracles if we just accept the practice of cloning embryos was a hoax.It will be interesting to see where this leaves embryonic stem cell research, since much of the pioneering research has not, in fact, taken place.
 Posted by Veith at 08:06 AM

December 26, 2005
Returning the Gift
The day after Christmas is called St. Stephen’s Day, commemorating the first Christian martyr. Paul McCain at Cyberbrethren makes a provocative and profound connection between this day being when so many people return their gifts and the way so many people, including those who slew Stephen, return the gift of Christ:On a day when shopping mall parking lots are stuffed full of people trying to return gifts, there is a certain dreadful and wonderful irony that the church this day remembers Stephen, killed by those who did not want the Lord’s gift of a Christ. And so, they took up stones to murder one of the Christ child’s faithful disciples, St. Stephen, who went to his death confessing the gift of the Savior Jesus.
 Posted by Veith at 04:46 PM

Into the public square
It was good to see Rev. Walter Snyder’s post on Christmas cited in the New York Daily News! His blog is a member of the Cranach community, linked in the right hand column of this page. (We have a few more that still need to be set up. Check them all out.) This is a good example of getting our message into the public square. Go here and follow the links.
 Posted by Veith at 09:58 AMThe hundred ton gorilla
Despite predictions that “King Kong” would surpass “The Titanic” and sweep away “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe,” after its opening splash, the third remake of the giant ape movie--while doing OK--has been a box office disappointment. In fact, the Narnia movie, despite its being out for awhile, has retaken the number one position. Click here for the box office charts.

I think the true 100 ton gorilla is not King Kong but director Peter Jackson. After his success with “Lord of the Rings,” the studios are letting him do whatever he wants. Studios would not let a normal director release a three hour movie, but insist on cuts and edits. When a movie goes for so long, theaters cannot show it as many times. That alone means it will be unlikely to reap the profits of a two-hour movie, since more showings can be fit into a day. Some long movies, of course, such as “Lord of the Rings,” can get away with that, but King Kong is an old and familiar story. I’m open to seeing it, if I can find the time, but I’m not particularly eager to do so. Have any of you seen it? Should I go?
 Posted by Veith at 09:24 AMIn defense of fruitcake
All of those comedians with their fruitcake jokes have harmed a noble holiday tradition. I happen to like fruitcake, and I was pleased to get one this year. It was made at the legendary Collin Street Bakery in Corsicana, Texas, the fruitcake mecca. But it seems even Collin Street Bakery has become ashamed of fruitcake. The name is nowhere to be found on the round metal box it came in and even on the mail-order catalog that came with it. The dense concoction is now called “Apricot Pecan Cake” and such like, depending on the flavors. I’m sure the Corsicana economy has been hard-hit by all of those comedians making fun of the product, but the true Texas approach to such a challenge should not be capitu-lation but defiance. I myself salute fruitcake (especially when soaked in rum). (Note: Please do not send me the fruitcakes you have been given. I do not like them that much.)
 Posted by Veith at 09:07 AM

On the second day of Christmas
For those who follow the historic Christian calendar, Christmas is just getting started! There are eleven days left! Woo-hoo!
 Posted by Veith at 09:05 AMDecember 23, 2005
Go to church on Christmas Sunday
We used to talk about “Christmas and Easter Christians,” those who never darkened the door of a church throughout the year, but just showed up on those holidays. Now there may be Easter Christians, but Christmas Christians are no more. In fact, even regular church goers tend not to go to church on Christmas. Pastors this year, when Christmas falls on a Sunday, are expecting a low, low attendance. The Christian blogosphere has discussed how prominent mega-churches are going so far as to cancel all Sunday services on Christmas day, a dangerous violation of God’s commandment that makes it hard to take them seriously as churches. We laypeople need to take the same lesson to heart. Don’t skip out on church on Christmas day! The very best way to honor the coming of Christ is to go to His divine service, where He really does come in Word and Sacrament, where He has promised to be with us when we gather together in His name, where we can greet our King in person! (HT: Todd Peperkorn)
 Posted by Veith at 01:22 PM

Christmas and vocation
You have simply got to read _for your Christmas edification Paul McCain’s post at Cyberbrethren on how Luther relates vocation to Christmas. A sampling of quotes from Luther on the subject: Here is another excellent and helpful lesson, namely, that after the shepherds have been enlightened and have come to a true knowledge of Christ, they do not run out into the desert-which is what the crazy monks and nuns in the cloisters did! No the shepherds continue in their vocation, and in the process they also serve their fellow men. For true faith does not create people who abandon their secular vocation and begin a totally different kind of living, a way of life which the totally irrational monks considered essential to being saved, even though it was only an externally different way of existence. [Klug, Luther's House Postils, Vol. 1:48]
“We conclude, therefore, that a Christian lives not in Himself, but in Christ and in the neighbor. Otherwise he is not a Christian. He lives in Christ through faith, in his neighbor through love. By faith he is caught up beyond himself into God. By love he descends beneath himself into his neighbor.” “On the Freedom of a Christian,” (LW 31:371)“These are the two things in which a Christian is to exercise himself, the one that he draws Christ into himself, and that by faith he makes him his own, appro-priates to himself the treasures of Christ and confidently builds upon them; the other that he condescends to his neighbor and lets him share in that which he has received, even as he shares in the treasures of Christ.” 1521 Christmas sermonBut you need to read what Paul says about these quotes, drawing on a discussion by the inimitable John Pless.
 Posted by Veith at 12:45 PM

More evidence for December 25 as Christ’s birthday
In response to my column on the evidence that December 25 was not set aside as Christ’s birthday because of some pagan holiday, but for good reason, alert WORLD reader Rev. Gary Hinman sent me this article on yet another line of evidence. The calculations are based on the course of Temple duties for the clan of Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist. The months are laid out with precision in the Gospel of Luke, including when his wife Elisabeth visited her relative Mary, and the unborn John leapt in the womb as he came into the presence of the unborn Jesus. Counting out the months leads us somewhere after the middle of December as the time of Jesus’ birth. The article also makes an argument from when lambs are born, requiring shepherds to be out in the fields watching their flocks. But the argument from Zacharias’ temple duties is even stronger than mine, since it comes straight from the Bible.
I found the article online. It was written by John Stormer, author of the Cold War classic “None Dare Call It Treason,” who later became a Christian and a Baptist pastor.“Lambs are born at the Christmas Season” Is there evidence that Jesus was born at Christmas??
by John Stormer
For too many years, pastors and teachers have said, “Of course we don’t know when Christ was actually born- but the time of year is not really important.” Jehovah’s Witnesses and others have taught that Christmas was “invented” in the fourth or fifth centuries. The supposed goal was giving a “Christian” facade or influence to the wild pagan or Satanic holiday observances during the winter solstice (the shortest days of the year).

What’s the real story? Is there any real evidence that Jesus Christ was born at Christmas? A careful examination of a number of seemingly unrelated Bible passages gives clear indication that the Lord Jesus was indeed born at Christmas time. Such study will give new emphasis to what Christ came to do. It will also provide a much deeper appreciation of all that is hidden in the Word of God which can be discovered by those who prayerfully search the scriptures. Every word in the Bible is there because God put it there. He has a purpose for every one of His words. Therefore, seemingly casual listing of periods of time, genealogical references, etc. have significance which can be discovered through prayerful study.In Luke Chapter 1, the Bible records seemingly unimportant details about what a priest named Zacharias was doing when an angel announced to him that he and his wife were to have a child. The child was to be John the Baptist who would prepare the way for the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The Bible further records that the Lord Jesus was conceived in the sixth month after John the Baptist was conceived. Therefore, if the time of the conception of John the Baptist could be determined, the birth date of the Lord Jesus could be calculated.

The scriptures say (relevant passages are underlined): “There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest’s office before God in the order of his course… ” Luke 1:5,8 At this point Zacharias demonstrated his amazing faithfulness to his duties as a priest. Even though he had been given the wonderful news by the angel that he and Elisabeth would have a son, Zacharias stayed in the temple until the days of his course were completed.“And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house. And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months…” Luke 1:23-24 The passage then describes how an angel came to Mary to announce that she was to be the virgin mother of the Messiah, the Lord Jesus. The scripture says: “And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth. To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary…” Luke 1:26-27 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Judah; and entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.” Luke 1:39-40

Contained within these quoted passages are scriptures which point to the exact time when Jesus was born. (Remember that God puts every word and every detail into the Bible exactly as He wants it and for a purpose.) The underlined words are the key.In Luke 1:5 and Luke 1:8, we are told that Zacharias was a priest of the course of Abia and that he fulfilled his priestly duties in the order of his course. To under-tand the importance of the course of Abia and its bearing on the date of John the Baptist’s conception, it is necessary to turn to 1Chronicles 24:1-10. This passage describes how a thousand years before Christ, King David established the courses for priestly service in the coming temple. Twenty-four courses were established and numbered by drawing lots -- twelve courses for sanctuary service and twelve for the government of the house of God.

Members of each course would serve during a month starting with the Hebrew month of Nisan. (Because of the way the Hebrew calendar fluctuates, the month Nisan can start anytime between early March and early April.) The sons of Abijah (the Old Testament spelling for Abia) were in the eighth course. Priests of Abia like Zacharias would, therefore, have each ministered for some days during the eighth month which in some years because of the fluctuation in the Hebrew calendar started as early as the fifth day of our month of October. Zacharias would have returned home when his days of service were accomplished and John the Baptist could have been conceived sometime between October 15 and the end of the month.After conception the scripture says that Elisabeth hid herself for five months. Then in the sixth month of her pregnancy (which, based on the above calculation, would have started about March 15 and continued until April 15) the angel announced to the Virgin Mary that the Lord Jesus would be conceived in her womb by the Holy Ghost. If this took place on or about April 1 a “normal” gestation period of 270 days would have then had the Lord Jesus due on or about December 25. How about that!

There are other scriptural and natural indicators that confirm that the Lord was born at Christmas time. IN the account of His birth in Luke 2:8, we read: “And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.”My son-in-law, who has a degree in agriculture, after hearing the above presentation, told me, “Certainly, the Lord Jesus was born at Christmas. The only time shepherds spend the night in the fields with their sheep is during the time when the lambs are born. The ewes become ‘attractive’ to the rams in the month after June 21, the longest day of the year. The normal gestation period is five months so the ewes start lambing about mid-December.” He added: Isn’t it natural that the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world would be born when all the other lambs are born?

This “coincidence” was too amazing for me to accept until I checked it out. A former teacher from the school where I am the administrator is married to a Montana sheep rancher. She confirmed what I had been told. She said, “Oh, yes! None of the men who have flocks are in church for weeks at Christmas. They have to be in the fields day and night to clean up and care for the lambs as soon as they are born or many would perish in the cold.” Isn’t that neat? God’s Lamb, who was to die for the sins of the world, was born when all the other little lambs are born. Because He came and died the centuries old practice of sacrificing lambs for sin could end.There is another neat confirmation that God had His Son born at Christmas. The days at the end of December are the shortest (and therefore the darkest days) of the year. Jesus Christ said, “I am the light of the world.” So at the time of the year when the darkness is greatest, God the Father sent God the Son to be the Light of the world.

The Lord Jesus Christ came to earth, lived a sinless life and was therefore qualified to pay the penalty for the sins of all mankind (which is death). He paid it all- but all do not benefit from the wondrous gift God bestowed on mankind at Christmas.“He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” John 1:11-12
John Stormer, Pastor Emeritus Heritage Baptist Church, Florissant, MO from the PCC Update, Winter 1996 (The ABeka magazine) (PCC -- Pensacola Christian College)
 Posted by Veith at 12:35 PM

Lost verse of a classic carol
You may know the beautiful Christmas hymn “Of the Father’s Love Begotten” (though it too is unjustly neglected). But the English translation, as often happen, leaves out a verse. The new “Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary”--an excellent worship book from the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS)--puts it back in. (HT: hymnwriter Mark Preus)He was found in human fashion Death and sorrow here to know That the race of Adam’s children, Doomed by law to endless woe, May not henceforth die and perish In the depths of hell below. (Evermore and evermore) Click “continue reading” for an alternative translation by Mark Preus and the original Latin by Prudentius.
by Mark Preus:

Clothed in servant’s form and body, Took our flesh our death to know Lest the race of Adam’s children Perish in eternal woe, For the law of sin had plunged us To the depths of hell below.by Prudentius:
Corporis formam caduci, membra morti obnoxia Induit, ne gens periret primoplasti ex germine, Merserat quem lex profundo noxialis tartaro.
 Posted by Veith at 07:19 AM

A new “Visit from St. Nicholas”
Readers of WORLD will notice that I turned our blog discussion on St. Nicholas as a heretic-slapper into my weekly column. (I suspect I’ll get all kinds of flak from that: you are advocating violence! you are advocating Santa Claus! you are advocating honoring a saint! you are advocating the commercialization of Christmas!) But joining my larger conspiracy to re-Christianize the secular observances, faithful reader Jeff Samuelson, pastor of Christ Lutheran Church (WELS) in Clarksville/Columbia, Maryland, sent along his new redaction of “The Night Before Christmas.” He even keeps the meter right. (For links and an audio file, go to the end.)A Visit from St. Nicholas
A sound broke my slumbers one cold winter’s dawn — Grief-laden sobs and sighs deeply drawn. I rose from my bed and searched for the sound. In a chair by the tree, a stranger I found. With white hair and beard, and eyes long turned red — His cheeks glistened wet with the tears he had shed.

“Who are you?” I asked, though somehow I knew. The things all around him gave me a clue. Stockings were hung by the chimney with care, And Christmas cards spilled on the floor by the chair. My red Santa hat had been thrown at the tree And Rudolph and Frosty played on TV. The “spirit of Christmas” filled up the room But reindeer and tinsel only deepened his gloom.This had to be Nicholas — his beard left no doubt — But what brought this on I couldn’t make out. His red suit was missing, and where was his sleigh? And why was he here on the wrong winter’s day? No jelly-bowl belly and no “Ho, ho, ho!” Something was wrong, and I just had to know.

So “Nicholas,” I asked him, “what’s up with the tears? They’re hardly a symbol of holiday cheer! You’re not looking much like a ‘jolly old elf’ — This morning, it seems, you’re just not yourself.”He lifted his gaze and the tears left his eyes. A rage seemed to come as he started to rise. “My ‘self’ is the problem since someone took me And made me a someone I never would be. I came here to visit and saw what you’ve done: You’ve made me a rival to God’s only Son!”

“The children I’ve asked — they all knew my name. But Jesus their Savior — none cared that he came. These stories and specials and movies and songs — They’re all about me — and that’s simply wrong. It’s Christ you should think of and worship and praise — Go to the manger and ponder and gaze. Forget about me and look to your Savior — The very best gift of God’s loving favor.”  How could you do this? How dare you distract The children’s young minds from this wonderful fact? A babe born for sinners — what wonder, what joy! — Please focus their thoughts on God’s little boy!” I cried since my giving of gifts had been changed from a service of love to a practice … deranged. I’m glad to be seen as a figure of love But I will not compete with God’s Son from above.”
“I wept most of all when I saw I’d been made A reason to make little children afraid! To punish and frighten the ones that keep sinning? Oh, how that must keep the old Serpent grinning! Christmas is gospel — grace freely given; Trust in the Lord and sins are forgiven.” “So don’t use my name to threaten or plead The gospel of Christ is just what you need To change your dear children from naughty to nice And give them their place in God’s paradise. Forget me, I beg, if I get in the way Of Christ and his coming that first Christmas Day.” The darkness was lifting as light filled the room And Nicholas faded, along with his gloom. He’d freely confessed, and did not deny His place as a servant of Christ crucified.
A dream or a vision? I couldn’t quite tell. But he’d corrected my Christmas and broken the spell. And back to my slumbers I slowly returned And dreamt of the Baby whose story I’d spurned.Since then the Santas and reindeer are gone From my mantel, my window, my roof and my lawn. Instead there’s a manger scene down by the way — The little Lord Jesus asleep on the hay — It’s part of my witness to God’s saving grace And Nicholas is happy to give Christ his place.

-- Copyright 2005 — Rev. Jeffrey L. Samelson Christ Lutheran Church (WELS) Clarksville/Columbia, Maryland www.christlutheran.net
 (If you want the whole context, i.e. the sermon and how St. Nicholas relates to John the Baptist and our own witness, it can be found at: http://www.christlutheran.net   -- the audio (it probably “listens” better than it reads) is at: http://home.comcast.net/~christlutheran/streams/20051211.ram -- text is at: http://home.comcast.net/~christlutheran/TextSermons/ witness.html   -- and an MSWord file at: http://home.comcast.net/ ~christlutheran/TextSermons/Witness.doc ) (I’m not looking for publicity (although my church could always use more), and I don’t claim it’s great literature. But if you were so inclined, I have no problem with you posting this, so long as there are no changes and the identifying information remains attached — I don’t want it “morphing” on the internet into something theologically other than what it’s supposed to be (really the only reason I slapped a copyright notice on). Thanks!)
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Proclaim Peace through Jesus! =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

Pastor Jeff Samelson Christ Lutheran Church (WELS) Clarksville/Columbia, MD christlutheran@threesolas.net www.christlutheran.net (301) 854-2100
 Posted by Veith at 06:11 AMDecember 22, 2005
Outlawing Christian prayer
I wrote about the new legal rulings against praying in the name of Jesus in a recent WORLD column. Here is what I said in my column of December 17, 2005, entitled “Rock of Offense”:
A federal court has ruled that the Indiana House of Representatives may not open with any kind of prayer that mentions “Christ’s name or title.” This ruling is far more significant than banning the Ten Commandments in courthouses or taking “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance. What the Indiana decision does is to outlaw Christian prayer in the civic arena. And, if it stands, it will mean that no Christian clergyman or layperson can in good conscience pray at public events.
The word invocation does not just mean a prayer that opens a meeting. It means “calling upon” a deity. Virtually every prayer begins by calling upon the name of the person to whom the prayer is addressed.

Islamic prayers—as were also offered in the Indiana House and noted with approval in Judge David Hamilton’s ruling—begin “In the name of Allah, the merciful.” Is it legal to invoke Allah’s name, and not that of Jesus Christ?
He Himself tells His followers that they are to make their requests to God in His name (John 14:13). So Christian prayers have historically concluded with some variation of “in Jesus’ name we pray.”But surely just ending a prayer with that formula is not always necessary, some might say. Many prayers in the Bible, including the Lord’s Prayer, do not end that way. Surely Christian clergymen given the honor of praying at a civic event can live with the ruling. Leaving Jesus out of their prayers is a way to avoid offense. After all, we can still address our prayers to Him, if not in words at least in our hearts.

But the Lord’s Prayer too begins with an invocation that makes clear whom we are addressing: “Our Father, which art in heaven.” Furthermore, it lifts up His name: “Hallowed be Thy name.”It is true that prayers do not have to end in a particular formula, but they still must be offered through Christ. Jesus tells us to pray “in faith” (Matthew 21:22). Only when we are in Christ may we dare come into the Father’s presence. But through Christ, our intercessor and high priest, we have free access to the throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16). Also when we pray, the Holy Spirit intercedes for us when we do not know what to say (Romans 8:26).

The point is, Christian prayer is trinitarian but it is not generic. It may be possible to address the Trinity without mentioning any of the divine persons. But surely no Christian could accept the terms of the Indiana decision, that you can pray only if you do not invoke your God.Let us assume that the court’s concern for a strict separation of church and state is valid. Let us further assume the tenets of multiculturalism and the value of religious diversity. If I ask someone to pray for me, I can only expect that person to pray to the deity he believes in, using the forms of his religion. A Muslim will give an Islamic prayer. A Hindu will give a Hindu prayer. And a Christian will give a Christian prayer. Each person will pray according to his particular beliefs and the practices of his religion. The same must hold true when a legislature asks someone to pray.
In the Indiana ruling, a federal court dictates the content of a prayer, forbids the invocation of a particular deity, and mandates that prayers may only be directed to a universal divinity who reigns in an interfaith pantheon. That is not religious tolerance; it is religious intolerance. It does not promote religious diversity; it eliminates religious diversity. And when a federal court tells people who they can and cannot pray to and how they are allowed to pray, what we have is state-sponsored religion.
Copyright © 2005 WORLD Magazine December 24, 2005, Vol. 20, No. 50
 Posted by Veith at 08:55 AM

Hunger strike for right to pray in Jesus’ name
A Navy chaplain, Lt. Gordon Klingenschmitt, is holding a hunger strike outside of the White House, for the right to pray in Jesus’ name. New regulations allow chaplains to pray to a specific deity during chapel services, but on public occasions, they have been instructed to just pray to a generic god. Doesn’t this constitute the government establishing a new religion?
 Posted by Veith at 08:44 AMThe strange impact of Katrina
They say economics is the dismal science, but I find it fascinating. Hurricane Katrina certainly had a devastating effect, on the lives of its victims and in its economic impact. But according to this article, that impact is going to switch in 2006 to a strong positive for the US economy, as all of the rebuilding will be a huge boost for employment, manufacturing, and the construction industry. And because the rebuilding is going slowly, that should prevent the negatives of creating shortages in the rest of the country, bidding up prices, etc.
From a “Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel” article by Michele Derus, quoting Cliff Brewis, an economic analyst for the construction industry:
It now appears that U.S. markets will slowly absorb southern states’ massive reconstruction needs, including at least 300,000 homes, without the much-feared price run-ups in building materials costs, Brewis said. Within six months from now, Katrina will switch from economic drain to economic stimulus, boosting 2006′s Gross Domestic Product to the 3.8% to 4.3% growth range, he predicted.

“The way it will likely play out is, they’ll start with (rebuilding) infrastructure, to non-residential and then residential,” Brewis said. With $140 billion or more in storm-related work ahead, America’s construction industry can expect 2005 to be its 15th good year in a row, he said.Posted by Veith at 08:34 AMDecember 21, 2005
A lost hymn on the Incarnation
A tip of the hat to the great Australian theologian John Kleinig for sending me this hymn by Charles Wesley. You can hear the tune here. I have never heard of this hymn before, and I’m not sure why. It has some splendid Incarnational imagery:
LET EARTH AND HEAVEN COMBINE
Let earth and heaven combine, Angels and men agree, To praise in songs divine The incarnate Deity, Our God contracted to a span, Incomprehensibly made Man.
He laid His glory by, He wrapped Him in our clay; Unmarked by human eye, The latent Godhead lay; Infant of days He here became, And bore the mild Immanuel’s Name.

See in that Infant’s face The depths of deity, And labor while ye gaze To sound the mystery In vain; ye angels gaze no more, But fall, and silently adore.
Unsearchable the love That hath the Savior brought; The grace is far above Of men or angels’ thought: Suffice for us that God, we know, Our God, is manifest below.He deigns in flesh t’appear, Widest extremes to join; To bring our vileness near, And make us all divine: And we the life of God shall know, For God is manifest below.

Made perfect first in love, And sanctified by grace, We shall from earth remove, And see His glorious face: His love shall then be fully showed, And man shall all be lost in God. Posted by Veith at 11:19 AMTerrorist released and a Lutheran connection
A harbinger of our age of terrorism was in 1985, when TWA flight 847 was hijacked by Arab terrorists, who murdered a U.S. sailor and threw his body on the tarmack. Now Germany has released one of those hijackers, after 19 years of a life sentence.

The flight engineer on that crew, which was held hostage in a terrifying ordeal, was B. Christian Zimmerman. Not only was he a TWA pilot, he was a pastor of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. And through it all, he was able to minister both to the victims and the terrorists. He tells the whole inspiring and instructive story in his book HOSTAGE IN A HOSTAGE WORLD: HOPE ABOARD HIJACKED TWA 847 (CPH). The book is out of print, but used copies are available online.
 Posted by Veith at 09:16 AMG. K. Chesterton’s “The Wise Men”
Here is a tremendous poem on the Incarnation, plus the problems of many intellectuals in grasping Christianity, by one of the greatest of Christian authors (yet strangely neglected), G. K. Chesterton:
“The Wise Men”
Step softly, under snow or rain, To find the place where men can pray; The way is all so very plain That we may lose the way.  Oh, we have learnt to peer and pore On tortured puzzles from our youth, We know all the labyrinthine lore, We are the three wise men of yore, And we know all things but truth.  We have gone round and round the hill And lost the wood among the trees, And learnt long names for every ill, And serve the made gods, naming still The furies the Eumenides.

The gods of violence took the veil Of vision and philosophy, The Serpent that brought all men bale, He bites his own accursed tail, And calls himself Eternity.
Go humbly … it has hailed and snowed… With voices low and lanterns lit; So very simple is the road, That we may stray from it.The world grows terrible and white, And blinding white the breaking day; We walk bewildered in the light, For something is too large for sight, And something much too plain to say.

The Child that was ere worlds begun (… We need but walk a little way, We need but see a latch undone…) The Child that played with moon and sun Is playing with a little hay.
The house from which the heavens are fed, The old strange house that is our own, Where trick of words are never said, And Mercy is as plain as bread, And Honour is as hard as stone.  Go humbly, humble are the skies, And low and large and fierce the Star; So very near the Manger lies That we may travel far.
Hark! Laughter like a lion wakes To roar to the resounding plain. And the whole heaven shouts and shakes, For God Himself is born again, And we are little children walking Through the snow and rain. Posted by Veith at 07:27 AMDecember 20, 2005
In defense of the commercialization of Christmas
I love everything about Christmas, including its commercialization. First of all, it is very appropriate for non-Christians and secularists to observe this holiday. “At the name of Jesus, every knee should bow. . .and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Philippians 2:10-11). This will happen at Judgment, but it happens too in a lesser way at Christmastime. The practically-universal holiday and its observances are signs of Christ’s Lordship, even among those who reject Him. (This is why eliminating the “name” of Christ imbedded in the word “Christmas” really is important for non-believers, though their efforts are ultimately futile.) All of their celebrating, gift-giving, family times, and warm and fuzzy feelings are tributes to Jesus, whether they like it or not. And such honor is fitting for the One through whom all things were made and the redeemer of the world.

But hasn’t Christmas become too materialistic? Shouldn’t we make it more spiritual? NO. This is the last of our worries today, when the hyper-spiritualism of the Gnostics has permeated our culture and our religious life. The Incarnation, which we celebrate at Christmas, is precisely about the MATERIAL realm. In Christ, God has become FLESH. He is not an inner feeling, much less a vacuous deity without form or substance, as our Gnostic culture prefers. He has become material. And we are too, so that our bodies (contra the Feminists) and what we do in our bodies (contra the Gnostic immoralists) are very important. In our current moral and theological climate, we desperately need to recapture the Biblical mindsets concerning the material realm, including the Creation, the Body, the Incarnation, the Sacraments, the Resurrection of the Body.But Christmas is not just a family holiday, as so many people are making it. No, it isn’t. But in a curiously neglected prophecy--indeed in the last verse of the Old Testament, transitioning into the New--we learn that a sign of Christ’s advent, referring apparently to John the Baptist, is the coming of a prophet who “will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers” (Malachi 4:6). So in our divorce-plagued culture, a time when this happens does indeed honor and point to Christ.

But isn’t there too much emphasis on presents? NO. A gift is a sign of the Gospel. Jesus is a gift. Salvation is a gift. The Word and the Sacraments convey God’s gifts of grace. In this selfish, me-centered world, giving gifts and (perhaps more importantly) receiving gifts can create a mindset necessary in understanding the Christian message.So Christians should be glad to see the secular world all decked out and celebrating the birth of Christ. Christ is not just for Christians. He is for the whole world, even for those who do not know Him and who are honoring Him against their intention and against their will. And it is a proof of His lordship that practically the whole world sets aside a day to be happy and giving in His name.
 Posted by Veith at 08:57 AM

Our material blessings
Finishing up my Christmas shopping last night, watching the crowds and soaking up the opulence of our shopping mall, I thought of a point made by novelist and cultural-observer Tom Wolfe. He observed that today in America the ordinary working stiff--the sort who would have been a downtrodden peasant a few centuries ago or one of the oppressed proletariat that Marx wanted to unchain--today has access to treasures, conveniences, luxuries, and a standard of living that goes beyond that of the Roman Emperors, the Bourbon monarchs, and the millionaire industrialists of days gone by.
 Posted by Veith at 08:49 AMOn the Incarnation of our Lord
In his comment on the “God in the Manger” quote yesterday, Brant said, “Maybe you should start a discussion thread/post on great quotes regarding the incarnation as we approach Christmas? I know there are some great ones out there, and I’m sure the commenters of this blog have a bunch.”
He offered, as an example, another great line from Luther: “The God whom the universe could not contain, is held in the arms of Mary.”
Then Carl chipped in with one from Charles Wesley’s magnificent hymn: “Veiled in flesh, the Godhead see! Hail, incarnate Deity! Pleased as man with men to dwell, Jesus, our Emmanuel!”

What are some other quotations or descriptions or sermon illustrations or other attempts to help us realize the magnitude of this wonderful mystery of our faith, that the Word who is God became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1)?
 Posted by Veith at 07:16 AMDecember 19, 2005
The God in the Manger
A major hat-tip to What You Do Do Quickly for this heart-touching Christmas meditation from Martin Luther:  if you will have joy, bend yourself down to this place. There you will find that boy given for you who is your Creator lying in a manger. I will stay with that boy as he sucks, is washed, and dies…. There is no joy but in this boy. Take him away and you face the Majesty which terrifies…
I know of no God but this one in the manger…That person lying in the manger is both man and God essentially, not seperated one from the other but as born of a virgin. If you separate them, the joy is gone. O Thou boy, lying in the manger, thou art truly God who hast created me, and thou wilt not be wrathful with me because thou comest to me in this loving way- more loving cannot be imagined.” Posted by Veith at 09:30 AM

Santarchy
Mobs of drunks dressed in Santa Claus suits rioted in New Zealand, part of an international movement called santarchy. Advocates of combining Santa and anarchy claim they are protesting the commercialism of Christmas. Websites are devoted to this activity. I suspect a connection, if only one of worldview, with the bloody displays of slasher Santas adorning some of our festive city streets. Of course, pathological hatred of Christmas and its associations is at least as old as Scrooge. Can anyone venture an explanation?
 Posted by Veith at 09:13 AMHow child porn gets victims
You need to know about this, even though it will break your heart: Children are setting up webcams and adults are paying them to make pornography. Read this. We often criticize the “New York Times,” but this time investigative reporter Kurt Eichenwald does some stellar work in exposing a little known aspect of the child porn industry. And after getting his story, the reporter turned over his information to the police and helped his young source escape from a nightmarish bondage.
 Posted by Veith at 08:43 AM

“Happy Holidays” after all
Here is a different take on the “Christmas War” from the inimitable Rev. William Cwirla, giving a distinctly Christian take on “Happy Hannukah,” “Happy Kwanzaa,” and the generic “Happy Holiday.” And he gives the true meaning of the blessing, “Merry Christmas”!Read the whole thing, but here is his conclusion:
I, for my part, would wish everyone without distinction a “Blessed and Merry Christmas.” Should someone say to me, “But I’m not a Christian,” I would say to them, “Nevertheless, Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, became a flesh and blood human being born of the Virgin Mary in order to offer His Body and Blood to save you and all the world by His death and resurrection. And that’s why I’m saying to you, ‘Merry Christmas.’ He’s not only my Savior, He’s the Savior of the world, including you.” That’s the wonder and joy of Christ -- He’s exclusively inclusive.
 Posted by Veith at 07:09 AM

December 16, 2005
I’m number 4!
My book The Soul of the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe has hit #4 on the Christian Booksellers Association general interest bestseller list!
 Posted by Veith at 05:06 PMGood books coming
I’ve just come back from the board meeting of Concordia Publishing House, and I’m pleased to report that some of your requests (in the “what books do we need” post below) have been anticipated, including some of the very reprints some of you had asked for. But what the board was most impressed with are three huge projects that will come to fruition in 2006 and that should help build up our Christian infrastructure:
(1) A brand new Sunday School curriculum, “Growing in Christ.” Sunday school attendance is way down in most church bodies, and much of the curriculum used even in conservative churches is little more than fun, games, and moralism--without bothering to mention Christ and the Gospel! This curriculum, though--while having fun and games--is Christ-centered and actually teaches the Bible. It uses beautiful REALISTIC art (not cartoons as some of you commenters complained) to get the sense of the historicity and truth of what the Bible describes. The curriculum is also very creative. For example, the publishers commissioned composers to put Bible verses and the articles of the catechism to music (good, appropriate music) to aid memorization.

(2) The “Concordia Curriculum Guide” to help Christian schools integrate the faith with academic content. The first one out will deal with Social Studies. Nearly a third of Lutheran Missouri Synod congregations have schools (so there are around 2,000 of them), but I think our church body as a whole does not give them the attention they deserve. This initiative should prove very helpful for our teachers in helping them fulfill their mission, to build schools that are strong both academically and spiritually.(3) “The Lutheran Service Book,” the new hymnal developed by the LCMS Commission on Worship and published by CPH. I had the privilege of working on this, chairing the translation committee, and I think this hymnal will rehabilitate “traditional” worship. It has lots of new and recently-composed music, but they are HYMNS, packed with meaning, written to be sung congregationally, and appropriate for worship. The orders of worship in the LSB include the beloved settings of the past, as well as some new ones that are still rich liturgically. And it has lots of creative features (such as alternate accompaniments for both “trained musicians” and “volunteer musicians”--one problem with the earlier hymnal is that many of the arrangements were just too hard to play for the typical church organist, so no wonder they went to simpler “contemporary” music).

What was most encouraging at the board meeting was hearing the results of a poll of churches, on how many will be ordering the book and when. Over half want to order it THE FIRST YEAR, far more than anyone anticipated, about the same number that use the last hymnal altogether. So it looks like there is a demand for this book. Hopefully, it will help bring peace in the worship wars and help bring our church body together. And for you non-Lutheran readers, I think that when this hymnal comes out, the rest of Christendom can get some good ideas as well for what worship in the 21st century--that is in accord with rest of Christian history--can be.
 Posted by Veith at 02:24 PMPerson of the Year
TIME MAGAZINE will announced its pick for the “Person of the Year” this weekend. Who do you think it should be?
 Posted by Veith at 12:56 PM

Lutheran Heritage Foundation
Do you like inspiring stories about successful mission work, from people carrying the Gospel to people around the world who have never heard it, or who are prevented from hearing it? Idly surfing the internet, I came across this remarkable interview with John Fehrman of the Lutheran Heritage Foundation. I know it as a fine organization, publishing Christian material in a whole range of languages, but I did not know some of these stories.
 Posted by Veith at 10:59 AMLion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and vocation
So where do you see the theme of vocation in the Narnia book and movie?
 Posted by Veith at 07:41 AM

Lord of the Rings and vocation
From Rev. Alex Klages:
My wife has been hard at work on a blog-series on vocation in the Lord of the Rings. No doubt this is something Dr. Veith and others have written on and/or considered. Even so, I think Kelly’s words are pretty well-weighted (even if that is just my vocation as husband speaking!)
Check these out (in sequence): 1)http://www.mts.net/~aklages/kelly/2005/11/lord-of-vocations-part-i.html 2)http://www.mts.net/~aklages/kelly/2005/12/lord-of-vocations-part-ii.html 3)http://www.mts.net/~aklages/kelly/2005/12/lord-of-vocations-part-iii-frodos.html 4)http://www.mts.net/~aklages/kelly/2005/12/lord-of-vocations-part-iv-intro-to.html 4b)http://www.mts.net/~aklages/kelly/2005/12/lord-of-vocations-part-iv-intro-to.htmlShe’s still working on this series… Please let her know what you think!Thanks, Alex and Kelly! No, I have not written about this. I did see the theme of vocation in “Lord of the Rings.” Of course, I see that just about everywhere! But this analysis is quite good, both as literary criticism and as theology of the Christian life.
 Posted by Veith at 07:34 AM

December 15, 2005
Sheltering kids
In a break in our CPH board meeting, some of us were discussing whether or not the Narnia movie is suitable for young children. Ruth Koch, an educator and counselor on the board, observed that many young adults today were so protected by their parents from any negative emotions that today, now that they are grown up, they are unable to handle them. Either they shut themselves away from deep emotions--wanting to protect themselves from being hurt--or they fall to pieces when something bad happens to them (as it inevitably will).This reminded me of what Willliam Kirkpatrick wrote about the way stories shape a child’s moral imagination. Historically, stories have functioned to initiate children into life, teaching them to identify with virtue and to be repelled at vice, and helping them form the appropriate emotional responses in a safe, “virtual” way. Bruno Betteheim goes even further, arguing that fairy tales--even and especially the “scary” ones--anticipate the fears children already have and shows them that they can be victorious over what they fear.
 Posted by Veith at 07:04 AM

Those books we need
Thanks for the excellent and useful response to my query, occasioned by my being at a board meeting of Concordia Publishing House, about what books you think we need. I’m happy to say that some of what you suggested is actually in the works (from reprinting Krauth’s “Conservative Reformation” to using better art). I’m passing along your suggestions to the powers-that-be. Maybe tomorrow I’ll give you a preview of coming attractions. We board members were blown away by three major projects in the works that will do a world of good for our church and for Christendom in general.
 Posted by Veith at 07:00 AMDr. Meilander’s point
UPDATE: I guess the commentor wasn’t Gilbert Meilander after all. No matter. The point stands. But the ironies abound--the defender of virtue stealing someone else’s name; the accusation of cynicism from a perpetrator of identity theft.

Gilbert Meilander is one of the world’s top ethicists, someone whom I admire deeply. (He is an example of an LCMS Lutheran who is impacting the culture!) So I was thrilled to see that he reads this blog. I was dismayed, though, when going through the comments to see that he chastizes me. Here is his comment on the  “New Attack on Justification” post of December 9:
“I have yet to see the person who lives with the moral purity of Christ. But go ahead and try. And then when you fail . . . .” I’m astonished by the tone of this. Whatever happened to the idea that the Spirit’s gifts are intended to bring us toward the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ? Or the exhortation to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect? That we will sometimes fall short does not mean this should not be our aim. A Lutheranism that understands justification in a way that teaches cynicism about such an aim is a Lutheranism that will fail to shape the next generation in God-pleasing ways.I have found that the best approach to take when being criticized is to accept the rebuke. I really am a bad person, so moral criticisms as almost always useful. (As in people who keep bringing up my article arguing that those in military vocations have the right to take joy in combat. I do believe that, but I am too bloody-minded sometimes. The recent accusations that are filling the WORLD mailbag that I am wicked for saying in my review of the “Pride and Prejudice” movie that men will enjoy gazing on Keira Knightley I reject, though no doubt sin can be found there too.) Accepting moral criticism is at the essence of the Second Use of the Law (the theological use, to drive us to repentance), so those of us who confess every Sunday that we are “poor, miserable sinners” should take that seriously. Other criticisms, as of our ideas, can also be useful. If there is a disagreement between me and Dr. Meilander, in general, he is more likely to be right than I am.

But I must explain. I am certainly not against living a Christ-like life. The discussion was about justification. My point was simply that if the only people who get to Heaven are those who live a life like Christ, then Heaven will be empty. At least of human beings. To get to Heaven, we do need Christ’s righteousness, which He gives as a gift, to be received through faith, and apprehended through Word and Sacrament. I’m sure Dr. Meilander agrees with that.Furthermore, I would argue that people come closer to living lives like Christ when they do not try to base their salvation on how good they are. As Luther famously pointed out, those who give alms to the poor because they think in doing so will earn them Heaven are doing their good works for themselves, not out of love for their impoverished neighbor in need. Their good works are tainted by their selfishness and by the good they expect to get out of it. True selfless virtue, the kind that produces sacrifice and love, comes when our self-righteousness fades and we recognize our own need in someone else’s. Trying to be righteous just through the law creates that judgmental, ungenerous, superior sensibility that the world rightly despises in Christians, and of which even we Lutherans are often guilty. But we come closer to the goal of living a life like Christ when we are in His grace, when we have a relationship with Him through His Word and Sacraments, when we are united to Him in faith.
So, for the record, I was only being cynical about erstwhile Christians who are willing to throw out justification by faith and are eagerly willing to accept the standard the Jesus set as a means of earning their salvation. If they are able to get to Heaven that way--and the doctrine of not only justification but original sin are in error--more power to them. I know I could never get to Heaven that way. But I certainly want to live a life like Christ’s.
 Posted by Veith at 06:26 AM

December 14, 2005
Book ideas
I’m at the board meeting of Concordia Publishing House in St. Louis. What books do you think need to be written--and published--today? What resources would be helpful to the church?
 Posted by Veith at 07:15 AMAustralia‘s riots
Here I’ve been lauding Australia’s good ideas, and now that land is plagued with riots. My new sources in that country inform me that the trouble started when young Islamic men started harrassing the scantily-clad women on the beach. (I have seen this phenomenon working with international students from Muslim cultures. They often see women who are not “covered” as prostitutes and treat them as such, becoming overtly sexual in ways that outrage young women, despite how they are dressed.) Some lifeguards tried to stop the harrassment. The Muslims roughed them up. Then a mob of blokes rallied to defend Australian womanhood, attacking the immigrants. Then the immigrants formed convoys of cars to go into the suburbs, throwing bottles and trashing things.

All such civil disorder must be quelled. But this demonstrates the difficulties of trying to be multi-cultural. When one culture is tolerant and another culture is intolerant, the two are going to clash. Any accomodation must involve both sides. I somehow doubt that Australian beaches are going to feature more clothiing, in order to placate the Muslims. I don’t know the answer.
 Posted by Veith at 07:07 AMDecember 13, 2005
Being confessional when it hurts
One of my daughter’s teachers, in a Lutheran school, once spoke out in class against the death penalty. So at home we talked about the issue. We looked at Romans 13, which gives the lawful authorities the office of “bearing the sword” against evildoers. We also looked at the Augsburg Confession and the Apology (XVI), which affirm capital punishment and which all Lutheran teachers are pledged to uphold.

When my daughter the next day brought these texts to school, the teacher saw what Scripture and the Confessions teach and so she CHANGED HER POSITION. Even though she personally disapproved of capital punishment, she recognized that the practice must be legitimate anyway because the Bible says that it is. She believed the Bible not because she liked what it said but even though she did not. She reasoned that if she disagrees with something the Bible and the Confessions teach, then SHE must be wrong.How often do we see that? The usual approach when confronted with an authority that puts forward a position we don’t like is to question the authority or try to interpret it away so that we can be left with our personal preferences anyway. But this teacher showed herself to be a true Bible-believing Christian and a genuinely confessional Lutheran.
 Posted by Veith at 11:45 AM

The death penalty and abortion
California carried out the death penalty this morning. Many on the left pose this argument to pro-lifers: “You oppose abortion, but you support the death penalty! You are inconsistent and hypocritical.” I don’t get that argument. Most pro-lifers oppose abortion because it takes the life of a child unjustly, who hasn’t murdered anybody. A convicted murderer, though, deserves to die, and the state has the right to take his life. The distinction is one of innocence and guilt, helpless baby and hardened criminal.I do, however, think the argument does work when it is turned around. “You oppose the death penalty, but you support abortion! You want to spare the guilty criminal, but you want to kill the innocent baby. You are inconsistent and hypocritical.”

There are reasons, of course, to be against the death penalty--namely, that innocent people might be killed, which would be an injustice. (Again, that’s also reason NOT to support abortion.) And I would gladly encourage the anti-death penalty person to cultivate a “consistent ethic of life” that would be pro-life when it comes to abortion, as well. And I would gladly trade the death penalty for a ban on abortion. (It would be interesting to see if the anti-death penalty advocate would agree to that.)
 Posted by Veith at 11:35 AMWhy kids like Narnia
My sister, a school teacher, has been tracking the reaction of the kids at her school. The most common reaction: “That’s the best movie I’ve ever seen!” I think kids love this movie because it is, to use the in-term, “empowering.” Ordinary children they can identify with become the heroes. They take on responsibility normally associated with adults. They are taken seriously. They themselves fight the bad guys. And win. And get redeemed for the bad they do. And at the end they get to be crowned as Kings and Queens.

Any of you parents take your kids? What was their reaction? Did they pick up on the Christ symbolism?
 Posted by Veith at 07:27 AM
Narnia in the rest of the world
According to the Daily Record of Scotland, “Worldwide, The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe took £61.4million and went to number one in 14 countries.” That’s, what?, over $120 million?
Also, the movie’s showing was the third best opening for the whole year, behind only “Star Wars Episode 3″ and “Harry Potter Episode 4.”
 Posted by Veith at 07:05 AMDecember 12, 2005
Additions that worked and that didn’t
A movie (a visual medium) cannot do everything a book (a verbal medium) can do. A movie has to keep the visual imagery going, whereas books can instead delve into the minds and feelings of the characters. So it is impossible for a book and a movie to be completely identifical. Besides, a book can take days and days to read, while a movie must be compressed into a mere two hours or so. So I’m willing to cut movies based on books some slack. Were there some additions to the storyline of the book that, in your humble opinion, did NOT work? What were some additions that DID work, even to point of underscoring important thematic elements?
 Posted by Veith at 09:04 AM

The movie as interpreter of the book
The best screen adaptations of a book can help us see things in the book that we didn’t see before. Did anything in the movie have this effect for you?
 Posted by Veith at 09:02 AMNot just faithful. But good.
Most Christians were worried about whether or not “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” movie would be faithful to the book. I was just as worried about whether or not it would be good just as a movie. If it were totally faithful, but came across as sappy, or fake, or preachy, or dull, what good would it do? I’m glad to say that the movie measures up with the best of them.

The film took in over $67 million in its first weekend, making for the second biggest December opening of all time, just after the third “Lord of the Rings” movie, but ahead of the other two (which were big too, taking #3 and #4.) (See Box Office Mojo.I have heard Tilda Swinton, who played the White Witch with an intense emotional coldness, mentioned as being Oscar-worthy. I’d like to see Best Actress go to little Georgie Hanley for Lucy.
 Posted by Veith at 08:21 AM

The Narnia movie the second time
The first time I saw the Narnia movie--in an advance screening in Milwaukee--I liked it. But I liked it even more the second time I saw it. The first time I was probably concentrating on analyzing the thing. The second time I just let it hit me, and--as many of you commenters have said--it packs a surprisingly emotional whallop.The second time was in Minneapolis at an annual readers’ retreat, this year held at King of Grace Lutheran Church (ELS). This time the highlighted book was “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.” In the morning we talked about the book, then we went to the movie, then we talked about the movie. It was fun to go to the theater with some 90 kindred spirits, then compile what we picked up on. I was glad to meet in the flesh the redoubtable blogger Theresa Kiihn and her daughter. Anyway, it was a good time. And the point is, try seeing it a second time!
 Posted by Veith at 08:13 AM

December 09, 2005
So what did you think of the Narnia movie?
If you got an early showing last night or if you plan to see it this weekend, this is the place to give your reactions to “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” movie. Post your comments here. On Monday, when this blog resumes, we will have a more structured discussion.
 Posted by Veith at 08:42 AMThe new attack on justification
N. T. Wright is an Anglican bishop in England. Evangelicals and other theological conservatives like him because, among other things, he wrote a stirring scholarly defense of the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. But he believed that Luther had it wrong with this justification by grace through faith stuff. This is because Luther misunderstood the writings of St. Paul, who, according to Wright, was just talking about freedom from the Jewish ceremonial law, not the moral law. Actually, according to Wright, we are saved by good works after all.

Though this is being called the “new perspective on Paul,” this is not particularly new. This is basically the Roman Catholic take on what Paul says. Anglicans have never been particularly strong on justification. But what is remarkable to me is how so many evangelicals are seizing on this. Both liberal evangelicals and conservative evangelicals (including some otherwise hard-core Calvinists).
The Wall Street Journal has a column praising Wright from John Wilson, editor of “Books and Culture.” (Click “continue reading” for the article.) I think many evangelicals have been wanting to make salvation a function of good works for a long time, and this gives them a good excuse. Salvation comes from living like Jesus did. That usually gets translated into either conservative or liberal politics, or trivial lifestyle choices like not driving SUVs, recycling, affirming gays, or--on the complementary side--not drinking, smoking, or going to movies. I have yet to see the person who lives with the moral purity of Christ. But go ahead and try. And then when you fail, perhaps you will appreciate how Jesus really chose to live His life. By dying for you. HOUSES OF WORSHIP
Reform Party A British theologian takes another stab at it.
BY JOHN WILSON Friday, December 9, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
Some argue that God lacks a sense of humor, but for those with eyes to see, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Consider: The most influential biblical scholar in American evangelical circles today is a bishop in the Church of England who regularly inveighs against U.S. “imperialism.” For a comparable improbability, imagine a renaissance of the Democratic Party led by a devout Mormon from Texas.This scholar contends that the leaders of the Protestant Reformation--Martin Luther especially--misread St. Paul on the subject of justification by faith. A self-described Reformed theologian, he proposes nothing less than a reformation of the Reformation, 500 years on--and he does so by appealing to the Reformers’ own motto, sola scriptura, “going back to scripture over against all human tradition.”

His name is N.T. Wright. He has published three massive volumes of a projected six devoted to “Christian Origins and the Question of God,” the most recent of which argued forcefully for the historical reality of the Resurrection. In addition to his scholarly projects and his duties as Bishop of Durham, Dr. Wright produces a steady stream of popular books, tapes and other resources for the men and women in the pews.It is this unusual combination of prodigious scholarly achievement and pastoral concern that makes Dr. Wright’s influence so pervasive. But not everyone is thrilled. When a scholar claims that his tradition has gotten one of its fundamental teachings wrong, some alarm-ringing is to be expected. The American pastor and writer John Piper, for instance, is one of a number of prominent evangelicals to send out warnings about Dr. Wright. Another is J. Ligon Duncan III of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, who has singled out Dr. Wright’s influence as particularly dangerous precisely because, among proponents of the so-called new perspective on Paul, Dr. Wright “is the writer who has the clearest evangelical pedigree” and “the largest evangelical audience.”
So what is at stake in this theological argument? “The doctrine of justification is the doctrine of the Reformation,” says the distinguished Princeton Seminary theologian Bruce McCormack. Justification as it was taught to me and my fellow young Protestants a generation ago amounted to this: Catholics believed in salvation by works--doing good in your earthly life would help win you a place in heaven--but we Protestants, following Luther, knew that we were “saved by grace…through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” Those words, from Paul’s letter to the Ephesian church, expressed the very heart of the gospel, which Luther had recovered. And there was a parallel, we were taught, between the Catholic belief and the works-righteousness of the Pharisees, so uncompromisingly exposed by Jesus as mere outward show, divorced from inner virtue.

But for generations of Protestants, long before Dr. Wright, nagging questions remained. The Reformed emphasis on justification appeared to diminish the meaning of a life lived in obedience to Christ. Didn’t James write--in a letter Luther wanted to drop from the New Testament--that faith without works is dead? And sure enough, one perennial problem of evangelical culture has been an overwhelming attention to “getting saved,” while another has been a rigid legalism (don’t dance, don’t drink, don’t play cards), smuggling works-righteousness in via the back door.Dr. Wright’s work is part of a larger corrective enterprise--not a unified movement but rather a deep, massive shift on many fronts, including the rapid expansion of Christianity in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Old frames of reference lose their relevance; new alliances emerge. In the United States, high-level conversations between evangelicals and Catholics, initiated by evangelical leader Chuck Colson and the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus more than a decade ago and still going strong, have shown that there is no fundamental contradiction in their respective understandings of salvation--a rapprochement that would have seemed inconceivable only a generation ago. In the meantime, evangelical scholars and pastors have profited from a new appreciation of the Jewishness of Jesus and the Jewish context of early Christianity.

We may be in the early stages of the most significant internal change in Christianity since the 16th century--an exciting prospect. But Dr. Wright suggests that the key question for interpreters of Paul in the 21st century “may well turn out to be a matter not so much of comprehension,” as an onlooker following the intricate debates over justification might suppose, “but of courage”--the courage to live as a follower of Jesus.Who was it, after all, who told us to take as our model the faith of a little child?
Mr. Wilson is the editor of Books & Culture, a bimonthly review, and of “Best Christian Writing 2006.”
 Posted by Veith at 08:23 AM

Missouri Synod and the Christmas Tree
Who said Lutherans haven’t influenced American culture? Henry Schwan, one of the great Missouri Synod patriarchs--former synodical president and the author of all the extra stuff in the blue catechism--played a major role in America’s adoption of the Christmas tree. This despite accusations that Lutherans were worshipping trees. You’ve got to read this article by my friend Kevin Vogts, printed in the Lutheran Witness in 1998. Click “continue reading.”Henry Schwan’s Christmas Tree
by Kevin D. Vogts, director of Church Relations at Concordia University Wisconsin, Mequon
Reprinted with permission from the December 1998 issue of The Lutheran Witness.

On Christmas Eve morning 1851, young Heinrich Christian Schwan, newly installed pastor of Zion Lutheran Church in Cleveland, strode out into the forest near his parsonage and chopped down a small, beautifully shaped evergreen.
It may have been a fir, it may have been a Scotch pine, it may have been a Norway spruce; no one knows anymore. But it doesn’t matter. What does matter is that the 32-year-old preacher lovingly carried the tree into his church, where it met with his wife, Emma’s, approval.The couple spent the afternoon festooning the tree with cookies, colored ribbons, fancy nuts and candles. The crowning touch would be the cherished silver star that Schwan had brought with him from his boyhood home in Hannover, Germany. The star was a powerful reminder to him of how happy his Christmases had been as a child.

He wanted to share this same happiness with his congregation, most of whom were also German-born and thus likely to have seen a Christmas tree in their pasts. The custom hadn’t caught on yet in America. In fact, to Schwan’s knowledge, this was the first time that such a tree had appeared within a church this side of the Atlantic.Once the tree was fully trimmed, Schwan carefully placed it in a prominent spot in the chancel. All that remained now was to light the candles bedecking its boughs. Standing back, gazing admiringly at their work, Heinrich and Emma could hardly help thinking, “Won’t the congregation be surprised tonight!”
The people were surprised all right.
Most were delighted. For them, seeing their handsome young pastor reading the Christmas story beside his bright, blazing tree enkindled wonderful Christmastime memories from the Old Country.

For others, however--those not familiar with the idea of a Tannenbaum, espe-cially one in church--it was not such a blessing.
“Oh, my goodness!” one lady gasped, covering her eyes. “What in the world is this supposed to mean?”“A tree in the chancel?” roared an indignant man. “What kind of a minister are you?”  Within a day or two, Herr Schwan’s Christmas tree was the talk of the town, and the talk was not good. A prominent local newspaper called it “a nonsensical, asinine, moronic absurdity.” It editorialized against “these Lutherans . . . worshipping a tree . . . groveling before a shrub” Worse, it recommended that the good Christian citizens of Cleveland ostracize, shun and refuse to do business with anyone “who tolerates such heathenish, idolatrous practices in his church.”

This, obviously, was bad press for the struggling immigrant members of Zion, especially those with stores and other businesses dependent on the public’s goodwill. And all fingers of blame pointed to the same man: the stunned, well-meaning Schwan.
To his credit, however, the young pastor, though sorely chastened, did not cave in--at least not right away. His Christmas tree was still in the chancel the following Sunday. But then it came down. Soon thereafter, Emma discovered Heinrich’s beloved tree-topping silver star in the trash.She cleaned it up and presented it to him. “Why did you throw this away?” she asked.  “Because,” he said disconsolately, “there never will be another Christmas tree in Cleveland.”  “Nonsense!” she replied. “This year you put up the first tree, and next Christmas there will be many trees in Cleveland.”

Emma saved the star, and her prediction came true beyond her wildest dreams.
During the following year, Schwan, perhaps inspired by his stalwart wife, carefully researched the issue of Christmas trees. He ultimately concluded that such trees were not a sacrilege but rather a solid Christian custom--a custom in which Christians could express their joy at the birth of the Christchild.He wrote many letters and received replies assuring him that lighted and decorated Christmas trees were de rigueur in many Christian countries. Emboldened by this knowledge--the fact that Christmas trees were not of pagan origin--he actively promoted their use as symbols of the joy of Christmas.
On Christmas Eve 1852, Schwan’s church again displayed a blazing Christmas tree. But this time it was not the only one in Cleveland. In fact, decorated trees appeared in homes all over town, and within five years Christmas trees were going up in homes and churches all across the country!

Although Pastor Schwan, as we now know, was not the first person to decorate a Christmas tree in North America (read article titled “Who Was Really the First?”), he was the first to introduce one into a church. And he was almost singlehandedly responsible for this custom gaining widespread acceptance and popularity in the United States.The location of Zion Lutheran Church has changed since the 1850s, but on its original spot, the corner of Lakeside Avenue and East Sixth Street, stands an historical marker that states:
“On this site stood the first Christmas tree in America publicly lighted and displayed in a church Christmas ceremony. [Here] stood the original Zion Lutheran Church, where in 1851, on Christmas Eve, Pastor Henry Schwan lighted the first Christmas tree in Cleveland. The tradition he brought from Germany soon became widely accepted throughout America. The present site of Zion Lutheran Church is at 2062 East 30th Street.”

Pastor Schwan would later rise to great prominence in the Missouri Synod, serving as synodical President from 1878 to 1899. He was also the original author of the questions, explanations and Bible prooftexts appended to Luther’s Small Catechism. Had it ever occurred to you that the pastor who wrote the questions in the back of your old blue catechism was the same fellow who popularized the Christmas tree in America?
So, as you put up your Christmas tree this year, or admire the tree (or trees) in your church’s chancel, remember the day when young Henry Schwan betook himself an ax and tramped into that snowy Ohio woods. Remember that, thanks to him, the Christmas tree in church is a unique Missouri Synod contribution to the celebration of Christmas in America!You may also be interested in reading the short article titled “Why Two Trees in the Chancel?”
Contributing to this story are authors of other works relating to H.C. Schwan and his tree: Del Gasche, “A Christmas Tree? In Church?,” Farmland News, 1989; Penne L. Restad, Christmas in America, Oxford University Press, 1995; and Helen Jensen, “Cleveland’s First Christmas Tree” (self-published, 1996). Posted by Veith at 08:15 AM

Swedish pastor acquitted in Bible as hate crime case
A Lutheran pastor in Sweden had been charged with a hate crime for preaching what the Bible ssays about homosexual behavior. He faced up to four years in prison. A lower court convicted him, but the Swedish Supreme Court has found him innocent, ruling that European Union guarantees of freedom of speech and religion trump the Swedish law. Click “continue reading” for the full details.
ASSIST News Service (ANS) -- PO Box 609, Lake Forest, CA 92609-0609 USAThursday, December 8, 2005
PASTOR ACQUITTED OF HATE SPEECH BY SWEDEN’S HIGHEST COURT
By Michael Ireland Chief Correspondent, ASSIST News Service
BORGHOLM, SWEDEN (ANS) — A precedent-setting verdict, upholding freedom of speech and religion, was issued on November 29 by the Swedish Supreme Court (SSC).
According to the Laywers Christian Fellowship in London, Sweden’s highest court, in a unanimous decision, acquitted Pastor Ake Green of charges of “hate speech” arising from a sermon he preached in July, 2003 denouncing homosexual behaviors.
Lawyers Christian Fellowship says Green was initially convicted under Sweden’s new hate crimes law, enacted in 2003, which makes illegal any expressions of “disrespect” or “incitement” “towards a group of people,” including groups with “sexual inclinations.”
The group says that up to two years in prison is the normal penalty under the law, but if a statement against any particular group is “especially threatening or disrespectful” or “disseminated to a large number of persons,” the crime is considered “major” and the perpetrator can be subject to up to four years in prison.
The Lawyers fellowship says Green had been convicted and sentenced by a lower court in 2004.
The group says: “It was claimed by some that that he had referred to homosexuals in a disrespectful way, but Green explained to the courts that he was referring to homosexual acts, not persons, Green said at his Supreme Court hearing November 9.”

Green commented: “I don’t take back what I said. I still think we should be able to voice our convictions without ending up in jail and if that happens I will be showing how ridiculous things have got.”In a 16-page ruling the Supreme Court said his sermon was protected by freedom of speech and religion under the European Convention on Human Rights.
“We are obliged to consider the European Convention on Human Rights and the way in which the convention has been applied by the European Court of Justice,” Supreme Court Justice Johan Munck said.  “We believe that it is probable that a conviction against Pastor Green would not hold up in the European Court of Justice.”

The Lawyers group says the decision to acquit Pastor Green is “very positive, setting a standard for the right to religious freedom and right to freedom of expression.”Pastor Green said he was now free to preach the word of God, and the decision was a relief both for him and other preachers.

Andrea Minichiello Williams, Public Policy Officer for the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship (LCF), remarked: “This decision sets a precedent and it is a very significant victory for freedom of speech and freedom of religion.”
With the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill in the UK at the Third Reading stage, the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship hopes “that the British government will take note of this decision and consider the importance of freedom of speech and religion, and the necessity for Christian ministers to express their Biblically-based religious beliefs.”A link to a transcript of Ake Green’s sermon can be found at www.akegreen.org
** Michael Ireland is an international British freelance journalist. A former reporter with a London newspaper, Michael is the Chief Correspondent for ASSIST News Service of Garden Grove, California. Michael immigrated to the United States in 1982 and became a US citizen in September, 1995. He is married with two children. Michael has also been a frequent contributor to UCB Europe, a British Christian radio station.
** You may republish this story with proper attribution.
 Posted by Veith at 07:13 AM

December 08, 2005
Casuistry
There is a word for what the Israeli parliament has done (blogged below), in addition to legalizing murder. It’s “casuistry.” Yes, the word can refer to a legitimate analysis of cases, as when pastors discuss how to handle specific problems of pastoral care. But its more popular defintion is “complex reasoning to justify moral laxity.” Or, close attention to the details of moral laws in an attempt to get around them.Pascal--an amazingly profound Christian writer who almost never gets attention today despite his having also laid the groundwork for the computer--lambasted the Jesuits for their casuistry, their moral lawyering that allowed French politicians to get away with murder. I read an interesting article on Bill Clinton’s Southern Baptist casuistry, which rationalized what kinds of extramarital sexual behavior are not really sinning. Again, this is how sin combines with legalism to pervert the Law: trying to find ways to get around God’s Law so that we can sin while still feeling self-righteous.

Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, does the opposite: EXPANDING the scope of the moral law. So does Luther in his Catechisms, showing how the Ten Commandments apply in an even broader way than we might want them to.
Under the Gospel, though, we can freely admit our sinfulness and find forgiveness through Christ. We don’t have to justify ourselves. Christ has justified us.But in the earthly kingdom, what cruelty, vice, broken homes, and bloodshed are unleashed by casuistry! And now Israel will kill its sick and elderly, standing by while machines do it, as if sins of omission did not have the same effect as sins of commission.
 Posted by Veith at 11:14 AM
Israel finds way to euthanize without breaking the Commandment?
The Israeli parliament has passed a bill legalizing euthanasia, as long as it is performed by a machine. A timer will be put on life-support machines, which, without intervention, will simply turn them off. The device is similar to a “Sabbath Clock” that allows observant Jews to manage their machines without working on the sabbath.

Parliamentarians reached a solution after discussions with a 58-member panel of medical, religious and philosophical experts.
“The point was that it is wrong, under Jewish law, for a person’s life to be taken by a person but, for a machine, it is acceptable,” a parliamentary spokesman said.
“A man would not be able to shorten human life but a machine can.”Notice how legalistic moralism leads to logic-chopping loopholes, to missing the weightier purpose of the law, and thus to immorality.
 Posted by Veith at 09:19 AMSanta Claus, heretic slapper
Rev. Scott Stiegemeyer imparts the delicious information that St. Nicholas, who would later become the model for Santa Claus, attended the Council of Nicea, which affirmed the deity of Christ. Not only that, he got so fed up at the heretic Arius that he went up and slapped him, for which he had to apologize. (Rev. Petersen, who first brought this up, has more.)

We need to work that into our Christmas imagery: Santa Claus going around battling heretics who deny who Jesus is. And giving a gentle but heart-felt slap to people who take Christ out of Christmas. Department Store Santas quizzing children who sit on their laps about the Two Natures of Christ and giving clerks who say “Happy Holiday” a slap. Also teachers who forbid the singing of Christmas carols because they mention Jesus. And ministers who cancel Sunday church services that fall on Christmas day.We will need songs (“Santa Claus is Coming to Slap”; “Frosty the Gnostic”; “Rudolph the Red Knows Jesus”). And Christmas specials (“How the Arian Stole Christmas”).

Help me out here. What else could we do to recast Santa as a jolly old theological enforcer? I feel a column coming on.
 Posted by Veith at 07:44 AMDecember 07, 2005
Islam, Christianity, & Jihad
Thanks to Susan Olasky, on the main WORLD site, for alerting me to this fine scholarly article on Islam’s stance on Christianity and the necessity of “Jihad of the Sword.” It also speaks of how violence against Christians ties to the Apocalypse in Muslim eyes and the duty of PRIVATE Jihad (which is why Sunni clerics cannot specifically condemn individual terrorist acts).
 Posted by Veith at 12:02 PM

Pearl Harbor Day
12/7 was the old 9/11. Today is the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Back then, Japan was an animistic Empire. Now that country is democratic, free, and prosperous. Back then, Japan was our sworn enemy. Now we are allies, Japan plays baseball, and Americans driveJapanese cars and eat sushi. Do you think such a change from hostility to friendship could happen in 50 years with our current adversaries in the Muslim world?
 Posted by Veith at 08:12 AMBeethoven and heavy metal
Tests on locks of Beethoven’s hair and fragments of his skull found that they contained 100 times more lead than normal, leading to the conclusion that the great composer--who died after years of poor health at 56--died of lead poisoning. The study did NOT find high levels of mercury in the samples, which refutes the oft-repeated charge that Beethoven died of syphilis, since sufferers of that malady dosed themselves with mercury.
 Posted by Veith at 08:08 AM

Preliminary report on Narnia screening
I saw the Narnia movie last night at an advanced screening. Reviews are supposed to be embargoed until the movie comes out, so I shouldn’t say too much. Suffice it to say that, yes, the Christian theme of Redemption comes across loud and clear. The movie changes some things in the book--leaving out and adding in--and while some of the changes detract from the message, others actually add to it. You will definitely want to see this movie. You can take the kids, unless you have a child who is unusually affected by scary stuff. (There are “gotcha” surprises, some ugly monsters, and sadness at Aslan’s death, but the latter is quickly turned to joy when he rises again and there is no gore or bad language.) Once you see it, there will be LOTS to talk about. Let’s plan on doing that here. On Friday, for the weekend blog, I’ll post some discussion threads and we can talk it through.
 Posted by Veith at 07:44 AMDecember 06, 2005
Australia’s individual retirement accounts
The front page of the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) has an article on how Australia, a nation of only 20 million people, has become one of the biggest investors in the world (specializing in buying up toll-roads, bridges, and other infrastructure around the world, including Chicago’s Skyway). How did this happen? In 1992, Australia implemented the equivalent of Individual Retirement Accounts, though on a much bigger scale than President Bush ever proposed only to get shot down. Aussies are requred to set aside 9% of their income into a privately-managed savings account for their retirement. (The President might have made a better case if he had shown Americans the success stories of countries that have something similar.) Aussie Dave, weigh in on this! The story is subscription only, so I’ll post an excerpt after “continue reading.”
UPDATE: My newly-Australian/American daughter tells me that not only does everyone save 9% of their wages, but the government matches it! 18% of one’s income socked away year after year? At that rate, everyone in the country will retire rich!

From the Wall Street Journal, 6 December 2005, p. 1A:
Australia can trace its new wealth to a 14-year economic boom underpinned by a 1992 law that required workers to set aside big chunks of their income for retirement. While Australian households, like those in the U.S., still spend more than they earn, the nation is amassing a huge investment war chest.
The retirement pool, which is invested by private-sector managers, tallies a staggering $550 billion, with about $70 billion to $80 billion more added each year. As a result, the pool of assets under management in Australia is among the largest in the world — a particularly impressive feat considering that Australia’s population of 20 million is only slightly larger than that of Sri Lanka.
Because Australia’s economy isn’t big enough to absorb the cash, investors there have had to find ways to spend it elsewhere. They are specializing in a niche often overlooked by other investors: big-ticket infrastructure projects like roads, tunnels and airports. Governments typically finance such projects either by digging into their coffers or selling debt, such as municipal bonds in the U.S. Banks often help organize the financing but usually exit after raising the money.
The Macquarie model is different. The bank buys or leases the assets outright, then pools them into funds and sells stock in the funds. The strategy brings the capital amassed by Australia’s forced savings plan together with infrastructure needs around the world. It also enables governments to avoid borrowing to pay for their projects — an often unpalatable prospect. Macquarie manages the assets with the help of experts, collecting fees along the way.To Macquarie executives, the move to invest in infrastructure around the world made sense: Australia simply doesn’t have the same volume of mergers and acquisitions, initial public offerings and other big fee-making opportunities as the U.S. or Europe.  “We’re sitting over here on the other side of the world,” said Stephen Allen, who heads the Macquarie fund that leased the Skyway, as he sat in a conference room overlooking Sydney’s Martin Place financial district on a recent afternoon. “We were acting out of desperation.”

Roaming the U.S.
On a given day, Macquarie Bank has a dozen bankers roaming the U.S. in search of deals. In San Diego, one of its funds is building a 12-mile-long toll road. In Virginia, a Macquarie fund invested more than $600 million to take control of the Dulles Greenway, a 14-mile toll road outside of Washington. Macquarie operates the tunnel that connects Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, and just bought, with other investors, Icon Parking Systems, one of the biggest parking-lot operators in New York City.Macquarie funds also hold stakes in the airports of Brussels, Copenhagen and Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Macquarie funds own stakes in a major port in China, a Japanese turnpike and one of England’s biggest toll roads. This year, Macquarie said it was weighing a bid to buy the London Stock Exchange, though it is unclear whether that deal will be completed.

Those deals are kicking up new interest in infrastructure around the globe. The U.S. alone needs $1.6 trillion in spending in the next five years to replace and expand its aging roads, rail lines and other infrastructure, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. Developing nations like China and India also require vast new networks of roads, tunnels and ports.
Soon after the Skyway deal, Indiana’s governor said he wanted to investigate leasing toll roads, too. Other states, including Delaware, also are looking at the possibility. Posted by Veith at 01:06 PMHow to confound the Devil
Thanks to a pastor friend who forwarded this quote from Martin Luther:
” “Whenever the devil harasses you, seek the company of men or drink more, or joke and talk nonsense, or do some other merry thing. Sometimes we must drink more, sport, recreate ourselves, and even sin a little to spite the devil, so that we leave him no place for troubling our consciences with trifles. We are conquered if we try too conscientiously not to sin at all. So when the devil says to you: do not drink, answer him: I will drink, and right freely, just because you tell me not to.” ~ Martin Luther
OK, I realize that the “sin a little” part will alienate some of you, one of Luther’s characteristically uncautious things he throws out that he has to take back later. Also the part about drinking. I hope this won’t turn some of you off of Luther for life. But do you see his point about how the devil troubles our consciences with “trifles”? About the magnitude of our Christian freedom, as opposed to the shackles of legalism (which is what I think he means by “sinning” with what are not really sins)? And about the spiritual value of defying the devil through “merry making”?
 Posted by Veith at 11:33 AM

Unlikely hunting advocate
Nicholas Kristof is as leftist and politically-correct as any other “New York Times” columnist, sometimes to the point of whackiness. So it is astonishing to read his column calling for more deer hunting. (This site is subscription only. If anyone finds this posted elsewhere, please give a link in the comments.) Kristof gives perfectly solid environmentalist reasons for promoting this sport, although one wonders whether some environmentalists might apply his concerns about the need to remedy deer overpopulation to human beings. But still, give him credit.
Political discourse in this country could change drastically with some new alliances: environmentalists and hunters; white evangelicals and black evangelicals; human rights activists and pro-lifers. Can you think of any others? And why are they unlikely to happen (or could they)?
 Posted by Veith at 07:47 AMNarnia screening
I, by virtue of my office as a called and credentialed member of the media, got invited to a press screening of the “Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” movie tonight! We’re supposed to hold our reviews until, I believe, December 8, but I might be able to give you my general impressions tomorrow, with more detailed comments the next day.
 Posted by Veith at 07:32 AM

December 05, 2005
More eye of the needle
The Catalogue for Philanthropy has put together a study of which states are the most generous; that is, whose citizens give away the biggest percentage of their income. For the complete chart, click here. In general, the states where the people have the lowest income tend to be most generous. (Mississippi is dead last in income, but #1 in giving.) And the states where the people are richest give the smallest percentage of what they have.
 Posted by Veith at 08:50 AMVoting on mass murder
The people of Missouri will soon vote on a measure that will allow unfettered stem cell research, including the “harvesting” of unborn children so as to make out of their dead bodies medicine for adults. But to make the bill sound good, among its other honeyed phrases, it bans “human cloning to make babies.” That is to say, children who are engendered by cloning ALL HAVE TO BE KILLED. Saving the cloned embryo’s life by implanting him or her into a mother and letting the baby live, grow, and be born, will be illegal. But it is OK to generate embryos solely to kill. (HT: Rev. Randy Asbury)
 Posted by Veith at 08:38 AM

The eye of the needle
The New York Times has an interesting morality tale about a man who ruined his life because he won $35 million in the lottery. This story is not unique. My brother, a bankruptcy attorney, recently regaled me with the sad stories of many of his clients whose woes began when they came into large sums of money (an inheritance, a court settlement, etc.). These are good examples of the sinfulness of the human will, so that when we are enabled to “do whatever we want,” our sinful desires that usually stay inside us are unleashed and proceed to destroy us and our loved ones.
 Posted by Veith at 08:29 AMExcellent discussions
I defy any blog in the blogosphere to come up with better commenters than we have here. (I’m thinking especially of the genuinely helpful discussion provoked by the “Lutheran invisibility” post.) Do remember that we are not to get harsh with one another, even when we refight the classical theological controversies. This hasn’t happened, despite a few barbs, on either side. Just a reminder.
 Posted by Veith at 08:17 AM

December 02, 2005
Why December 25?
In my column for the next WORLD, I show that contrary to what lots of people assume, Christmas did NOT have its origin in a pagan holiday. And I show how the date of December 25 was picked. (It had to do with the historical date of Easter.) Click “continue reading” to see what I had to say. Why December 25?
The origin of Christmas had nothing to do with paganism | by Gene Edward Veith
According to conventional wisdom, Christmas had its origin in a pagan winter solstice festival, which the church co-opted to promote the new religion. In doing so, many of the old pagan customs crept into the Christian celebration. But this view is apparently a historical myth—like the stories of a church council debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or that medieval folks believed the earth is flat—often repeated, even in classrooms, but not true.

William J. Tighe, a history professor at Muhlenberg College, gives a different account in his article “Calculating Christmas,” published in the December 2003 Touchstone Magazine. He points out that the ancient Roman religions had no winter solstice festival.True, the Emperor Aurelian, in the five short years of his reign, tried to start one, “The Birth of the Unconquered Sun,” on Dec. 25, 274. This festival, marking the time of year when the length of daylight began to increase, was designed to breathe new life into a declining paganism. But Aurelian’s new festival was instituted after Christians had already been associating that day with the birth of Christ. According to Mr. Tighe, the Birth of the Unconquered Sun “was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians.” Christians were not imitating the pagans. The pagans were imitating the Christians.

The early church tried to ascertain the actual time of Christ’s birth. It was all tied up with the second-century controversies over setting the date of Easter, the commemoration of Christ’s death and resurrection. That date should have been an easy one. Though Easter is also charged with having its origins in pagan equinox festivals, we know from Scripture that Christ’s death was at the time of the Jewish Passover. That time of year is known with precision.But differences in the Jewish, Greek, and Latin calendars and the inconsistency between lunar and solar date-keeping caused intense debate over when to observe Easter. Another question was whether to fix one date for the Feast of the Resurrection no matter what day it fell on or to ensure that it always fell on Sunday, “the first day of the week,” as in the Gospels.

This discussion also had a bearing on fixing the day of Christ’s birth. Mr. Tighe, drawing on the in-depth research of Thomas J. Talley’s The Origins of the Liturgical Year, cites the ancient Jewish belief (not supported in Scripture) that God appointed for the great prophets an “integral age,” meaning that they died on the same day as either their birth or their conception.Jesus was certainly considered a great prophet, so those church fathers who wanted a Christmas holiday reasoned that He must have been either born or conceived on the same date as the first Easter. There are hints that some Christians originally celebrated the birth of Christ in March or April. But then a consensus arose to celebrate Christ’s conception on March 25, as the Feast of the Annunciation, marking when the angel first appeared to Mary.

Note the pro-life point: According to both the ancient Jews and the early Christians, life begins at conception. So if Christ was conceived on March 25, nine months later, he would have been born on Dec. 25.This celebrates Christ’s birth in the darkest time of the year. The Celtic and Germanic tribes, who would be evangelized later, did mark this time in their “Yule” festivals, a frightening season when only the light from the Yule log kept the darkness at bay. Christianity swallowed up that season of depression with the opposite message of joy: “The light [Jesus] shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (John 1:5).

Regardless of whether this was Christ’s actual birthday, the symbolism works. And Christ’s birth is inextricably linked to His resurrection.
 • Copyright © 2005 WORLD Magazine December 10, 2005, Vol. 20, No. 48 Posted by Veith at 09:54 AMChristmas specials
is my take on all of those Christmas TV shows that come around every year. (This may be “subscriber only” content, so I’ll post it after “continued reading.”) Am I right in my assessment, including the one that is the most Christ-honoring of all? Or am I missing some really good ones?
 Holiday programming: Ghosts of Christmas past
In an onslaught of Christmas TV reruns, A Charlie Brown Christmas remains the best
| by Gene Edward Veith
‘Tis the season for “holiday programming.” Networks haul out reruns of Christmas specials made long, long ago. And for many viewers, watching these classics each and every year has become a staple of their Christmas observance.
Though these are definitely about Christmas—as opposed to Hannukah, Kwanzaa, or other celebrations the culture is attempting to lump together into a generic “holiday”—few of the TV Christmas classics have any references to the birth of Jesus Christ. What they provide are good clues to what secularists celebrate instead.

For many people, the true meaning of Christmas is nostalgia. They try to recreate their old Christmas memories, back when they were children. Cynics recall the relative innocence of their childhood, when they believed in wonders, ideals, and something beyond themselves, even if it was only Santa Claus. And they remember the family warmth and togetherness they experienced at Christmas. Adults, in turn, want to give their children the same happy Christmas memories.
Thus, adults watch Frosty the Snowman and Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer mainly because they watched them as children, bringing back fond memories of Christmas past. They then inflict them on their own children, so they too will have happy memories. Other Christmas fare fixates on an idealized childhood. Miracle on 34th Street, ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas, and the newer Polar Express see the meaning of Christmas as having something to do with a child’s being able to believe in Santa Claus.The best of the nostalgia genre is A Christmas Story, the saga of Ralphie’s quest to get a Red Ryder B.B. gun under the tree. This story conjures up specific childhood memories—the tongue stuck to frozen metal, dealing with bullies, the mother’s warning that if you’re not careful you’ll shoot your eye out—that adults today can recall from their own childhoods. And whereas most Christmas nostalgia-fests are sentimentalized, A Christmas Story is honest, recognizing that childhood was actually a time of disappointments, fears, and humiliations that are indeed very funny but only in retrospect.

Other Christmas classics recognize that the holiday has something to do with benevolence. Without saying anything about Jesus Christ, they do have a moral or even redemptive theme. Bing Crosby’s White Christmas, made just after World War II, attaches Christmas sentiment to honoring army buddies. Even the made-for-TV movies on Lifetime or Oxygen usually show a person changing for the better during Christmastime.The best of this lot is It’s a Wonderful Life. The Jimmy Stewart classic goes beyond mere moralizing to reflect on the meaning of life, showing that an ordinary man’s seemingly insignificant existence is tied to the well-being of others in a vast network of purpose. The movie does reflect a Christian worldview, and it does include a transcendent spiritual reference point, namely, angels. But, unfortunately, it says nothing about the wonderful life of Jesus.
A whole sub-genre of Christmas fare has arisen about people who hate Christmas. These are all the progeny of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. The original novella did refer to Christ—once when the charity worker is appealing to Scrooge to give money to a good cause and again in the account of Tiny Tim going to church—but its descendants focus on someone who is so hardhearted as to despise the charms of the season, until the spirit of Christmas changes him after all. Ebenezer Scrooge lives on, not only in the various versions Dickens’ tales—the best of which is the 1951 Christmas Carol with Alastair Sim—but in How the Grinch Stole Christmas and the newer Christmas with the Kranks.

But are there any Christmas specials that are actually about the birth of Christ? There are a few, such as The Little Drummer Boy and Nestor, the Long-Eared Christmas Donkey, though these have not risen to the status of classics. But the best Christmas TV show of them all does get it right.A Charlie Brown Christmas deals precisely with the misunderstandings of Christmas—the commercialism, the frustrations, the frenetic efforts to attain a perfect holiday. But the story is resolved when Linus on the stage simply recites the account of Christ’s birth from the second chapter of Luke. “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord.” That is the best moment in Christmas TV.
Copyright © 2005 WORLD Magazine December 10, 2005, Vol. 20, No. 48
 Posted by Veith at 09:47 AM

Preview of Narnia movie
WORLD’s film critic Andrew Coffin got an early viewing of “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe,” along with access to many of the filmmakers. We have to save his review until the movie comes out, but his behind-the-scenes account is the cover story for the next WORLD, which you can read early by clicking the link.
 Posted by Veith at 09:43 AM“Merry Christmas” is back
Stores that have replaced “Christmas” with a generic winter “holiday” are experiencing a consumer backlash. Now, many of them are going back to ads and greetings that refer to Christmas.”

The Catholic League and the American Family Association had been encouraging Christians to shop only at stores that dare to say “Christmas.” Other consumers have been complaining. Now many retailers who had once feared to say the name of the holiday that gives them so much of their business--including Wal-Mart, Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, Dillards, Lowe’s, and Victoria’s Secret--have gone back to “Christmas.” At least capitalism, more than government, is responsive to the will of the people.
 Posted by Veith at 09:25 AMDecember 01, 2005
Court outlaws civic prayer in the name of Jesus
A federal court in Indianapolis ruled that the Indiana state legislature--and by extension others--cannot permit sessions to be opened with prayer that mentions Jesus Christ or “any of his titles” (such as “Savior”). If this ruling holds, is it not true that no Christians--who are commanded in Scripture to pray in the name of Jesus--may lead civic prayers? This also appears to be the next step in something I have been tracing, the rise of a new polytheistic civil religion that tries to draw on all religions while rejecting Christ.
 Posted by Veith at 09:09 AM

Narnia according to the merchandisers
WORLD’s crack reporter Jaimie Dean sent this observation, which I post with her permission (the candy Turkish Delight, of course, being Lewis’s brilliant figure for the addictive degradation of sin):
I thought you’d appreciate this: This morning over breakfast I noticed that there was a Narnia game on the back of my cereal box. It was a maze with this caption: “Help Edmund through the castle to get some Turkish Delight.” At the beginning of the maze was a noble-looking Edmund with his breast plate and shield, and at the end was a gleaming pot of Turkish Delight. I think General Mills has missed the idea of Edmund waking up to his spiritual condition! . . . .The brand I was eating was Honey Nut Cheerios — General Mills is promoting the movie and sponsoring a ticket-giveaway. By the way, this morning I visited the Narnia website and there are also some games there. One game is Edmund (i.e. you) v. the White Witch. It’s basically a little math game, and if you (Edmund) wins a round, this little pot of presumably Turkish Delight pops up and, if I’m not mistaken, you hear this: “Mmm!” Here’s the link to the game page if you’re interested: http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/narnia/discovernarnia/index.html
Keep on the lookout for this sort of thing, as the commercial culture will be trying to exploit the Narnia movie without having a clue about what it means. (Christians will need to make the connections--as they talk about the movie over the water cooler or the breakfast table--between the fantasy and the reality of sin and redemption that the story portrays.
 Posted by Veith at 08:58 AM« October 2005 | Main | December 2005 »
November 30, 2005
Keillor on Lutheranism
Speaking of Garrison Keillor, here are some of his characterizations of Lutheranism:
The affectionate and appreciative essay Singing with the Lutherans.
A humorous poem, the best part of which is the comparison between Episcopalian’s Henry VIII and Lutherans’ Johann Sebastian Bach.
A satire of the ELCA Sexuality Task Force.Here is an article on Keillor’s Lutheran-related humor, which says that he was never, in fact, a Lutheran, though this more scholarly article on Keillor’s Christianity says that while he grew up Plymouth Brethren and sometimes attends an Anglican church, he did join an ELCA congregation.
Again, much of what he says about Lutherans escapes me, based on my experience in the more robust German confessional version, but what he says is quite funny in its own terms. Keillor is liberal politically and, I daresay, theologically. But I do recall reading something of his that skewered contemporary versions of Christianity in favor of traditional worship, and it included a direct confession of his faith in Christ. I can’t find it on the internet. If anyone knows what I’m talking about, please post the reference or the link.
 Posted by Veith at 01:09 PM
Lutheran invisibility
I was absurdly pleased to see this Bizarro comic in the newspaper this morning. A Quaker goes into a diner and orders, for a change, “Lutheran oats.” (Get it? Quaker Oats? Why not Lutheran oats?) I guess what pleased me was to see a cultural presence for Lutheranism. Because, for the most part, Lutherans tend to be invisible, both in American Christendom and in American culture.
Garrison Keillor talks about Lutherans (and is one, of the ELCA variety), but his caricature of bland but good-hearted church folks eating jello at potlucks has never been recognizable to me, probably because he is writing about Scandinavian Minnesotans, as opposed to real confessional Lutherans mostly from a German background. That kind of Lutheranism is anything but bland and easy-going. But it remains invisible.
There are more MISSOURI SYNOD LUTHERANS than Episcopalians--yet look who has the cultural presence. There are probably over 3 million conservative Lutherans in this country, counting LCMS, WELS, and ELS. That is far, far more than conservative Calvinists, who nevertheless have a far greater presence in today’s Christian intellectual scene.
Maybe Lutheran cultural invisibility is a good thing, that Lutherans are living out their theology of culture, engaged in the culture, exercising their vocations, recognizing God’s sovereignty in His earthly kingdom, and living out their faith in a quiet but effective way in the secular realm. If so, good.
But our invisibility becomes a problem when so many people--I am convinced--would love Lutheranism but do not know that it exists. Christians in the more wide-open churches often yearn for a distinct theological tradition, with sacraments and liturgy--so they become Episcopalians (then having to put up with a horrendously liberal hierarchy), or Catholics or Orthodox (giving up justification by faith). Don’t they know there is a church that has the best of Catholicism (sacramental spirituality, liturgy, a rigorously worked-out theology), of Calvinism (grace alone), of Arminianism (Christ died for all), of the Baptists (the inerrancy of Scripture), of Charismatics (tangible supernatural manifestations, which we call Sacraments), all with a non-legalistic, non-pietist church culture that emphasizes Christian freedom.
Please, non-Lutheran readers, forgive me for this Luther-centric post, but perhaps you could weigh in. Are any of you even aware of Lutheranism, and if so, what is your impression of what it is all about? And Lutheran readers, do you agree with me that our cultural and ecclesiastic invisibility is our fault? And that something needs to be done about it? And if so, what?
 Posted by Veith at 09:44 AM
November 29, 2005
Abortion as religion
A puff piece in the Los Angeles Times honoring an abortionist demonstrates the new attempt to sanctify the operation, clothing it with the aura of self-righteousness and sacrifice, turning abortion into a sacred act. Here is part of the hagiography of Arkansas abortionist William F. Harrison:
He calls himself an “abortionist” and says, “I am destroying life.”
But he also feels he’s giving life: He calls his patients “born again.”
“When you end what the woman considers a disastrous pregnancy, she has literally been given her life back,” he says.
Before giving up obstetrics in 1991, Harrison delivered 6,000 babies. Childbirth, he says, should be joyous; a woman should never consider it a punishment or an obligation.
“We try to make sure she doesn’t ever feel guilty,” he says, “for what she feels she has to do.”This reminds me of a book of feminist theology I stumbled upon that argued that abortion should be seen as a sacrament. We can expect more of this sort of thing: the rhetoric of morality to be co-opted to defend immorality; the rhetoric of religion to be co-opted in the service of Godlessness.
 Posted by Veith at 09:28 AM
How Richard Scarry books have changed
Remember Richard Scarry’s children’s books, such as “The Best Word Book Ever”? Go here and click on the thumbnails to see how the original 1963 edition is different from the 1990 edition. Some of the changes, reflecting the values the publishers want to indoctrinate our children into, are obvious. Others are more subtle. What differences do you notice? (HT: Susan Olasky on the main World blog).
 Posted by Veith at 09:18 AM
CIA discovers the internet
As part of its retooling in light of its failures to deal with Islamic terrorism, the CIA is starting a program to glean intelligence information off of the internet. This is a change in CIA culture: According to one insider, “There are still people who believe if it’s not top secret, it’s not worth reading.”
 Posted by Veith at 08:37 AM
More gnat straining in medical ethics
Medical ethics experts are complaining that plans to combat the potential bird flu epidemic are leaving out the consideration of ethical issues. The spokesman for the complaints? PETER SINGER. He’s the Princeton “ethicist” who advocates the killing of the handicapped, infanticide, and sex with animals.
Can we conclude that ethicists who do not recognize transcendent moral absolutes--knowable either by revelation or reason--will do more harm than not having any ethicists at all? That a laissez faire free marketplace of morality will be more of an ethical environment than one controlled by a Godless ethical bureaucracy?
 Posted by Veith at 08:00 AM
November 28, 2005
Anne Rice and “Christ the Lord”
You have got to read Lynn Vincent’s excellent and exclusive interview with Anne Rice in the latest WORLD. The author of literate yet “transgressive” vampire novels has gone from atheism to Roman Catholicism and is now immersing herself in the Bible. She tells about reading the higher critics, being surprised at how bogus their scholarship is, and how that made her realize that the Bible must be true. Along with the interview, WORLD printed my review of Rice’s novel on “Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt.” For your convenience, I’ll post it here, after “continue reading.”
Perilous project
Portraying Christ in literature poses special problems. How to portray someone who is both God and Man? Some authors evoke His deity, portraying His transcendence and majesty or turning Him into a mystical inner presence. But they miss His humanity, that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Other authors evoke His humanity, portraying Him as a flesh-and-blood man, often sentimentalized. But they fall short of conveying His divinity.
But Anne Rice, in her novel Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt (Knopf, 2005), hits the orthodox balance. She portrays Jesus as a 7-year-old child, but He is more than a child. He plays, He cries, He is dependent on His parents. But when He yearns to see snow, it snows. When His uncle is sick, the young Jesus heals him. Throughout the novel, Jesus tries to understand who He is, piecing clues together and asking questions. But, as a prophet tells Him, “The day will come when You will have to give us the answers.”
The only potential problem with Mrs. Rice’s novel is the project itself. She tells the story of the 7-year-old Jesus in the first person, from Christ’s point of view. Entering into the mind of Christ, even when He was so young, might seem disturbingly presumptuous. So is making up episodes in His life. This project is indeed fraught with peril. But those objections are softened by the author’s reverence and her care to be biblically and theologically correct. Out of Egypt can best be appreciated as the work of a skillful writer meditating on the Incarnation and the Person of Jesus Christ.
Source material for Christ’s childhood is scanty, so Mrs. Rice makes use of what she has, including apocryphal books excluded from the canon of Scripture. This too is fraught with peril. But Mrs. Rice told WORLD that she herself considers the accounts to be “legends,” and she uses the details while draining them of any heresy. For example, in an apocryphal gospel, the Christ child strikes a bully dead. Lots of schoolchildren would like to do that, but it feels uncharacteristic of the New Testament Jesus. In this novel, a bully hits Jesus, who feels “power go out of Me.” The boy dies, like Uzzah touching the ark, but then later Jesus, sorrowing with the boy’s family, raises him from the dead.
Instead of gnosticism, what we get in this novel is a richly textured imagining of historical reality. Mrs. Rice synthesizes the findings of historians, archeologists, and anthropologists to give us a vivid portrait of everyday life in Bible times—household customs, the observance of Jewish law, what it was like to worship in the Temple. Her portrayal of life in a large extended family—which does characterize tribal societies—is particularly charming. It also makes at least imaginable Mrs. Rice’s Catholic conviction (shared by many of the Reformers) that Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” were not Mary’s children, but a product of adoptions within the kinship system.
Scripture says that Joseph and his family left Egypt when Herod died, but feared his son Archelaus and so moved to Galilee. Mrs. Rice fills in the history, recounting the horrific bloodbaths and insurrections sparked by this change of rule. She portrays the rebels not sympathetically but as plundering bandits. In this anarchy, the Romans are welcomed at first as restorers of order, though they often crucify the innocent with the guilty.
Through these tumultuous times, Jesus grows in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man. We see Him being exposed to things He would later use in His ministry—lilies of the field, living water, moneychangers, weddings, crucifixions. When Jesus, now 8, finally learns that He is the Son of God, He realizes at the same time that He is “born to die.” The setting for this epiphany is significant: He is in the Temple, standing in front of the altar of sacrifice.
— Gene Edward Veith
 Posted by Veith at 09:19 AM
We’ve got everything but happiness
Here are some intriguing quotes in an article on the depression epidemic:
“Americans and Europeans have more of everything except happiness.” Gregg Easterbrook, “The Progress Paradox.”
“Never has a culture experienced such physical comfort combined with such psychological misery.” David G. Myers, “The American Paradox.”The reasons posited by these experts--libertarianism? individualism?--don’t seem totally convincing to me. Some say depression has just been underdiagnosed in the past, with others saying it is being overdiagnosed now, confusing good and valid reasons to be unhappy (relationship breakups, disappointments, health problems) with actual clinical depression. What would be your explanation for such an “epidemic” of unhappiness in our have-it-all culture?
 Posted by Veith at 09:00 AM
Glad we’re not Amish
We’re in Oklahoma visiting my parents. Last night we experienced a strange weather phenomenon. A windstorm. No rain, just wind. Howling. Gusts up to 65 m.p.h. The wind blew down power lines throughout northeast Oklahoma, and the sparks on the dry grass--instead of being put out by rain as would normally be the case--started serious fires all over the place, requiring evacuations. Not where we were. But around 7:00 p.m. the wind blew our electricity out. My mother was able to find flashlights, and then we lit candles. We had a sort of 19th century evening. Then went to bed early, only to be awakened at 2:00 a.m. when the lights, the TV, and the thermostat all came back on. This morning, it was so nice to have electricity, which we normally take for granted, including the ability to fire up my computer. My daughter had the best line: “I’m so glad we’re not Amish.” (No offense to Amish-Americans, of course, whose ability to do without electricity and all this other technology I appreciate even more.)
UPDATE: A good thing about that hard wind is that it blew hundreds of big paper-shell pecans from the neighbor’s tree into my parents’ backyard! I wouldn’t want to have been there when they were flying through the air, but what a bonus! And, according to common law, we do get to keep them, don’t we? (The neighbor’s leaves that blow into our yard become our responsibility to rake, so surely we get the spoil of pecans that invade our property. If not, let me know before we cook them all up into pies.)
 Posted by Veith at 08:51 AM
November 25, 2005
Freegans and the new ascetics
Vegetarians are more righteous than carnivores; Vegans are more righteous than Vegetarians; Fruititarians are more righteous than Vegans. Now we have another way of eating to make a moral statement: Joining the freegans. These folks eat only what has been thrown away. They rescue food from restaurant garbage bins and other rich supplies and so have their feasts, also making a statement against waste and wretched excess.
Homeless people have been doing this for years, of course, but the Freegans are mostly affluent leftists, from what I can tell. But I salute them. Notice the new vogue of ascetism among people who are otherwise hedonists. They wouldn’t think of mortifying their flesh by refraining from extramarital sex, but they will diet and exercise themselves with a medieval rigor. They often take drugs, but insist on natural foods. They have refined sensibilities, but they eat out of garbage dumps. My theory: they feel guilty and are looking for merit. Bondage to sin leads to bondage to the law. May they find the grace of God in Christ, who will give them a much better banquet.
 Posted by Veith at 07:37 AM
Straining at a gnat, swallowing a camel
The South Korean scientist pursuing human cloning has been caught in an ethics scandal. For engendering human beings and letting them die? For experimentation on human beings that leaves them genetically damaged until they die a horrible death? For cloning babies that will never have a father or a mother? No, that sort of thing is OK.
Hwang Woo-suk is guilty of using eggs donated by some of his employees. That runs afoul of the rules that pass for moral principles set up by bureaucratic “ethics boards” that pass for moral arbiters. But the cloning Professor apparently has a tender conscience except for the substance of what he does. He resigned from all of his official posts and gave one of those formal, abject apologies common in Asian cultures, saying, “I am very sorry that I have to tell the public words that are too shameful and horrible.”
UPDATE: Cloning scientists and South Koreans who consider the professor a national hero are rallying to his defense. They hope that now, by giving up his academic posts, he can spend more time in the laboratory.
 Posted by Veith at 06:54 AM
November 23, 2005
The Other Pilgrims
We confessional Lutherans can relate to the Pilgrims, who fled religious persecution in England so they could practice their faith in freedom in the New World. The forebears of the conservative Lutherans in America also fled the persecution of the liberal state church in Prussia. They too settled in parts of the American wilderness and faced great hardship. (The same could be said of others too: Baptists, Mennonites, Amish, Catholics, to name a few.)
To this day, the descendants of those Lutherans are suspicious of ecumenical movements, generic Christianity, and Enlightenment-style rationalism. That’s what took over in the state church of the old country, so that preachers would give sermons on the latest agricultural methods, rather than proclaiming Christ. Pastors who would not agree to the ecumenical liberalism of the day were treated harshly, often imprisoned for such crimes as unauthorized baptisms. Many faithful lay people could not abide the state churches, to the point of giving up everything they had--their homes, family, livelihood--to come to America where they could worship freely. As we celebrate Thanksgiving and honor the memory of those first pilgrims, let us honor too the other pilgrims. May we too have the same courage, faithfulness, and resolution as we face similar pressures and temptations today.
 Posted by Veith at 01:40 PM
We Gather Together to Ask the Lord’s Blessing
You know the hymn often used at Thanksgiving, “We Gather Together to Ask the Lord’s Blessing”? The sing-songy tune seemed rather modern to me, and I didn’t realize that it has its origins in that tumultuous period just after the Reformation, when the Roman Catholics were seeking to undo Luther’s work with the sword. The song was written to celebrate a victory by the Prince of Orange over Spain. The Wall Street Journal, of all things, published a history of the song. (HT: Marvin Olasky)
The song, however, is not in any of the Lutheran hymnals. I give the lyrics after “continue reading.” Can any of you Lutherans determine why this beloved song is not considered suitable for use in worship?
UPDATE: As Maestro says in his comment, a different version of the hymn IS in “Lutheran Worship,” p. 494. I’ll post that one too, after “continue reading.” What are the differences?
We gather together to ask the Lord’s blessing; he chastens and hastens his will to make known; the wicked oppressing now cease from distressing: sing praise to his Name, he forgets not his own.
Beside us to guide us, our God with us joining, ordaining, maintaining his kingdom divine; so from the beginning the fight we were winning: thou, Lord, wast at our side: all glory be thine!
We all do extol thee, thou leader triumphant, and pray that thou still our defender wilt be. Let thy congregation escape tribulation: thy Name be ever praised! O Lord, make us free!
 Lutheran Hymnal version:
We praise you, O God, our Redeemer, Creator; In grateful devotion our tribute we bring. We lay it before you, we kneel and adore you; We bless your holy name, glad praises we sing.
We worship you, God of our fathers, we bless you; Through trial and tempest our guide you have been. When perils over take us, you will not forsake us, And with your help, O Lord, our struggles we win.
With voices united our praises we offer And gladly our songs of thanksgiving we raise. With you, Lord, beside us, your strong arm will guide us. To you, our great Redeemer, forever be praise!
 Posted by Veith at 09:51 AM
Voluntary Human Extinction
HT to Charles Lehman for alerting me to this curious movement, so typical of self-loathing liberalism and anti-human humanism: The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. People are banding together to refuse to have babies. As this catches on, in a few generations, human beings will become extinct, and the planet will return to its natural state of health. Cranach community blogger Scott Stiegmeyer has the links, including a promotional video for the cause. And see Charles’ discussion. My thought: What this more likely means is that in a few generations radical environmentalists and population control advocates will become extinct.
 Posted by Veith at 08:08 AM
The vocation of a guitar player
Link Wray, the guitarist who invented the “power chord” now a mainstay of the rock ‘n’ roll sound, died in Denmark at 76. He is a good example of doing the best within one’s limitations. Not able to move his fingers as fast as other guitar players, he developed the power chord, which is simply a fifth interval using just the two bass strings (with maybe an octave on a third string when convenient). The result, though, was a driving bass sound, which Wray accentuated with feedback and distortion. This simplified approach to guitar playing opened the door for a host of young players, who had the rock ‘n’ roll attitude but not necessarily complex musicianship. (I don’t mean to say Wray was not a good guitar player. He was, and part of the way he made himself one was by ingeniously taking advantage of his limitations.)
Wray moved to Denmark, got married, and apparently--despite his leather jacket and shades image--became rather devout. He also seems to have picked up that Lutheran culture’s sense of vocation. The Associated Press quotes his wife and son on his death:
While playing his guitar he often told the audience, ‘God is playing my guitar, I am with God when I play,’” his wife, Olive, and son, Oliver Christian, wrote. “We saw you go with God, you were smiling.”
 Posted by Veith at 08:00 AM
November 22, 2005
Signs of Advent
I have been posting about wars, rumors of wars, persecutions, and false Messiahs. Without intending to, I realize that the common theme is Advent. As some of you commenters have noted, all of this--and we might as well throw in the recent natural disasters--are described in Scripture as signs of the last days, reminders that Christ is going to return. And that is what Advent is all about, the great leadup to Christmas beginning this Sunday in which Christians are urged to contemplate the Second Coming of Our Lord.
These signs have been with us ever since Christ’s Ascension, of course, meaning that the whole era has been the Last Days. Scripture indicates that when He does come, it will be both a surprise and the proper time. And for Christians, this will be a time not of fear but of the greatest joy. In the meantime, we pray--even in our little table prayer--”come, Lord Jesus.” This has also been the prayer of the martyrs from New Testament times and the prayer of all afflicted Christians. “Come quickly, Lord Jesus.”
 Posted by Veith at 08:57 AM
Islam is OK in public schools, just not Christianity
Remember the controversy in California about public schools, in a multicultural unit on Islam, requiring students to role play being Muslims? That included following the religious customs and even the daily prayers? Some Christian parents sued, claiming that requiring such religious observance in a public school is surely unconstitutional, especially given the way Christianity has been scoured from the classroom. Well, the court just ruled that making public school children practice Islam is OK.
The court ruled that role-playing Islamic customs do not involve the “practice” of a religion, apparently applying tenets of Christian practice, such as organized worship, to that of other religions. In Islam, the observance of the customs IS the practice of the religion. You must see what all Michelle Malkin has put up about this case, including transcripts of the actual curriculum (which begins by telling children “you will become Muslims”).
 Posted by Veith at 08:51 AM
Buddha is back?
The Mahdi is returning, according to the Shiites (as posted yesterday), and according to the Nepalese the Buddha may already be here. A 15 year old boy in Nepal named Ram Bonjom has reportedly been meditating for six months straight, going without food for that whole time. He doesn’t move, nor does he go to the bathroom. After a snake bit him and nothing happened, he spoke. The teenager showed his humility by denying that he was the Buddha, claiming only to be a minor deity.
 Posted by Veith at 08:00 AM
November 21, 2005
Iran and North Korea
And what do the two regimes described below have in common?
 Posted by Veith at 09:23 AM
Shiite Millennialism
In his speeches and his political philosophy, the president of Iran has been articulating what may be at heart of Shiite radicalism: the conviction that the second coming of the 12th Imam, known as the Mahdi, is at hand.
The other major sect of Islam, the Sunnis, oppose this messianic streak, but Iraq is also a predominantly Shiite country, so Americans would do well to understand this Islamic millennialism. Whereas Christian post-millennialists believe Christ will return after they have set up a perfect society of peace and justice, Islamic post-millenialists believe “that the 12th Imam’s return will be hastened by the creation of chaos on earth.”
 Posted by Veith at 09:13 AM
Persecution that rivals Rome’s
Do you own a Bible? In North Korea that is a crime that would get you the death penalty. The Commission on International Religious Freedom has found that North Korea is persecuting Christians on a scale and with a brutality that rivals that of ancient Rome. Read this, from a sober secular newspaper in Canada. Here are some samples of what is happening:
Relying on eyewitness accounts from 40 recent refugees who fled to South Korea via China, the commission says North Korea has created a reign of terror to crush any religious belief that might challenge the god-like authority of leader Kim Jong Il.
The mere possession of a Bible can bring a death sentence, while attending a secret underground church service can result in gruesome public executions.
One eyewitness told commission investigators he witnessed five Christian church leaders being executed by being run over by a steamroller in front of a crowd of spectators.
The underground church leaders were told, “If you abandon religion and serve only Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, you will not be killed,” said the witness, a soldier in a local construction battalion.
“None of the five said a word. Some of the fellow parishioners [who were] assembled to watch the execution cried, screamed out or fainted when the skulls made a popping sound as they were crushed beneath the steamroller.”
In another case, a woman told of being forced to witness the 1997 firing squad execution of a young woman and her father near where the Seong Cheon River runs into the Tumin River.
The young woman had been washing clothes by the river when she accidentally dropped a Bible she had hidden in her laundry.
After three months of interrogation, she and her father were put on trial in a marketplace, condemned as traitors and executed on the spot in front of an assembled crowd of schoolchildren and their teachers.In front of schoolchildren to teach them a lesson. Note the faith of the martyrs here who could have been spared the bulldozer if they renounced their faith, but they did not.
 Posted by Veith at 05:57 AM
November 18, 2005
Christian videos for kids
Here is my take on the Veggie Tales and other ostensibly Christian videos for kids. (You may need to be a subscriber to WORLD or to WORLD’s website to access this article, something I heartily recommend. So I’ll post the article here. Click “continue reading.”) This was also the impetus for my complaint yesterday about Christian material that never mentions Christ.
 Roaches and cucumbers
Fans of Larry the Cucumber and Bob the Tomato will be relieved to know that VeggieTales are back | by Gene Edward Veith
Despite the runaway success of VeggieTales, the company that made the video series, Big Idea Productions, went bankrupt in 2003. A dispute with a distributor led to an $11.5 million judgment against the company. Though that lawsuit was reversed in August, Big Idea had to be sold to Classic Media, owners of Lassie, The Lone Ranger, and Rocky and Bullwinkle.
But fans of Larry the Cucumber and Bob the Tomato will be relieved to know that VeggieTales are back. And with VeggieTales blazing the trail, parents now have a whole range of Christian-themed DVD/videos with which to entertain and possibly edify their children.
The newest VeggieTale, the 27th in the series, is “The Lord of the Beans.” Super-sized at 52 minutes long, the video is a take-off of The Lord of the Rings movies, with Junior Asparagus as Toto Baggypants, a flobbit on a quest involving a magic bean.
VeggieTales are consistently witty, well-written, and creatively animated. Unlike many explicitly “Christian products,” they measure up well against the production values and artistic quality of secular studios.
But dramatizing Bible stories with vegetables can sometimes risk trivializing the Word of God. Reducing the Battle of Jericho to a cucumber and French peas having a slushy fight is funny, yes, but it seems more like a parody than a retelling from the book of Joshua. More irreverent still is the VeggieTale Nativity Set featuring Jesus as a baby carrot.
Episodes that do not presume to play out Bible stories and instead apply biblical concepts to life in a vegetative state (“The Grapes of Wrath,” “Madame Blueberry,” “The Fib from Outer Space”) are more satisfying. And the Tolkien epic is certainly fair game for “The Lord of the Beans.”
This tale has to do with knowing what to do with one’s gifts. Toto’s gift is a magic bean that will generate whatever food, clothing, or small kitchen appliance he might want. In the company of Randalf, Ear-of-Corn, Leg-o-lamb, and a Keebler Elf, he goes on a quest to find out what he should do with it. Barring the way is Scaryman and his Sporks (Orcs as fast-food spoon-fork eating utensil—a danger to vegetables everywhere). Toto learns that the best use of one’s gifts is to use them, not for oneself, but for others. Not a bad treatment of the Christian doctrine of vocation.
Another use of computer-generated 3-D animation to entertain and instruct kids is The Roach Approach from the Christian animator Bruce Barry. Instead of vegetables, this series of DVDs features roaches. Antennaed insects with six legs are not as pleasant to look at as veggies, but kids do like the grossness factor. This series, thankfully, keeps the Bible story and the roach story separate. The Grandpa roach—who has to be really, really old—tells about Bible stories he witnessed (being on Noah’s ark, scuttling around in Daniel’s den of lions). The biblical principle is then applied to a situation the roach family is going through.
Another DVD series in the same market is The Dooley and Pals Show. The covers suggest animation, but these are really live-action episodes with singing and dancing kids and someone in a space alien suit similar to Barney. This comes from the only TV series to be shown on both TBN and PBS. It exists in a “secular version” and a “Christian children’s ministry” version. The only difference is that the latter tacks on little “Bible fun facts,” almost like commercials, giving Bible references on the theme of the day (making new friends, being nice to your mother). But there is nothing distinctly Christian in the content of the show.
The message of all of these DVDs is essentially moralistic. Yes, children need moral instruction. But would it kill any of these “Christian products” to say something about Christ? Posted by Veith at 06:03 AM
Corpse art revisited
I’m glad to see that the travelling exhibit based on the desecration of the dead is finally getting some bad press. I thought my article on the subject was the only one.
 Posted by Veith at 05:55 AM
War questions
So now key Democrats are calling for an immediate pull-out from Iraq. First of all, in what sense is the war going badly? We have won a huge military victory in defeating Saddam’s forces so handily. We have established a democratic government. Saddam Hussein is on trial by his own people. Why isn’t this seen as an amazing success? Yes, insurgents are still fighting. But doesn’t that mean the war isn’t over, not that we aren’t winning?
Second, let us grant for a moment that this war was unnecessary, that it shouldn’t have happened, that there were no WMDs, that we never should have invaded. OK. So what NOW? If we pull out now, will there not be a massive bloodbath? Won’t the radical Muslims see their defeat of the USA a great victory that will embolden them further in their terrorism? Won’t they take over in the power vacuum we would be leaving and proceed to execute untold numbers of Iraqis? Don’t we have a responsibility now--whatever the wisdom of the initial involvement--that means we have to see it through? If we leave now, wouldn’t the peace activists have bloody hands?
 Posted by Veith at 05:43 AM
November 17, 2005
Vocation and the Lord’s Supper
An amazing passage from Luther, showing him to be not just a theologian but a creative writer of the highest order. (HT: Ilona Kuchta):
You know when we make bread all the grains of wheat are crushed and ground, so that each grain becomes the flour of the others, they are then mixed together so that we see in a sack of flour all the grains joined together, and that each has become the flour of the other, and no grain of wheat retains its own form, but each gives the other its flour, and each loses its body, in order that the body of the many grains may become the body of one bread. The same way is it when we make wine, each grape mixes its juice with the juice of the other grapes, and each loses its form, so that there comes from it one drink.
So should it also be with us. When I become a public servant and serve you so that you enjoy my service whenever you need me, then I am thus your food; even as you enjoy your daily bread when you are hungry so that it helps and gives strength to your weak body and your hungry stomach. Therefore when I help and serve you in every time of need, then I am thus your bread. Again, art thou also a Christian, then thou dost in return act so that thou dost serve me with all thou hast, that all may be benefited and that I may enjoy’ the same as my meat or drink. For example, am I a sinner and thou art pious through God’s grace, then thou approachest me and sharest thy piety with me, thou prayest for me, intercedest in my behalf before God, and dost interest thyself in me as if thou wast in my place. Thus thou dost swallow by thy godliness my sins, as Christ devoured our sins. Thus thou eatest me; then I in return eat you.
Here you see what an exceedingly great thing this Sacrament is when a person uses it aright, that man would be terrified to death because of its greatness, if he fully experienced it; for reason can never grasp it. Is it not great that the High Majesty intercedes for me and even gives himself as my own?Luther, Maundy Thursday Sermon, 1523
 Posted by Veith at 08:40 AM
Christianity without Christ
Lately, I’ve been reviewing all kinds of Christian material--children’s videos, books, scholarship--and I’ve been struck at how so much of it never so much as mentions Christ. In that context, reading “Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt” by Anne Rice has been so refreshing. It is a sustained meditation on in the Incarnation, the One who is very God and very Man. I’m almost finished with the book, which, for all of its faults (I’ll post my review when I write it), has been very helpful to me in re-centering myself back on Christ. Last night I wrote my next WORLD column on “Putting Christ Back Into Christianity.” (Not Christmas, Christianity.) I’ll post that too once it’s published. Then I came across the Luther quote, which I posted below.
 Posted by Veith at 08:33 AM
Quote of the day
“I know nowhere to find God, either in heaven or on earth, except in the flesh of Christ”. Martin Luther (LW 23, 123). HT: John Kleinig
 Posted by Veith at 08:31 AM
November 16, 2005
First sighting of Narnia movie
The makers of the movie “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe” have finally made the final cut and have shown it to just a tiny number of people. One of them was Christian movie critic Ted Baehr. He liked it a lot and reported that while there were a few theologically-significant changes from the book, the overall symbolism of Christ’s redemption comes out loud and clear. Click “continue reading” for the full story.
ASSIST News Service (ANS) -- PO Box 609, Lake Forest, CA 92609-0609 USA Visit our web site at: www.assistnews.net — E-mail: danjuma1@aol.com
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
‘ABSOLUTELY THRILLING! DISNEY’S CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDDROBE MOVIE FAITHFULLY TRANSLATES THE ENTERTAINING REDEMPTIVE STORY OF THE FAMOUS NOVEL’ That’s the view of Christian media expert, Dr. Ted Baehr
By Dan Wooding Founder of ASSIST Ministries
HOLLYWOOD, CA (ANS) — “The great news is that the Disney movie version of THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE is not only very entertaining, but clearly retains the deeper truth and essence of C. S. Lewis’s great novel, the first in his great seven part CHRONICLES OF NARNIA redemptive fantasy series.”
That’s the view of Dr. Ted Baehr, founder and publisher of MOVIEGUIDE® after he was among the audience at the Director’s Guild just eleven hours after the final edits.
He told ANS, “The audience I was with thrilled to the exciting motion picture, adapted beautifully from the novel that almost one hundred million people have read and loved. Neither the fans of the book, nor the fans of the story behind the story, will be disappointed.”
Dr. Baehr went on to say, “The movie works well and is a great tool for the Church to help people understand the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Very, very few people will see the slight divergences that the movie takes from the novel. Even fewer will understand that the novel itself made an excellent entertaining script for the 1979 CBS Television version that won an Emmy in 1980. And, even fewer will see the very slight and subtle shifts in the new movie.
“That said, it should be noted that a large portion of the readers have missed the book’s clear Christological allusions, although C. S. Lewis said in his March 1961 letter to Anne that THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE was his way of retelling the true story of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
“The movie itself starts slightly before the book with an air raid in London that puts the four Pevensie children, Lucy, Peter, Edmund, and Susan, in jeopardy. The children are sent out of the city to stay with Prof. Kirk in the countryside for protection.”
Ted Baehr being interviewed by Dan Wooding
Dr. Baehr then explains the story:
“During a game of Hide and Seek, Lucy stumbles on an old wardrobe. The wardrobe leads her to Narnia, a world with talking animals and mythical creatures. There, she meets a faun, who thinks better of kidnapping her and puts his life in jeopardy by letting her return to the world of men.
“By the way, the issue in Narnia is this: The evil White Witch has taken control of the land, turning it into a state of forever winter but never Christmas. A prophecy says that four sons and daughters of Adam and Eve will come to Narnia and help of Aslan, the son of the Emperor Beyond the Sea, free Narnia from the White Witch. To thwart the prophecy, the White Witch has told everyone that, if they see a son or daughter of Adam and Eve, they should kidnap and bring them to her. Amusingly, the creatures of Narnia believe that the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve are a false myth.
“When Lucy returns to the world of human beings, her brothers Edmund and Peter and her sister Susan do not believe she was in Narnia. Lucy goes to Narnia through the wardrobe a second time. Edmund follows her and becomes a pawn of the White Witch by being enticed by her seductive traits. Like Satan, the White Witch offers Edmund something that he already has, the ability to rule Narnia, and traps him with a counterfeit sacrament of Turkish Delight, a jelly confection dusted with sugar. When Edmund and Lucy return, Edmund lies and tells Susan and Peter that Lucy was making everything up.
“Eventually, all four children walk through the wardrobe to Narnia. The White Witch captures Edmund. His sisters and brother must find rush to find Aslan to try to set Edmund free. Aslan has returned to Narnia to defeat the White Witch and bring Christmas and spring back to the land.
“Eventually, Aslan makes a bargain with the White Witch that he will die for Edmund’s treachery. Thus, the battle begins to deliver Narnia from the clutches of the White Witch, and the resurrection of Aslan breaks the Witch’s control over Narnia.”
Dr. Baehr went on to say, “THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE is tremendously exciting. Some of the early defects have been cured. There is a sense of Providence leading the children into Narnia. There is also a prophetic element.
“The production quality is much greater than the sum of its parts. The camerawork is great. The computer generated images are terrific and enchanting. The four children are very good, especially Lucy. Everyone involved deserves high praise.
“Though they have deleted some scenes from the book and added others, the story has retained its theological foundation. Some of this is due to the strength of the book itself. Certainly some of the theology has been toned down. There are no direct references to the Emperor Beyond the Sea, for instance. Also, the sacramental communion banquet with the coming of Father Christmas and the gifts of the Spirit has been truncated into a very brief scene with Father Christmas.
“Finally, the resurrection romp with Aslan, Lucy and Susan has also been eliminated, and the movie focuses more on the children being the solution to the evil in Narnia when in fact the victory is Aslan’s, and the children, just like we are in our world, are more than conquerors because they are heirs to the victory that Aslan wins on the stone table, and Jesus Christ won on the cross.
“Again, however, these changes are subtle, with a little more emphasis on the Creation rather than the Creator. Even so, you have to be very close to the book and very theologically astute to notice the changes.
“In fact, the movie is a very clear Christological allusion, or imagining, of the story of Jesus Christ. The minor changes do not take away from that meaning in the book, which lifts up the Son of God, Jesus Christ, as our deliverer from the eternal winter of sin and damnation. After months of anticipation, those who love NARNIA can rejoice that Disney and Walden have given them a wonderful movie that tells the story in an entertaining, exciting, thrilling, and respectful way.
“Andrew Adamson said that when he directed the movie, he started from his memory. He felt that the book was too thin, so the movie reflects his memory of the book, not the actual book. He understands the element of sacrifice and redemption, but his concern was for the empowering of the children. Clearly, his perspective helped produce the subtle shift from the great clarity of the book itself, but his love for the original source ultimately keeps the movie on target.”
Note: Ted Baehr along with his son James, have released NARNIA BECKONS: C. S. Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and Beyond to readers of all ages. It is published by Broadman and Holman.
Dan Wooding is an award winning British journalist now living in Southern California with his wife Norma. He is the founder and international director of ASSIST (Aid to Special Saints in Strategic Times) and the ASSIST News Service (ANS). Wooding is the co-host of the weekly radio show, “Window on the World” and was, for ten years a commentator, on the UPI Radio Network in Washington, DC. He also co-hosts three days a week a live phone-in show called “Pastor’s Perspective” with Brian Brodersen which is carried on KWVE, Santa Ana, California, and other radio stations across the USA. Wooding is the author of some 42 books, the latest of which is his autobiography, “From Tabloid to Truth”, which is published by Theatron Books. To order a copy, go to www.fromtabloidtotruth.com. danjuma1@aol.com
 ** You may republish this story with proper attribution.
Send this story to a friend. ASSIST News Service is brought to you in part by Gospel for Asia. GFA’s vision is to train, equip and send 100,000 native missionaries into the most unreached areas of Asia. By God’s grace, more than 14,500 native missionaries are now serving and planting six churches every day! You can help sponsor a native missionary for less than a dollar a day. To learn more about GFA and their work among the Dalits (Untouchables) of India please go to their website at www.gfa.org or in North America call 1-800-WIN-ASIA. ASSIST News Service is brought to you free of charge and is supported by friends like yourself. If you would like to make a donation (tax-deductible in the US) to help us continue this service around the world, you can do so by logging onto our website — www.assistnews.net — and making the donation by credit card or by sending a check to ASSIST, PO Box 609, Lake Forest, CA 92609-0609 USA . If this story has been forwarded to you, click here for your own subscription to Assist News.
 Posted by Veith at 10:19 AM
The ways of a man with a maid
A woman in California is getting married to the man who shot her and held her hostage in a garage for six days. “I love [him] today as deeply as I loved him before this awful thing happened to us,” she said. “We are soul mates.” She went on: “I want to tell you all that I have forgiven [him]. And I pray that [he] has forgiven me for failing him when he needed me most.”
This is a rather extreme example of something I have long noted and railed against: Why are so many women attracted to men who are brutal, dangerous, and who mistreat them terribly? And, conversely, why do so many of these same women women scorn men who are nice, good, and who would make them happy?
 Posted by Veith at 08:52 AM
Birth control dangers
Faithful reader Nadine Grayl asked that I blog and that we discuss this story, which is not getting the attention it deserves: It turns out the Ortho Evra birth control patch is exposing women to far greater levels of hormones than had been realized, resulting in a significantly higher risk of blood clots and other bad side effects. You can read part of the AP report by clicking “continue reading” and get the whole article here.
I asked Nadine what direction she’d like our discussion to pursue, and here is what she said:
The morality of birth control may be a good direction . . . it could be related to women not being informed about the birth control choices they make (which is one of my sore spots). Another thing that got me in the article -- and this is probably linked to feminism and women’s rights. I couldn’t believe it when Dr. Leslie Miller said (my comments within), “Women should not just take off their patch; they risk pregnancy (as if that’s worse than being injured or even killed from a blood clot). If they are worried (and they shouldn’t be?!) and want to change off the patch, they can wait to get something else” (they can’t make responsible decisions in the meantime such as not have sex -- which is a novel idea -- choose a natural method which I am sure the doctor wouldn’t even bring up -- or buy condoms at the drug store?).”
WASHINGTON — The Food and Drug Administration warned users of the popular Ortho Evra birth control patch that they are being exposed to more hormones, and are therefore at higher risk of blood clots and other serious side effects, than previously disclosed.
Until now, regulators and patch-maker Ortho McNeil, a Johnson and Johnson subsidiary, had maintained the patch was expected to be associated with similar risks as the pill. But a strongly worded warning was added to the patch label Thursday that says women using the patch will be exposed to about 60 percent more estrogen than those using typical birth control pills.
“I wish I had known. It’s quite likely I would never have used it,” said Jennifer Cowperthwaite, 26, of Broad Brook, Conn., who still suffers breathing problems after a blood clot reached her lungs two years ago after using the patch.
Although most pills and the patch are loaded with the same amount of estrogen, hormones from patches go directly into the bloodstream while pills are swallowed and digested first. The result is that women using the patch have much higher levels of estrogen in their bodies.
Thursday’s warning comes four months after The Associated Press reported that patch users die and suffer blood clots at a rate three times higher than women taking the pill.
 Posted by Veith at 08:34 AM
November 15, 2005
Taking the vocation out of the Jarhead
For a film as far removed as possible from Jane Austen (see the post below), there is “Jarhead.” I recently reviewed that for WORLD also. Click here to read it. To use the terminology we’ve been using on the blog, I think what really annoyed me about this depiction of military life in Operation Desert Storm (the first Gulf War), is that it excises any sense of vocation, portraying the Marines as just a bunch of brutal and messed up kids. That is insulting to those who love and serve us by bearing the sword.
 Posted by Veith at 11:01 AM
A really, really good movie
I’ve been reviewing movies for WORLD lately. I want to report to all you readers about a movie that is outstanding in every way: “Pride & Prejudice.” There is no bad language, no violence, no idiotic ideas. Just an extremely satisfying rendition of one of the greatest novels of all time. And it is not just a “chick flick.” Guys will like it too. Read my review (as yet unpublished) by clicking “continue reading.”
 Austen’s power
Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice is one of the great novels of the English language. Like a good many classic novels, it is about the trials and tribulations of finding the right person to marry. Here the obstacles to the couple getting together are not the usual external complications (a rival, family opposition, a nefarious villain, physical separation). Rather, the woman and the man have to overcome their own misunderstandings, miscommunication, hurt feelings, pride, and prejudice.
Miss Austen’s novel features lively characters, an intricate plot, and a combination of moral earnestness and humor. And the new movie version of Pride and Prejudice (rated PG) is faithful to both the letter and the spirit of Miss Austen’s masterpiece.
Keira Knightley is stunning as the rapier-witted Elizabeth, and Matthew MacFadyen is suitably morose as Mr. Darcy. Another notable performance is that of Donald Sutherland as the father, who plays an important but often overlooked part in the novel. Mr. Sutherland nails the complex character, who is full of affection for his five daughters and whose satirical mind is where Elizabeth gets hers from, but who fails to exert the leadership the family needs.
The movie is sumptuous to look upon, and it captures well both the sights and the feel of early 19th century England. We are immersed in a graceful culture where sexual immorality is a devastating blow to the family honor. And where a gentleman’s moral character changes a woman’s hostility into love.
This is no mere chick flick. Guys will like it too, if only to gaze upon the intensely beautiful Ms. Knightley. But men will especially appreciate the movie if they use it as a learning opportunity. Guys should ask themselves, why are women nearly always Jane Austen fans? It is not a matter of sappy romance, since Miss Austen scorns that as much as anyone. But women resonate with her portrait of the strong, intelligent, and exquisitely feminine “lady.” And they really resonate with Miss Austen’s portrait of a specific kind of masculine character: the forceful, honorable “gentleman” that 21st century guys would do well to emulate.
 Posted by Veith at 10:54 AM
November 14, 2005
Read blogs backwards
To make sense of the three blogs below, remember that blog entries show the most recent one first. So for the issue that sparked the others, scroll down and read “New York Times vs. C. S. Lewis” first, then the one above it, and then the one above that.
UPDATE: See Bunnie Diehl’s take on the NY Times hit piece.
UPDATE: It’s amazing how Hollywood and the NY Times are assuming that the Christian element might hurt the film at the box office. They think the general public is like them!
 Posted by Veith at 08:58 AM
My book on the subject
I feel shy about promoting my own writings, but my new book on Lewis has been mentioned in the comments, and I do address the Fantasy War between Pullman and Lewis in some detail. Besides, the publishers have set up a whole website for my book that you might as well know about: The Soul of the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
In that book, I set up a way for Lewis himself to critique what Pullman does in trying to sell atheism to young people. “His Dark Materials” draws on John Milton, of all things, using the conceit of some “Paradise Lost” scholars that SATAN is the real hero of that epic poem. So Pullman turns the Garden of Eden upside down. In his fantasy, Satan is the hero and God is the villain. God is oppressive, mean, freedom-denying, whereas Satan offers the more culturally-attractive qualities of rebellion against authority, do-what-ever-you-want freedom, sexual experimentation, the promise of knowledge.
As it happens, Lewis was one of the world’s great Milton scholars, and he took on this silly misreading of “Paradise Lost.” Lewis shows that to us fallen readers, we may indeed be attracted to the lies and phony allure of Satan--just as Adam and Eve were! But Lewis goes on to puncture that appeal and uncovers the mindset behind it. So in my book, I use Lewis’s Milton scholarship to critique Pullman’s fantasy! It’s quite a tour de force, if I do say so myself.
 Posted by Veith at 08:41 AM
Answering Pullman’s attack on Lewis
Philip Pullman, discussed in the post below, wrote another popular fantasy series “His Dark Materials” designed to do for atheism what Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia does for Christianity, namely, make an imaginatively attractive case for that belief system designed to win over children. As Christians get all bent out of shape over Harry Potter, most of them are oblivious to the far, far more insidious “Dark Materials,” which is also being made into a major motion picture.
The best short critique of Pullman and in particular his ridiculous charges against the Narnia books that have been resurrected by the “New York Times” is by Peter Hitchens, whose brother Christopher also does not suffer fools gladly. Read it here.
 Posted by Veith at 08:35 AM
New York Times vs. C. S. Lewis
The secularists must be worried at the prospect of so much Christianity getting injected into the culture, with the opening in a few weeks of the Narnia movie. So the New York Times has published an exceedlingly odd and outlandish article trying to discredit C. S. Lewis. The article, by Charles McGrath, draws on two writers hostile to Lewis, A. N. Wilson and Philip Pullman,uncritically accepting their claims--that have been refuted by more informed scholars--and running with them.
During World War I, Lewis and his friend Edward Moore, both soldiers, promised each other to take care of their mothers if the other died in combat. Edward did die, so Lewis took in Mrs. Moore and took care of her for the rest of her life, despite her nagging and unpleasant personality. A. N. Wilson was the first to interpret Lewis’s selfless good work as a SEXUAL relationship! In his biography of Lewis, he doesn’t even give evidence, just says there is no reason not to think so. No evidence of an affair with this woman old enough to be his mother has ever arisen. Then again, from the point of view of many secularists, the ABSENCE of sex is an even greater mark against someone.
So the article also draws on Philip Pullman’s criticism of Lewis for the lack of sex in Narnia, as if the children who are the main characters and the main readers of the book SHOULD be sexualized. Pullman says that Lewis is idealizing children’s lack of sexuality, and that when one of them grows up and gets interested in boys, he condemns her to Hell. As literary critics have shown, this is an absurd misreading of the detail in “The Last Battle” that Susan has grown up to lose interest in Narnia--being more concerned with nylons and make-up--and so is not there at the end of time. This symbolizes how people often lose their faith, considering it a phase of their childhood, thinking that they have become too sophisticated to believe in Christianity, as they become more worldly, status-conscious, and shallow. I suspect that syndrome can be found in many of these attackers of Lewis.
 Posted by Veith at 08:13 AM
November 11, 2005
Anne Rice’s “Christ the Lord”
This is a WORLD-related sub-blog, so it has ads. Needless to say, I do not necessarily recommend the products advertised on this site. But I just noticed that there is an ad here for Anne Rice’s new novel on the young Jesus. As was blogged previously, she has switched away from her vampire and soft-core sado-masochistic interest and has seriously come back to the Christian faith. Now she wants to dedicate her talents to the Lord. I’m reading her novel “Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt” (advertised to the left) and I’m amazed at how good and orthodox it is! Has anyone else read it? (I’m probably going to review it for WORLD and will report again once I’ve finished it.)
 Posted by Veith at 11:53 AM
Not vocations
In line with the post below on 50 Cent (okay, he WAS a criminal, though someone who is still getting people killed, though indirectly, is not much better), what are some other LEGAL occupations that are not true callings from God? That is, they do not involve loving and serving one’s neighbor but harming them. Abortionists and pornographers would be obvious examples. What would be some others?
 Posted by Veith at 08:27 AM
Today’s holiday
Today is Veterans Day. Thanks to you veterans for not “bearing the sword in vain.” The reason this observance falls on November 11 is that this is the date, formerly known as “Armistice Day,” that World War I officially ended, that war to end all wars.
Here is a minimum requirement for any new holiday: It has to commemorate an actual day! The only way we should have a Ten Commandments Day is if archeologists find of evidence of the actual point on the calendar on which God met Moses on Mt. Sinai. And, no, I do not approve of secularized movable feasts that shift historical observances to a Monday just to give federal workers a long weekend. I give dispensation to Thanksgiving always falling on a Thursday. (Note that my view of relating holidays to a particular day in the calendar comes from my appreciation of the Church year.)
 Posted by Veith at 08:00 AM
The vocation of criminals and artists
50 Cent is a criminal--a crack dealer riddled with bullet wounds from his gunfights--who, like many others in his profession, has become a rapper and now a movie star. Since vocation involves loving and serving one’s neighbor, there is no criminal vocation. Selling people crack and shooting them does not involve loving and serving them. Being an artist IS a way to love and people and so is a valid vocation. But making art that instead of loving and serving the audience corrupts and harms them is a sin against the artistic vocation. Make sense? There is a criterion for evaluating art.
It takes hundreds of people, with many skills and God-given vocational talents, to make a movie. It seems that movie people thought from the beginning that 50 Cent’s biopic “Get Rich or Die Tryin’”--glamorizing crack dealers and street crime and made by the artsy director Jim Sheridan--might inspire its audience to commit violence. Now, sure enough, moviegoer has been killed. Now and only now are some theaters pulling the movie, it not being part of their vocation to get their viewers killed.
 Posted by Veith at 07:14 AM
November 10, 2005
The riots and the welfare state
I do agree with Rev. Cwirla’s comment on the M-Word post that the riots in France have to do with that enlightened welfare state’s abysmal treatment of its immigrant population, due in large part to its controlled economy that gives sinecures to the employed, while keeping unemployment high; and giving welfare to its poor while dehumanizing them and keeping them down.
When I was in Paris a few years ago, I witnessed a gendarme knocking an Arab kid to the ground and after he was down just beating him with his baton for the crime of trying to sell Eiffel Tower trinkets to us tourists without a license. That would have been a Rodney King moment here, but no one paid any attention.
Here, I buy my gas from a station owned by a Pakistani. His business has grown. He bought a second station. And now a third station. This really is the land of opportunity, and our immigrants know it. But his success would not be allowed in France.
 Posted by Veith at 11:35 AM
Avoiding the M-word
The rioters in France are Muslims. But many newspapers in the United States and even in France are avoiding mentioning that little fact. (HT: The Pearcey Report)
 Posted by Veith at 08:36 AM
Also on Martin Luther’s birthday,
the U. S. Marine Corps was founded 230 years ago (HT: Michelle Malkin).
And the Edmund Fitzgerald went down in Lake Superior, with all 29 hands, 30 years ago.
 Posted by Veith at 08:19 AM
Happy birthday dear Martin
 On this day, November 10, in 1483, Martin Luther was born. And yesterday, Aardvark Alley reminds us, was the birthday of the “other Martin,” Martin Chemnitz in 1522.
 Posted by Veith at 08:03 AM
Image vs. Reality
Orycteropus Afer (huh?) writes:
You said, “I think beer, brats, and Laverne & Shirley DO give Milwaukee a good image, but that’s another topic.” Why not begin that topic soon? Sounds like vocation to me. Do entities and nations have vocation? Hmm.
OK. I also read recently that Baltimore is trying to change its image, and I’m not even sure what it’s image is. So is St. Louis. So is Oklahoma City. I suspect lots more cities are hiring expensive PR firms to try to make them appear young, cool, and high-tech. If they are all successful, every city will have the same image as everyone else. Which will mean no reason for those high-tech jobs we keep hearing about to go to any particular place. Church bodies too, I understand, have inferiority complexes about their images. Why not concentrate on the realities and make the most of them?
 Posted by Veith at 07:47 AM
November 09, 2005
France, minorities, and culture
Pat Buchanan says that what we are seeing with the French riots is the way Empires end. Rome conquered the barbarians, he says, and then those barbarians conquered Rome. Europe colonized other countries, and now the citizens of that colonialism who now reside in the mother countries are rising up. Buchanan sees the current riots as one phase of the battle between the “old Europe” of Western civiilization and the “new Europe” of Islamic immigrants. He thinks eventually, due primarily to the non-replacement birthrate of the former and the burgeoning birthrate of the latter, the democracies of Europe will become Islamic.
He may be exaggerating. But what was most interesting in Buchanan’s essay is his contrast between African-Americans in this country and the African-Arabic-French over there:
While, as late as the 1950s, black Americans were not integrated fully into our economy or society, they had been assimilated into American culture. They worshipped the same God, spoke the same language, had endured the same Depression and war, listened to the same music and radio, watched the same TV shows, laughed at the same comedians, went to the same movies, ate the same foods, read the same books, magazines and newspapers, and went to schools where, even when they were segregated, they learned the same history.
We were divided, but we were also one nation and one people. Black folks were as American as apple pie, having lived in our common land longer than almost every other ethnic group save Native Americans. And America had a history of having assimilated immigrants in the tens of millions from Europe.
But no European nation has ever assimilated a large body of immigrant peoples, let alone people of color. Moreover, the African and Islamic peoples pouring into Europe—there are 20 million there now—are, unlike black Americans, strangers in a new land, and millions wish to remain proud Algerians, Muslims, Moroccans.
These newcomers worship a different God and practice a faith historically hostile to Christianity, a traditionalist faith that is rising again and recoils violently from a secular culture saturated in sex.
Severed from the civilization and cultures of their parents, these Arab and Muslim youth may hold French citizenship and carry French passports, but they are no more French than Americans who live in Paris are French. Searching for a community to which they can truly belong, they gravitate to mosques where the imams, many themselves immigrants, teach and preach that the West is not their true home, but a civilization alien to their values and historically hostile to their nations and Islam. Posted by Veith at 02:32 PM
Business evangelists
Some of us worry about churches trying to be like businesses. Well, businesses are also trying to be like churches. Note the theological terms that have now become corporate cliches: mission, vision, inspiration, creation, redemption (as in prizes and bonds). Here is another one I have just come across. The city of Milwaukee, with its environs, is starting a big public relations campaign to change its image from beer, brats, and Laverne & Shirley to something hip, cool, and high-tech. (I think beer, brats, and Laverne & Shirley DO give Milwaukee a good image, but that’s another topic.) So the city movers and shakers have put together a marketing campaign featuring “evangelists” to talk up the city. I guess they will corner people and ask them to accept Milwaukee into their hearts.
 Posted by Veith at 07:43 AM
Packer-induced dementia
When I first heard that the Philadelphia Eagles suspended their Pro-Bowl wide receiver Terrell Owens for his obnoxious antics, my first thought was, “Good! It’s time teams stop putting up with that egotistic, self-centered showboat, no matter how good he is!” My second thought was, “Hey, maybe the Packers could get him!”
And if the Eagles waive him, the Packers would get first shot at him, due to their bottom-dwelling 1-7 record!
Brett Favre’s exploits in his career are even greater than they seem, since he has seldom had any world-class receivers to throw to. What would he have accomplished if he had targets who didn’t drop the ball and who could catch in a crowd? What if the Packers had had a Randy Moss, to name another character-deficient but vocationally-gifted receiver? Or a Terrell Owens?
This is the year of woe for Packers fans. Pretty much the entire first string of receivers and running backs got injured. And then pretty much the entire second string got injured. The Packers are playing with waiver-wire refugees and bodies from the practice squad. Favre, near the end of his great career, still shows signs of his old genius, though his body may be starting to give up.
So the season is at its midway mark and the Packers have won only ONE game! It is being said that bringing in Terrell Owens would throw off the team’s chemistry. CHEMISTRY! They have only won ONE game.
 Posted by Veith at 07:30 AM
November 08, 2005
More on that “oldest” church
There is actually an archeology blog that discusses that church building they just dug up, underneath a prison near Armaggedon, which some experts think might be the oldest church ever found. (HT: Hugh Hewitt) The blogger says that many historians didn’t think there even were any churches--in the sense of a distinct, public building set aside for worship--until Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 A.D. (Before that, Christians had to worship in secret, in homes and catacombs.) But this structure might be from a century earlier. See too this article from the Washington Post.
Archaeologists know it is old because it uses the Fish symbol (the acronymn in Greek for “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior”) rather than the Crucifix, which later became the dominant Christian symbol. The tiles and mosaic art are spectacular (showing that the use of art in churches as ornament and to symbolize the faith is also very early--though this structure shows no sign of icon veneration, with much of the mosaic work being texts of Scripture and other manifestations of the Word).
In the center of the space is a table, with the words on the floor: “The God-loving Aketous has offered this table to the God Jesus Christ, as a memorial.” Again, we see the early confession of the deity of Christ. Also, this suggests that the Eucharist was, literally, at the center of the worship. And since it was celebrated at a table--rather than an altar, which arose later--it was probably not thought of as a sacrifice, as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy would teach. And, we solve the mystery of yesterday’s puzzle, as to what that one inscription with the “GA” says. . . .
From “The Washington Post”:
Along the edge of the largest mosaic, featuring at its center the early Christian symbol of two fish, an ancient Greek inscription, roughly translated, reads: “Gaianos, also called Porphyrio, centurion, our brother, having sought honor with his own money, has made this mosaic. Brouti has carried out the work.” Tepper said the inscription refers to a Roman officer — many officers were early converts to Christianity — who financed the structure’s construction.
An inscription on a second mosaic, closer to the base of a pedestal whose use archaeologists have not determined, recalls by name four women from the community.A Roman centurion--”our brother”--gave the money for the artwork. Women also were major supporters of the early church. This all sounds like the church as described in the New Testament: wealthy women patrons, gentile converts, centurions giving money for buildings (as the one in Luke 7:5).
 Posted by Veith at 08:05 AM
Vocation, Law, & Gospel
The blog Little Loci has a good recap of the different positions in the controversy over whether the doctrine of vocation is law or gospel. (HT: Todd Peperkorn)
I was taught in Adult Confirmation that “what we are supposed to do” is law, and that “what God does for us” is gospel. (Not THE Law and THE Gospel, except in the sense that every word of law points to Mt. Sinai and every word of gospel points to Mt. Calvary.) The doctrine of vocation is just true, like the doctrine of the Trinity (we don’t ask whether the Trinity is law or gospel, do we?). But vocation involves both what we are supposed to do (law) and what God does for us (gospel).
So consider the farmer. He may well need to be exhorted to do his duty, to get out in that field and stop wasting time, to stop scamming the government agriculture program, to pay his hired hand what he deserves, to love and serve his neighbor. (That’s the Law part of vocation.) But then he hears that God is providing daily bread for the world through his vocation, that, in the words of the catechism, “God gives daily bread indeed without our prayer, also to all the wicked.” (That is not Law, since it refers not to human action at all but to God’s work and His gifts, and so is the gospel part of vocation.)
Or consider the vocation of the pastor. Of course law is a big part of it--the demands of the office, the high standards, the responsibility and obligations. And pastors, in their office, must hear the law and feel the weight of the law all the time. But then when they consider that God is using their office--despite their own shortcomings--to bring Christ to people, they can see their vocation as, literally, a channel for the gospel.
A pastor says, “I , by virtue of my office as a CALLED (vocatio) and ordained servant of the Word, announce the grace of God unto all of you, and in the stead and by command of my Lord Jesus Christ I forgive you all your sins. . . .”
That is perhaps the purest expression of the doctrine of vocation, a truth that also applies in God’s secular kingdom for farmers, parents, and others, that God works through the earthen, law-needing vessels of human beings. So when we speak of God’s working in absolution, or in giving daily bread, or in bringing children to life through parents, how can that part of vocation be Law?
 Posted by Veith at 07:33 AM
November 07, 2005
Too much Christianity in sports?
Washington Nationals outfielder Ryan Church was heard lamenting that Jews won’t go to Heaven. So the Baseball Chapel chaplain who told him so got suspended, for the crime of teaching that Christ is is the only way to salvation. Now baseball commissioner Bud Selig, who is Jewish, is investigating the Baseball Chapel ministry, prompting journalists to decry similar ministries in the other sports. Here is one solution being put forward: “Provide chapel services that are devoted to inclusive prayers respectful of a wider range of religious beliefs. ” One more step towards our culture’s new polytheism.
 Posted by Veith at 11:24 AM
Earliest church and its confession
Israeli archeologists unearthed what may be the oldest church building ever discovered. On the floor, set in title, are inscriptions of Bible verses and a confession of faith: “The God Jesus Christ.” Liberal historical critics claim that belief in the deity of Christ was a very late innovation, coming from the Greeks rather than the Jews. This would prove otherwise.
Here are more details. [UPDATE: That server keeps being busy. Click "continue reading" for the story.] And here is one of the mosaics that made up the floor. [BONUS POINTS: Can anyone provide a translation?]From ASSIST News Service:
Sunday, November 6, 2005
RUINS OF ‘OLDEST CHURCH’ UNCOVERED BENEATH ISRAELI PRISON
By Michael Ireland Chief Correspondent, ASSIST News Service
ISRAEL (ANS) — The ruins of what could be the oldest Christian church in the Middle East, and probably the whole world, were discovered a few days ago in the Megiddo prison area, an Israeli television station reported this weekend.
According to an online report by Sharon Rofeh-Ophir, an archeological dig in Megiddo uncovered what appears to be a church dating back to 3rd, 4th century CE.
Rofeh-Ophir reports: “Tens of prisoners at the high-security prison where 1,200 security prisoners are held helped in the archeological digs that led archeologists to the exceptional discovery. “
Rofeh-Ohir says the Israel Prison Services approached the government for a construction permit in the Megiddo area where it had planned to expand the prison by few new compounds — yet the Israel Antiquities Authority demanded the government uphold constructions, paving the way for archeological digs in the area.
The online report says the Megiddo area is known as a rich terrain for archeological findings from different historical ages. It adds that prison services allowed archeologists to draft prisoners to their digs where a number of coins and crockery have been found since February.
Church’s ruins showing Greek inscriptions (Photo: Channel 2)
Rofeh-Ophir states: “Two weeks ago diggers discovered what seems to be an architectural structure which was later identified as the remains of a church. Archeologists identified a spectacular mosaic floor and the foundations of a building dating back to the third or fourth century CE.
The discovery sent joyous waves among archeologists working on the project who soon realized the magnitude of the discovery.
Ornaments paved the foundations of the church where inscriptions and biblical citations in old Greek were found. One of the inscriptions read that the building was dedicated to “the memory of the Lord Jesus Cristos.”
Yotam Tefer, the dig’s supervisor, said: “Christian religious buildings from that period are rare archeological findings in the Land of Israel. Mosaics in general and mosaics with inscriptions from the third and fourth centuries CE are the rarest. This is a unique building which important for an initial understanding of Christianity as a well-known and official religion.”
Rofeh-Ophir’s report says that in the center of the building the ruins of an altar were found. Archeologists noted that the ruins date from a period that preceded the crucifix as the official ecclesiastical emblem, which explains why fish-shaped decorations were found on most of the mosaic. The fish symbol is known to be the symbol of early Christianity.
Rofeh-Ophir writes: “Digs in the western parts of the prison discovered residential structures of communities dating to the Byzantine epoch of the fourth and sixth centuries CE.
“A Jewish cleansing bath from the Roman period was found in archeological rubble retrieved from that area.”
Shoka Dorfman of the Israel Antiquities Authority said that consultations with leading archeologists will be launched next week to discuss the future of the findings.
The Israel Prisons Authority told Rofeh-Ophir: “We are waiting for the decisions of the Antiquities Authority to see whether the rare findings will be taken to another location or will remain in place. We will build another two buildings to complete the compound, yet in the wake of the discoveries we will decide how to proceed with constructions at a later date.”
CE stands for “Common Era.” It is a relatively new term that is experiencing increased usage and is eventually expected to replace AD.
The latter is an abbreviation for “Anno Domini” in Latin or “the year of the Lord” in English. The latter refers to the approximate birth year of Yeshua of Nazareth (a.k.a. Jesus Christ). CE and AD have the same value, i.e. 2004 CE = 2004 AD.
 Posted by Veith at 11:14 AM
Theodicy update
I just got back from Michigan, where I was asked to address the age-old question of where is God in natural disasters? I tried to frame the issue differently, arguing that the usual philosophical formulation-- “If there is a God and He is good and powerful, how could He allow bad things to happen?”--is intrinsically untenable from a Christian point of view. First, it has us sinners judging God, putting us in a position of moral superiority to the Source of morality, as if God stands in need of justification and not us. We are not capable of knowing what is good, much less being good, apart from God, so we cannot wield that syllogism. Second, the question presents God as being far away from suffering, as if He looks down upon the universe, either unwilling or unable to alter the bad things that happen here. I drew on Luther’s point that we dare not think of God apart from His incarnation in Christ. We must not think of God as so far away and distant--especially when we are in need or trying to extend comfort to people who are bereft and hurting. Rather, we must speak of Christ, who, rather than being far away and above the fray, came into our human condition, to share it. Christ not only bore our sins, according to Isaiah 53, He also bore our sorrows, our griefs, and our afflictions. He is not far above, but in the fray with those who are suffering.
 As for natural disasters, Jesus, commenting on the collapse of the Tower of Siloam in which 18 people were killed, said that the victims of that disaster were NOT any worse sinners than any one else. And yet, that if we do not repent, we too will perish. Disasters speak Law to us all. Not a preaching of the law in the sense of our individual transgressions, but a preaching of the CURSE of the Law that we are all under, that the wages of sin are death, that nature goes on its way indifferent to human beings, that life in this fallen world is neither secure nor untroubled. But then, when we talk with people and contemplate in ourselves, we must put Christ in the tragedy, who brings faith.
So where is God in natural disasters? He is in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself. And Christ is hidden in vocation, when we are called to help those in need. And Christ is hidden in the neighbor who is suffering (“inasmuch as ye did it to the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me”). Posted by Veith at 10:51 AM
November 04, 2005
Ten Commandments Day?
An effort is underway to make February 5 Ten Commandments Day. Paul McCain gives the details at his Cyberbrethren blog (which is where the link is to). He is skeptical. What do you think? Comment both on his site and here.
 Posted by Veith at 11:01 AM
Jimmy Carter commits the pro-life heresy
Former president Jimmy Carter--in the midst of promoting his ultra-liberal, protocol-violating book trashing President Bush--made a very strong statementagainst abortion. I have never understood what is so “liberal” about advocating the killing of pre-born children. And I have never taken liberal’s rhetoric about “justice,” “peace,” and “caring for the oppressed” seriously since they so prominently care so little for the class of people who are the most unjustly and violently oppressed of them all.
 Posted by Veith at 10:15 AM
Bioethics and the other commandments
In working on my paper for the upcoming Lutheran Bioethics Conference in St. Louis on November 11, it occured to me that we usually approach all of these issues just in terms of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” That is indeed the major concern. But reproductive engineering also breaks other commandments. Using egg and sperm donors, surrogate mothers, and other extra-marital conception techniques can be seen as a violation of “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” And engendering children apart from fathers and mothers--as in test-tube conceptions, artificial wombs, cloning, and (again) surrogate mothers--violates God’s commands for parenthood, as in “Honor thy father and thy mother.” Do you think?
 Posted by Veith at 08:48 AM
Do you want a cure for bird flu on your bratwurst?
Germanic culture may save the world after all. Studies have found that sauerkraut may help cure bird flu. Korean scientists have found that feeding bird kimchi--which is like sauerkraut only more so--caused 11 out of 13 of them to recover. (I guess they didn’t need any more little kleenexes for their beaks.) The same substance that proved effective, some sort of lactic bacteria, can be found in that other fermented cabbage product, sauerkraut. An unrelated study--which began as an attempt to find out why Polish women had higher rates of breast cancer once they come to America--found that sauerkraut may be an answer to that scourge. Those Polish women stopped eating so much sauerkraut once they came to the USA, but those who continued the habit reduced their risk by 74%.
This is good news for the economy of Wisconsin:
“Unlike the government, we’ve got the preventative, and 115,000 tons of it in Wisconsin alone,” said Ryan Downs, owner and general manager of Great Lakes Kraut Co., which has sauerkraut factories in Bear Creek and Shiocton, near Appleton, and Shortsville, N.Y. Great Lakes is the only remaining sauerkraut producer in Wisconsin.
Downs said more extensive scientific research obviously is needed to prove any curative link to avian flu, but he’s more than happy to tout kraut as a healthy part of any diet.
“People are starting to realize kraut is a pretty doggone good food,” Downs said Thursday, when contacted about the South Korean study. “We’re ready to help keep the world healthy.”
Several television and radio stations across the United States have picked up the BBC story, said Steve Lundin, spokesman for Frank’s Sauerkraut, based in Fremont, Ohio.
After a Minneapolis CBS affiliate did its own story on sauerkraut’s potential in the battle against avian flu, Frank’s checked 54 Twin City area stores it supplies, and found an 850% spike in overall sauerkraut sales, Lundin said.
“People will do whatever they can if they can’t rely on the government to provide them with a vaccine or other preventative,” Lundin said.
Frank’s refused to release actual sales figures from its stores. “I quite honestly think the percentage spike is very relevant and it’s based on the same week of sales last year,” said Chris Smith, vice president of marketing for Frank’s.
Pressed a bit more, Smith said some supermarkets may have sold seven cans of sauerkraut in the same week last year, compared with 30 cans this year. Posted by Veith at 08:37 AM
November 03, 2005
Osama as the Muslim Luther?
It has been said that the religion of Islam needs a Martin Luther to bring it out of its medieval ways into the modern world. (I’m not sure that’s what Luther did, “modernizing” Christianity, but we’ll let that go for now.) Francis Fukuyama, in the essay linked in the post below, says that the current jihadist revival in Islam IS their Reformation. He says that before, Islam (like medieval Catholicism) was “external.” You just go along with the rules and follow the ultra-controlled culture, and you’re a good Muslim. But now, for the reasons discussed below, Islam has become INTERNALIZED, a matter of choice and individual commitment. That’s what the Reformation, he says, did for Christianity.
I deny that the Reformation was primarily an internalization of Christianity. Certainly not in Luther’s formulation, with its emphasis on the objective atonement, the sacraments, the external church, vocation. I admit that it slid into that direction quite rapidly. I would say that Osama bin Laden is not the Muslim Luther. Maybe he is the Muslim Thomas Muntzer. His internalized Christianity--in which he rejected not only earthly authorities but the Bible itself in favor of a millennium-building inner movement of the Spirit--resulted in social anarchy and a bloodbath that swept away people of all social classes, including especially his own followers.
 Posted by Veith at 09:55 AM
How multiculturalism breeds radical Islam
Francis Fukuyama once predicted “the end of history.” He argued that democracy and free market economics have triumphed so completely that we are close to attaining the conflict-free utopia that the Marxists expected. Well, history continues after all, and Professor Fukuyama has another essay that we can hope is just as wrong. He observes that Islamic radicalism has its roots not in backward Arab cultures, but in Western Europe, in the segregated, unassimilated “multicultural societies” that Europeans and liberal Americans are so proud of.
He says that in the traditional Muslim societies, every facet of life is controlled by their religion, so everyone’s identity is secure and there is not all that much conflict. But in societies where Muslims try to live that lifestyle side-by-side with Westerners, big problems are created. It’s not so bad in America, where we give everyone individual rights, with free access to money-making businesses and social mobility. But Europe (and, he could say, Canada) focuses on group rights, giving Muslim courts for instance authority over the Muslim community. Also, European welfare state economies favor entrenched interest groups, leaving Muslim immigrants chronically unemployed. As a result, Islam goes inward and breaks out in resentment and violence. Notice that terrorists such as Mohammed Atta, the Shoe Bomber, the bombers in Spain and London, the assassins in the Netherlands, and much of the Al Qaida are Europeans. This also means, according to Fukuyama, that making Middle Eastern countries democratic might exacerbate the problem!
 Posted by Veith at 09:37 AM
Your 10,000 new books
Your library just got a whole lot bigger. 10,000 volumes bigger. Today Google Print goes online, making it possible to search inside and to retrieve information from actual books. Not mere websites and term-paper postings, real books from research libraries. This is very controversial in publishing circles--feel free to weigh in on the ethics of the matter--but this is a huge boon to researchers, taking internet researching to a new and much-higher level. So far what’s on the web today, due to the publishers’ lawsuits, are works in the public domain; that is, books that are out of print or more than 50 years old. But, hey, that’s the kind we like, right? There are 10,000 of them in the database so far.
The site is here. You’ll want to bookmark it. Right now, it’s in a Beta testing mode and not working very well.
The system also brings up brief references from books that are in print. It’s interesting to type in a name like “Gustav Wingren,” who has written so well on vocation. One can see that he really has been influential, showing up in writers that one might not expect.
You can’t GET the whole book online, but you can search for bits of information throughout the books. You can’t even do that in your library, where books sit on shelves and it’s often had to get at what you are looking for. On Google print, you get the key words, plus about six pages of context.
You do have to sign in with a Google account (e.g., a G-Mail address) in order to access the textual information.
 Posted by Veith at 08:42 AM
Good bad language
The main World Blog had a post called Cussing Lite on the rise of language that is not really bad, but kind of bad. The discussion provoked 113 comments. Well, here is an alternative. Instead of the nine or so obscenities that pollute the air with mind-numbing repetition, why not imitate someone whose words of beauty or imprecation show him a master of infinite variety (to use one of his phrases)? I’m talking about William Shakespeare. Here is a site called The Shakespeare Insult Kit. It allows you to generate insults using a Shakespearean vocabulary.
Thou errant, dismal-dreaming joithead! Thou beslubbering, onion-eyed measle! Thou gleeking, clay-brained hedge-pig!, etc.
 Posted by Veith at 08:20 AM
November 02, 2005
C. S. Lewis’s orthodoxy?
I hear I’m getting attacked by Herman Otten in “Christian News” for being pro-C. S. Lewis. Rev. Otten says that Lewis does not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture (based on something he wrote in “Reflections on the Psalms”), is weak on justification and the forensic atonement (“Mere Christianity”), and suggests that salvation is possible apart from Christ (“The Last Battle,” “The Great Divorce”).
Lewis--being an Episcopalian, after all, though a conservative one--was not a Lutheran, or a Calvinist, or an Arminian, or a Catholic, or Orthodox, or Evangelical, so people from any of these confessions are going to find him lacking in many points. He tried to articulate and defend “Mere Christianity,” the doctrines that all could agree on, but that is hard to pull off consistently without falling into the disputed points.
As Lewis himself said of Milton, we must distinguish between a writer’s personal errors and those that show up in specific books. Lewis thought that Milton held heretical ideas, and yet those did not show up in “Paradise Lost,” which in Lewis’s mind is in accord with “mere Christianity.” Lewis’s treatment of how Christ’s death saves us is certainly inadequate in “Mere Christianity,” but in “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” he gets it right. And Lewis scholars debate what he means in having a couple of people get saved in some of his symbolic fiction seemingly apart from Christ, and most agree that he was no universalist. Though Lewis did not believe the Bible was without errors, at the same time he did much to attack and undermine the Historical-Critical method. So, what do you think? Given Lewis’s theological shortcomings, should a person read C. S. Lewis or recommend that others do so?
 Posted by Veith at 10:59 AM
More help wanted
While you’re helping me with my problem, below, I might as well ask your help on another issue, such is the high degree of insight evident in the readers of this blog. I have been asked to write a paper on how the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms should be applied in the bioethics debate. I do have some ideas here, but I would value your comments.
 Posted by Veith at 08:38 AM
Causing trouble
Way back before the last presidential election, I wrote a column praising the Bishops who were denying John Kerry and other pro-abortion politicians communion. I got a call the other day from a pastor who said that a parishioner was using that column to argue that his church should excommunicate all Democrats, since their votes contribute to putting pro-abortionists into power. This is in a farm state, with a lot of the old-school Farm & Labor-type Democrats who are culturally-conservative--and pro-life--even though they believe Democratic farm policies will be in their best economic interests. But now this member wants to kick them all out and the congregation is split and in turmoil, thanks to something I wrote on a different topic.
Now exercising church discipline against people based on their political party is surely against the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. A member who runs an abortion clinic--or a politician who actively crusades for this evil cause--would probably be a different story. Then again, I suppose voters can enable evil, even though their own beliefs are solid, when they have different priorities in chooing whom to vote for. I apologized to the pastor for writing something that the parishioner is misusing. I said I’d write the member to try to explain the principles and where the lines need to be drawn. But help me out here! What points should I make?
 Posted by Veith at 08:21 AM
November 01, 2005
The blog evolves (in a creationist sense)
The Cranach blog has moved up from being “an adorable rodent” to a “marauding marsupial” in the TTLB ecosystem, which tracks blogs based mainly on the number of people linking to them. That’s number 4200 of the millions of blogs out there. We are now getting an average of 401 visits a day, which is good for a new blog. So thanks, everybody. (We’re linking to your blogs--though we have some we need to catch up with--so remember to link to ours.)
And now Cranach has been named blog of the week by St. Paul’s Lutheran Church in Kingsville, MD. I’m really grateful for that, and I appreciate “web servant” Mark Myers for what he says about us. I don’t mean to hype the compliment, but it puts into words a goal I want to keep shooting for.
From St. Paul’s website:
Cranach might best be described as an open forum on the theology of everyday life. It works like this: Dr. Veith will start a conversation by asking a question or proposing a thesis. Then his readers will chime in with thought-provoking comments, illuminating insights, and spirited but courteous debate. Just read a couple of the discussion threads and you’ll be both edified and hooked. If you want to get a handle on where the “rubber hits the road” in the Christian believer’s sanctified life, click over to Cranach and join the dialogue.
 Posted by Veith at 09:22 AM
Two kingdoms and politics, continues. . .
The discussion from October 28 on “The Two Kingdoms and Politics” is still continuing, and I continue to marvel at the high level of discourse we are seeing on this blog. I’m finding the insights expressed in that discussion very helpful. Read what people have been saying and join in. Here’s a link.
 Posted by Veith at 08:28 AM
A lifestyle magazine for criminals
There is now a “lifestyle” magazine for criminals. It’s called Don Diva and it has a circulation of 150,000--about the same as WORLD. It’s mostly a hip-hop thing, but it was founded by a prisoner and features articles on how to hide your drugs, how to beat money laundering charges, getting by in prison, and successful gang members.
From a newstory on the magazine, giving a sampling of its fare:
The main article in the 110-page issue tells the story of the “Supreme Team,” a legendary gang of New York crack dealers. The 10-page article, written by Tiffany Chiles and somebody named “Soulman Seth,” is based on newspaper stories, court documents and interviews with two imprisoned gang members.
“I went from making 100 dollars a week at the grocery store to a thousand dollars a day,” says Ronald “Tuck” Tucker, now serving 14 years for his role in the operation. “As a seventeen-year-old, my thoughts were: Why go to school when I’m making more money than the chairman of the Board of Education?”
According to the magazine, police say the gang was riding high in the ’80s, taking in more than $200,000 a day selling crack and killing anyone who threatened its business. But it all came crashing down in the ’90s, when more than 110 gang members were arrested, convicted and sent to the slammer.
“Prince was sentenced to 7 life sentences,” Tucker says. “C-Just to 3 lifes, Big C got 2 lifes, Pookie got life, Shannon got 30 years, Bing got 19 years, Ace 15 years, Teddy 13 years and I got sentenced to 14 years.”
Later, the gang’s saga was recounted in a song recorded by rapper 50 Cent, a former crack dealer who grew up in the Queens neighborhood where the gang operated.
The piece is profusely illustrated with photos of various gang members during their heyday and in prison. There are also pictures of the gang’s home turf. A picture of a bucolic, tree-lined pond carries the caption: “Baisley Park Pond, where it is rumored that law enforcement once drained the pond and found 10 bodies.” Another picture has this caption: “Baisley Park basketball court — the site of many basketball tournaments. One year a referee was beat to death for allegedly making an unfavorable call.” Posted by Veith at 08:07 AM
Paranoia
Columnist David Brooks quotes an essay from 40 years ago by Richard Hofstadter called The Paranoid Style in American Politics :
Hofstadter argues that sometimes people who are dispossessed, who feel their country has been taken away from them and their kind, develop an angry, suspicious and conspiratorial frame of mind. It is never enough to believe their opponents have committed honest mistakes or have legitimate purposes; they insist on believing in malicious conspiracies.
“The paranoid spokesman,” Hofstadter writes, “sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms -- he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization.” Because his opponents are so evil, the conspiracy monger is never content with anything but their total destruction. Failure to achieve this unattainable goal “constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration.” Thus, “even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.”Ironically, this was originally said of conservatives. Now Brooks applies it to liberals.
 Posted by Veith at 07:55 AMMain | November 2005 »
October 31, 2005
Ghosts, but not the Holy Ghost
More people in England believe in ghosts (68%) than believe in God (55%). This is evidence for what I’ve been thinking, that non-Christians today tend not so much to be atheists as pagans. I would further contend that those who believe that all religions are equally valid have gone from relativism to polytheism.
 Posted by Veith at 11:39 AM
Pay attention
In his exceedingly odd baseball fantasy Summerland, author Michael Chabon tosses off a great line:
The first and last duty of the lover of the game of baseball, whether in the stands or on the field, is the same as that of the lover of life itself: to pay attention to it.
If you love baseball, pay attention to it. If you love life, pay attention to it. This can be applied to everything we love: If you love your spouse, pay attention to him or her. If you love your kids, pay attention to them. If you love your friends, pay attention. If you love your country or your job or food or music, pay attention. If you love Christ, pay attention to Him. . . .
 Posted by Veith at 08:17 AM
Happy Holiday
No, not Halloween: Reformation Day! As our pastor pointed out, Luther did not try to reform other churches when he nailed his Theses to the door. He was trying to reform his church. What reforms would be helpful today to refocus our congregations on the central Reformation issues of the Gospel and the Word of God? Or are there other issues today? Let’s not talk about our denominations, but our local congregations and on ourselves.
 Posted by Veith at 07:30 AM
Alito for Supreme Court
President Bush just announced that his new nominee for Supreme Court justice is Samuel Alito, a heavy hitter conservative judge with a clear track record opposing abortion and attempts to purge religious references from the public square. This should re-unite the conservative base, but now that we have a candidate with a clear paper trail and an outspoken judicial philosophy, can he get confirmed, given Republican moderates and the threat of a Democratic filibuster?
 Posted by Veith at 07:24 AM
October 28, 2005
Two Kingdoms & Politics
Let me ask this a different way: According to the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, politics and religion are two different realms. Christians, in the spiritual kingdom, might well disagree with each other in the earthly kingdom, where a whole range of secular political schemes are in play. So, of course, there can be Christians in the various political parties and movements.
However, to believe that God rules in the secular sphere in a secular way does NOT mean that anything goes (contrary to what liberal Lutherans say). God rules His kingdom of the Lefthand by virtue of His creation, His objective moral Law (1st use), the rational laws of nature, vocation, etc. Therefore, people and policies that REJECT or VIOLATE the moral law are out of bounds, and Christians must not support them. (Similarly, those who deny the creation as evolutionists do, or reason, as postmodernists do, cannot be said to follow God’s kingdom of the Left). (Continue reading, for a startling, even shocking personal confession.)
There was a time when I was both conservative theologically and liberal politically. With the important exception of being pro-life, but back then other Democrats shared my view.
Then my political views changed, largely from spending a little time in the former Soviet Union where I saw, through living with a family in Estonia, the evils of an all-powerful state and a controlled socialist economy. I became a born-again conservative.
My politics have been shaped by non-theological beliefs, such as my populism (which used to characterize Democrats but no more), my patriotic “Americanism” (not just love of country but belief in its founding principles), my capitalism (from my anti-Soviet experience), a libertarian streak (from my research into the evils of Fascism), and I could probably isolate more.
Since then, I believe that my theology does inform my politics, with the two still being in separate kingdoms, though I’m not sure I can identify exactly how with precision.
I just read a book by the leftwing evangelical Jim Wallis arguing that God is really a liberal, saying that the Bible’s concern for the poor should cause evangelicals to be politically liberal. He concedes the importance of being pro-life, but says that should include favoring policies that help the poor. (As if liberal policies help the poor.)
So, my question is, what elements of your faith (whether you are liberal, conservative, or libertarian [which I realize is different from both of those]) inform your political beliefs, ideology, or affiliation? Not counting the absolute necessity, in my view, of opposing abortion and other pro-death policies (which make a mockery of liberal claims to be on the side of the oppressed). And trying real hard not to mix the two kingdoms.
 Posted by Veith at 12:34 PM
Christians and Republicans
Former Senator John Danforth is decrying the influence of conservative Christians on the Republican party. This is ironic, since Mr. Danforth owes much of his political career to his being a conservative Christian in the Republican party. I wonder if the Republican establishment is going to use the way President Bush got miered down to try to shake off the clout of evangelicals. (That would be way unfair: The hard-core Christian right opposed Miers’ nomination,with her evangelical supporters mainly showing their loyalty to the president and their party by being willing to trust the judgment of President Bush. I didn’t see any big rallying around Ms. Miers simply because she was a Christian.) And, of course, for Republicans to reject Evangelical-Americans would be political suicide, the equivalent of Democrats rejecting African-Americans. There are not enough country-club Republicans to get anyone elected.
Granted that Christianity does not require being a Republican and even granting--as we often say here--that Christians must not confuse the political realm for the spiritual realm-- I wonder if conservative Christians do have a natural home in the Republican party, or if they could just as easily be Democrats (as they nearly always used to be) if that party would not be so strenously pro-abortion (a change that is unlikely to happen, given the party’s Babylonian captivity to aging 60′s radicals). Let me ask it this way: if the Democratic Party would become pro-life, would you vote Democratic?
 Posted by Veith at 08:49 AM
Tithing by Credit Card
More and more churches are taking contributions by credit card. Many people use direct, automatic deposit to give money to their congregations. Those are usually taken out of their bank accounts. But it is also possible to set up those electronic transfers from a credit card account. According to the article linked above, people do give more to their churches when they direct deposit, with parishioners feeling they are giving their “first fruits” and not just giving if there is anything left at the end of the month. I have no problem with direct deposit, and, indeed, we do that ourselves. But, according to the study, they people give even more to their churches when they charge it to their credit cards. To borrow a term from another religion, do you think this is kosher?
 Posted by Veith at 08:39 AM
October 27, 2005
Law or Gospel?
The discussion on whether vocation is law or gospel continues, below, with many learned and helpful positions being expressed. Let’s play a game. Is this Bible verse, which seems to relate to the military vocation of King David, Law or Gospel? Or is it neither in itself, just a fact, which can be applied in different ways?:
Blessed be the LORD, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle. (Psalm 144:1)
 Posted by Veith at 12:34 PM
Miers withdraws!
Harriet Myers has withdrawn her name as the nominee for justice of the Supreme Court. (I’m glad to have scooped the main WORLD blog on this!)
UPDATE: Now there is talk of a new word: ‘A contributor to The Reform Club, a right-leaning blog, wrote that to get “borked” was “to be unscrupulously torpedoed by an opponent,” while to get “miered” was to be “unscrupulously torpedoed by an ally.”‘
 Posted by Veith at 09:17 AM
Christianity and Science
For a sampling of “The Pearcey Report,” discussed below, check out Nancy Pearcey’s piece with the self-explanatory title Christianity is a Science-Starter, Not a Science-Stopper.
 Posted by Veith at 09:02 AM
More blogs to check
We’ve got more of our Cranach community blogs linked. Visit them. I am greatly impressed at the amount of first-rate theological and cultural reflection that takes place on blogs, and the number of excellent writers taking advantage of this medium. (See the box in the column at the right. Click down the names.) My daughter Joanna, from down under in Australia, is helping me now with this site. We also have the clock set. (It had been on Greenwich Mean time! That accounts for the posts and comments that looked like they were put up when decent people should be in bed.)
 Posted by Veith at 08:55 AM
The Pearcey Report
I’m a big fan of Nancy Pearcey, whose book Total Truth breaks new ground in worldview analysis. She shows, for example, how the “fact/value” dichotomy of 20th century thought has led to split in how people think. Religious and moral ideas are consigned to the non-rational realm of inner experience, with nothing to do with the external, objective world, for which a particular type of “science” is the only authority. This phenomenon is why professors at Christian colleges can believe in both creation (as an interior faith-commitment) AND evolution (as how human beings actually came into existence). It is why politicians can say they don’t believe in abortion (as an inner choice) while promoting legalized abortion (external reality). It is why many Christians think they can do without doctrine, focusing instead on inner experience (“values”) divorced from a belief in specific truth (“facts”). Her analysis--and there is much more--cuts through many of our cultural/religious Gordian knots.
Anyway, Nancy and her husband Rick have started a new webzine, The Pearcey Report. It’s jam-packed with articles and commentaries on the news, the arts, politics, Christianity, and you name it. It also has a wealth of useful links, from encyclopedias to city guides, from media to art museums. And they even include the Cranach Institute! Check out the site, bookmark it, and visit frequently. (For the press release, giving more details and background, click “continue reading.”)
 Oct. 21, 2005
** Press Release **
THE PEARCEY REPORT NOW OFFICIALLY LAUNCHED
Today marks the official launch of The Pearcey Report, a website of news, comment, information, and worldview. It can be viewed online at www.pearceyreport.com.
J. Richard Pearcey is editor and publisher of the report. Rick has worked as a journalist, writer, and editor in the Washington, D.C., area since the late 1980s.
Best-selling author Nancy Pearcey is editor-at-large. Her most recent book is TOTAL TRUTH: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity. She is also the Francis A. Schaeffer Scholar at the World Journalism Institute.
There is much to explore in the The Pearcey Report. A few highlights:
News: The News section connects readers with breaking stories of the day from around the world — in politics, international affairs, the arts, science, health, books, film, people, the odd tidbit, and more.
Comment: The Comment section features insight and opinion from a variety of observers and news outlets.
Articles: The Articles section offers a strategic and humane analysis of contemporary life, thought, and action. Expect to encounter the work of seminal Judeo-Christian worldview thinkers such as Francis Schaeffer, C.S. Lewis, Udo Middelmann, Os Guinness, and Nancy Pearcey.
Information: The information component opens the door to the wider world of U.S. and international media — and to a life beyond the crisis of the moment. Thus, in addition to websites for columnists, think tanks, and activist groups, also available are resources for further study, travel, world cities, and more.
The website has already received praise for its design. The Pearceys want to thank webdesigner Tim Challies (www.challies.com) of Websonix for his expertise and terrific work in helping make The Pearcey Report attractive and engaging.
For more information about The Pearcey Report, see www.pearceyreport.com.
Or contact the Pearceys at Pearcey@pearceyreport.com.
 Copyright © The Pearcey Report. All Rights Reserved Posted by Veith at 08:40 AM
October 26, 2005
Is Vocation Law or Gospel?
The Lutheran blogosphere is roiling over whether the doctrine of vocation is Law or Gospel. (The debate gets going in the comments.) This is the question debated by the two great Swedish theologians who have done so much to elucidate this pivotal concept, Gustav Wingren (who emphasized how it is Law) and Einar Billing (who emphasized how it is Gospel). (Billing’s book “The Call” is out of print. I only have a xerox copy--another sin against the 7th commandment?--but it is tremendous.)
When two such divines differ and when such insightful bloggers come down on two different sides of the issue, we may assume we are in Lutheran paradox territory (simultaneously saint/sinner, free lord of all/servant of all, God/Man,Body of Christ/simple bread, etc.). Here is how I see it: God deals with us through both Law and Gospel. Vocation has to do with how He deals with us.
I
s the teaching that God created the physical world, for example, Law or Gospel? Yes, creation entails natural law, the fall, etc., but it is also a great gift to have been created (Psalm 139), and the material realm--water, bread, wine--are gifts through which God manifests His unmerited favor. Vocation is related to creation, in that it has to do with how we live out the physical lives God has given us.
So there are times when I experience my vocation under the aspect of Law, as when I sin in my callings (as in the catechism’s explanation of what sins we should confess). Vocations do involve duties (as in their listing in the “Table of Duties”), and there are times when I have to do my duty, even though my heart isn’t in it (1st use of the Law), when I repent about my failings (2nd use), and when I just need to understand better what God wants me to do (3rd use).
But God works through my vocation. It’s not all about me after all. I can relax. That is to say, I am the miserable sinner getting in the way. But God is doing it. And when I realize that, I can live out my callings in faith. My vocation becomes a spontaneous outgrowth of my faith in Christ. So this is the Gospel side. And, while we are quoting the catechism, don’t forget that, for Christians, our callings into the Christian life begin with our Baptism and continue when we hear the Gospel: “The Holy Ghost has CALLED me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith.” Posted by Veith at 10:25 AM
TV sins
I must qualify my praise of TIVO, below, with the fact that in pushing the “record” button late last night to record the last innings of the World Series game, the machine THOUGHT I was recording a “Malcolm in the Middle” rerun, which was scheduled to air until the game went on and on, in an open-ended way, into extra innings, not concluding until inning number #14. So I only got thirty minutes extra of the game, and I still didn’t get to see exactly how it ended. But trying to speed through it made me think of another issue: Is it, strictly speaking, a sin to zap through commercials?
Those programs cost a lot of money to produce. They are paid for by advertisers. They are willing to subsidize our TV watching in return for the simple privilege of asking us to hear their case that we should buy their products. We don’t have to buy them. Just watch their pitch. Isn’t this reasonable? And when we zap through them, aren’t we getting something for nothing? Is this not a violation of the Seventh Commandment (that is, for those with a different numbering system, a violation of “Thou Shalt Not Steal”?
Perhaps this is a minor example of how, in the words of the catechism, “daily we sin much.” Or maybe it is a justifiable example of “sticking it to the Man.” (Though,perhaps, in the words of a humorous commercial that you would miss if you zapped through them all, “You are the Man.”) Help me out on this one!
 Posted by Veith at 10:02 AM
Conquering the TV monster
I have a principle of never leaving a ball game early, the wisdom of which has been amply illustrated during the baseball playoffs and the World Series. But as it got close to midnight on Tuesday’s game, I got too weary and went to bed. But I am watching the rest of the game right now, Wednesday morning. I know who won--thanks to a bulletin in the paper--but I don’t know how they won. So now I am taking advantage of this remarkable technology that can, potentially, in a first use of the law sort of way, allow families to take control of the TV universe. I’m talking about TIVO (brand name), or DVR (digital video recorders).
These gizmos are available through most cable and satellite systems and are remarkably cheap. (The units cost usually about $100, though some programs give them to you free, with a monthly fee of only around $5.) They record TV shows on a hard drive as they are running, meaning you can hit “pause” and live TV freezes, giving you the sense of stopping time like in the old Twilight Zone episode. (It’s a fun trick to amaze older people.) But, more importantly, it lets you decide ahead of time what you want to watch--or what you want to allow your kids to watch--whereupon you just point and click the titles, and it is done. (No complicated calculation of time and channels as with VCR’s. Just select the shows on the program guide, or, even better, type them in.) You can even have it record every episode of shows you really like, which you can now see anytime you want.
Though you can still watch live TV, of course, browsing and channel surfing, many viewers--especially those with kids--watch ALL their TV from their previously-chosen list. You summon up the ‘List,” select from the good shows you have stored up, and zap through the commercials. This way, there is always something good on. (Our TIVO automatically records all “King of the HIll” episodes, with which I amuse myself late at night.)
This technology helps me in my role as TV critic for WORLD, but it frees people from organizing their lives around the TV schedule and provides the tools to control the content of what gets shown in their homes. It is, of course, a First Use of the Law solution: It provides external controls, but it does not cure the inner weakness of watching too much visual candy instead of doing something better, whether reading a book or relating to your family. Still. . . .
 Posted by Veith at 08:29 AM
October 25, 2005
Have a happy Festivus
Remember the “Seinfeld” episode where George proposes a new holiday, Festivus? To be celebrated by the Airing of Grievances and Feats of Strength? Well, some people are taking that seriously, trying to establish Festivus as a new holiday, untainted with religious or national significance. Festivus is supposed to be celebrated on December 23, though some authorities say you can celebrate it anytime you want.
The word “holiday,” of course, means “holy day.” One of the ways Christianity has influenced the culture is establishing great holidays like Christmas and Easter. Not to mention the second tier of culturally-distorted remnants of the church calendar like Valentine’s Day and Halloween. Or the days that only Christians who follow the liturgical year still observe, like Pentecost, Ascension, Ash Wednesday, Maunday Thursday, Good Friday. Or the really obscure ones like St. Crispin’s day (which was last week.) Someone I read grudgingly admitted that Christianity, though he didn’t approve of it, at least has the best holidays of any world religion.
But what if a culture has lost its sense of holiness? Nations can use patriotism as a sort of substitute, so we have “national holidays,” such as Independence Day and Thanksgiving (though this is primarily a religious holiday too--the concept of a “feast” comes from how Christian “feast days” or “festivals” were celebrated). But we have pretty much lost that too. So let’s just make up a holiday without any of that! Though the very word “festivus” is a fossil of the once-living tradition of feast days. And though it too has an origin in something sacred to our contemporary culture: television.
 Posted by Veith at 01:58 PM
“Where is our government?”
People who don’t understand the Two Kingdoms #1: Hurricane Wilma hit poor Florida, but it really smote a mighty blow (my favorite word of late) on Mexico. Especially hard-smitten were the tourist resorts of Cancun and Cozumel. People who forked out big bucks for luxury hotels found themselves staying in school gymnasiums with the local mestizos, unable to get flights out. So at least some of these afflicted American tourists are blaming the U.S. government!
“I feel the Mexican government is helping here to an extent, doing the best they can,” said Kevin Riley, town finance administrator for Paw Paw, Mich. “But the U.S. has done nothing. Where is our government? They are only preparing for Florida. They forgot about us.”
Where is your government? It’s in the UNITED STATES. Yes, Florida is something your government has to prepare for. That being one of the UNITED STATES. You are in a different country. You are no longer in Paw Paw, Michigan, under your government’s authority, you are in MEXICO.
It seems as belief in God declines, people look to government to rush into the void. The attributes and actions of God are ascribed to the government. The government is assumed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. The government is supposed to care and provide for its children, control nature, solve all of our problems, heal all our diseases, beat swords into plowshares, and establish a realm of everlasting joy. But then, when none of this happens, people’s “faith in government” is shaken. They have, literally, a crisis of faith, and they become disillusioned, bitter, and cynical, like secular atheists.
 Posted by Veith at 09:35 AM
Our sex offender housing ministry
People who do not understand the Two Kingdoms #2: The Rev. Debra Trakel, an episcopal priest in Miwaukee, wants to turn her church’s parish hall into housing for registered sex offenders. The church is across from the downtown library, next door to a college dormitory, and is near a school. The state, however, has turned her down, since the parish hall does not meet federal handicap-accessiblity standards. Father Debra (what do they call women priests?) has just now informed her parishioners of her plan.
Sex offenders DO need to be ministered to. They need the Law and the Gospel and the spiritual care that only a church can provide. But giving them a place to live is a matter for the other kingdom, isn’t it? And surely churches are obliged to abide by the secular kingdom-of-the-left canons of common sense, aren’t they?
 Posted by Veith at 09:25 AM
October 24, 2005
Anne Rice finds redemption
I just heard that Anne Rice, famed for her occultish pro-vampire novels, has turned to Christianity. After struggling with illness and the death of her husband, she has returned to the Catholic church, and it sounds like her conversion is real. She has a new novel out, entitled “Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt,” told from the point of view of Jesus Christ when He was 7 years old. This will be the first in a series of books about the life of Christ, who she considers to be God and Savior. (I know such a project is fraught with peril, but I’m willing to cut her some slack.) ‘I promised,” she says now, “that from now on I would write only for the Lord.”
From NEWSWEEK:
Out of Egypt” and its projected sequels—three, she thinks—could alienate her following; as she writes in the afterword, “I was ready to do violence to my career.” But she sees a continuity with her old books, whose compulsive, conscience-stricken evildoers reflect her long spiritual unease. “I mean, I was in despair.” In that afterword she calls Christ “the ultimate supernatural hero … the ultimate immortal of them all.”
To render such a hero and his world believable, she immersed herself not only in Scripture, but in first-century histories and New Testament scholarship—some of which she found disturbingly skeptical. “Even Hitler scholarship usually allows Hitler a certain amount of power and mystery.” She also watched every Biblical movie she could find, from “The Robe” to “The Passion of the Christ” (“I loved it”). And she dipped into previous novels, from “Quo Vadis” to Norman Mailer’s “The Gospel According to the Son” to Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins’s apocalyptic Left Behind series. (“I was intrigued. But their vision is not my vision.”) She can cite scholarly authority for giving her Christ a birth date of 11 B.C., and for making James, his disciple, the son of Joseph by a previous marriage. But she’s also taken liberties where they don’t explicitly conflict with Scripture. No one reports that the young Jesus studied with the historian Philo of Alexandria, as the novel has it—or that Jesus’ family was in Alexandria at all. And she’s used legends of the boy Messiah’s miracles from the noncanonical Apocrypha: bringing clay birds to life, striking a bully dead and resurrecting him.
Rice’s most daring move, though, is to try to get inside the head of a 7-year-old kid who’s intermittently aware that he’s also God Almighty. “There were times when I thought I couldn’t do it,” she admits. The advance notices say she’s pulled it off: Kirkus Reviews’ starred rave pronounces her Jesus “fully believable.” But it’s hard to imagine all readers will be convinced when he delivers such lines as “And there came in a flash to me a feeling of understanding everything, everything!” The attempt to render a child’s point of view can read like a Sunday-school text crossed with Hemingway: “It was time for the blessing. The first prayer we all said together in Jerusalem … The words were a little different to me. But it was still very good.” Yet in the novel’s best scene, a dream in which Jesus meets a bewitchingly handsome Satan—smiling, then weeping, then raging—Rice shows she still has her great gift: to imbue Gothic chills with moral complexity and heartfelt sorrow.
Rice already has much of the next volume written. (“Of course I’ve been advised not to talk about it.”) But what’s she going to do with herself once her hero ascends to Heaven? “If I really complete the life of Christ the way I want to do it,” she says, “then I might go on and write a new type of fiction. It won’t be like the other. It’ll be in a world that includes redemption.” Posted by Veith at 09:07 PM
The First Use of the Law
As evangelists use the Second Use of the Law to bring repentance and theologians debate the Third Use of the Law, almost nothing is usually said about the First Use, to restrain external evil. This “civil use” is where the Law impacts culture, the primary focus of this blog. True, restraining external acts of sin does not save anyone or affect the inner sinfulness of the human heart, but it does make human societies possible. It also shows what governments are supposed to do and what should lie outside their scope. Here are some fugitive thoughts on the First Use of the Law:
Christians are right to oppose legalized abortion--not as an imposition of our religion, which is a matter of our faith in Christ, not our morality. The state cannot make a woman love her baby, but it can prevent her from killing him. The church can offer her forgiveness for having done so.
When the government requires recycling, it is no longer a virtue to recycle. You have to do it, so there are no longer grounds for environmentalist self-righteousness. This applies to other mandated virtues: community service sentences, not killing people, paying taxes to help the poor.
On the matter of “hate crimes”: The state should punish external crimes that result from hate, but it should not presume to punish internal attitudes. Only the church can get at those.Can anyone think of other applications?
 Posted by Veith at 07:57 PM
One sermon, three reactions
It seems to me that when a pastor preaches the Law, it isn’t that he so much has to tailor it according to how he wants it to be used. The preacher proclaims the one Law, but it has different effects and different uses, depending on the needs of the person who hears it. Say a pastor is preaching against sexual immorality.
(1) One man in the congregation hears it, and thinks, “Oh, it would be so embarrassing if my wife and the people of this church caught me going to that strip club. I’m going to stop going there.” FIRST USE OF THE LAW. It restrains evil. The man is still a sinner inside, but stopping him from this outward behavior has a beneficial civil use.
(2) Another man hears the sermon about God’s wrath for the misuse of sexuality and is cut to the heart. He realizes that his habit of internet pornography constitutes unfaithfulness to his wife and is a grave offense against God. He is devastated. He is repenting. Then he hears the Gospel and the promise that this vice too was atoned for on the Cross. He renews his faith. SECOND USE OF THE LAW. The theological use holds up a mirror and forces him to see his sin, whereby the Word of God brings him to repentance and then to faith in the Gospel.
(3) Another man, with a strong faith in Christ who is not plagued with those particular sins, hears the sermon about sex. It makes him thankful for his marriage. He wants to be a better husband. He goes home and makes love with his wife. THIRD USE OF THE LAW. It shows Christians how to please God in their actions.
 Posted by Veith at 03:39 PM
How to get more good works
I understand there has been quite a bit of discussion in the blogosphere on an earlier post from Rev. McCain on the necessity of sanctification, how though we are saved by faith alone, good works are still important, and we need to grow in our holiness. How to preach that effectively and get it across, I guess, is a matter of some controversy. I haven’t been following the discussion, and not being a pastor I am certainly not schooled in pastoral care. I just offer something I have been thinking about:
If there is an insufficiency of “good works” in a congregation--that is to say, lots of immoral behavior--the underlying problem is not enough faith. It is faith and faith alone that produces good works. So, ironically, though the members do not just need the Law; above all, they need the Gospel. They do need a healthy dose of Law to break down their complacency and self-righteousness, so that they will be terrified, mortified, and guilt-ridden--that is, brought to repentance, whereupon they will need an even healthier dose of the Gospel, so that they will cling to Christ. That faith, which must be fed by Word and Sacrament, can ultimately bear fruit in love and service to the neighbor. And though this repentance and conversion may have to keep happening in some people, the process yields sanctification. (Is this right, or am I missing something? Posted by Veith at 03:25 PM
The good works God calls us to do
Paul McCain has been putting up some good stuff on Cyberbrethren that you should check out. He posts, for example, a sermon on what must be one of the most difficult and painful topics a pastor may have to deal with: the funeral of someone who has committed suicide.
Two items of news from Rev. McCain’s blog: he is now allowing comments! (Not having just the high-toned readers of our group, he had earlier had some problems with trolls and spam. This time, though, he is moderating the comments.) More importantly, his weird little car--the Scion--that he was so proud about was totalled! Thank God that he and his family were spared in the accident!
Rev. McCain posts a profound sermon on Ephesians 2:10, on the kinds of good works that God desires us to do. Not necessarily the spectacular tasks we often assume, but the ordinary, seemingly mundane acts of love and service that come up every day as we live out our different vocations--in our families, on the job, in the neighbors that God puts into our lives. Click “continue reading” for the killer quotes.
Note especially the reaction of the people who had never heard this before:
God has prepared works for us beforehand, that we should walk in them. What works? When was this done? How do we know which works to walk in?
God has provided the answers in His Word. We are to walk in those things pleasing to God. And what are those? They are best summarized in the Ten Commandments. Life in Christ is about honoring God above all else, cherishing and using His name rightly, honoring the Word of God and worshipping Him only, obeying parents and others in authority, not hurting or harming our neighbor in any way, keeping pure and undefiled the marriage bed, loving and honoring our spouse and honoring God’s gift of sexuality within marriage, not stealing nor doing anything to harm our neighbor’s property or livelihood, not coveting anything that belongs to our neighbor.
Do we sit around trying to dream up great things for God? Well, no. Rather, we set our hands to what is before us. Some people have a really unfortunate view of the Christian life. They think that there are “church” things that are really holy and special and good, and then there are just regular old, day-in and day-out things that aren’t really special and don’t really count for much. Well, maybe not in the eyes of the world, but in the eyes of God, the humble Christian man or woman who goes about his or her duty in life, serving and loving the neighbor is doing more good works than all the monks in all the monasteries in the world can ever do.
I’m really concerned about this. Let me explain. When I was serving a parish in Iowa I preached a sermon about living out our lives for Christ in the place in life we find ourselves, in our various callings, or vocations, in the station in life we are put. I told the congregation that a mother or father who changes a baby’s diapers, a child who obeys his or her parents, a man who goes out every morning at 4:30 and and again in the evening at 5:00 to milk the cows is performing a wonderful, glorious work for God, because these things are done in Christ, as one who is in Christ by grace. I had people in tears afterwards telling me that they had never heard such things. They had been led to believe that only if they were on church property doing “church” things were those really good works. It is a new monasticism friends, this attitude that “doing things for God” happens when they are “church things” — at church, and so forth.
We are so tempted to believe that it is only the “best” and the “brightest” and the “glitziest” works that really count. Oh, if only I could be a pastor, then I could really serve God. Well, not in anyway to diminish the office of the holy ministry, but how tragic that perspective is! We are called to do the works God has set before us, had prepared beforehand for us to do, and those works are clearly outlined in His Word, in the Ten Commandments and anywhere else the Scriptures give us direction and encouragement. Posted by Veith at 08:49 AM
October 22, 2005
A weekday blog
I think I’m going to make this a Monday through Friday blog, unless something huge happens on Saturday that I can’t wait to talk about. In looking at the activity here, I had not realized that people are keeping up the conversations on posts that were put up days ago. That’s excellent. And what I am REALLY impressed with is the high level of discourse in the comments. Read through them. Nothing but illuminating insights, disagreements that are RESPECTFUL, and just all around good discussions. There is none of the nastiness that afflicts many blogs, no obnoxious trolls or insults passing as commentary. (I realize those may come, and I will smite them from my blog if they do.) But, readers of the Cranach blog, numbering as many as 600 already, I salute you!
 Posted by Veith at 07:21 PM
October 21, 2005
Why men hate church
The “Wall Street Journal” has a provocative column by Christine Rosen entitled Church Ladies. She discusses the curious phenomenon that more women go to church than men, a ratio of about 60% to 40%. In the liberal denominations that ordain women, this is especially true. More women than men are going to their seminaries, to the point that, according to one scholar, “the Protestant clergy will be a characteristically female occupation, like nursing, within a generation.”
What is behind these ratios and what, if anything, should church leaders do about it? The most recent diagnosis of the feminization problem comes from David Murrow, whose book “Why Men Hate Going to Church” indicts contemporary Christian culture for “driving men away” from organized worship.
“Church is sweet and sentimental, nurturing and nice,” Mr. Murrow writes. “Women thrive in this environment.” Men do not. Everything from the compulsion to participate in singing to the pastel tones and frilly accoutrements of the modern sanctuary spell trouble for the church’s ability to keep men in the fold, he argues. Charlotte Allen, the author of “The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus,” explains, “The problem is that men love ritual and solemnity and women, influenced by our all-pervasive therapeutic culture, bring a therapeutic style to the liturgy.I didn’t say it. “The Wall Street Journal” said it. Do you agree?
 Posted by Veith at 08:11 PM
What would Luther do about the USA?
Preacherman, in a comment to the post below on Saddam and Romans 13, asked me what I thougth Luther would think of the American experiment. Others please chime in, but here is how I see it:
Luther would probably not have approved of our revolution, but he would have approved of our new government, once it was constituted. There were cases in his time when a ruler wrested the country away from the existing ruler unlawfully. But Luther said you should submit to the ruler you have now, even though his right to rule was questionable. God will take care of the usurper. But we have to obey whoever is in charge in the here and now. And yet, Luther’s reformation proved to be instrumental in what the American revolutionaries finally did. (Click “continue reading” for how.)
 Luther went so far as to say that if the Emperor demands that Saxony hand him over to die, he should do so. Fortunately, the Lutheran princes did not agree.
They developed the notion that citizens should submit to their immediate, close-at-hand, authorities. Namely, their local lords and princes. If they see fit to rebel against their feudal obligations, their citizens should follow them, with God judging whether the rebellious rulers did the right thing.
Furthermore, the Lutheran princes based their actions in defying the Emperor on established law, namely, the ancient and medieval laws giving both jurisdiction and rights to these lesser lords and local city governments, which the Emperor was violating. The “rule of law” as opposed to the rule of individual human beings was a major factor in today’s free societies.
The Emperor, remember, was elected. He had to govern with a “diet,” a parliament with representation from the lords of his empire. And each nation also had its equivalent, a parliament with representatives from each estate (nobles, clergy, the middle class, and sometimes even peasants). The middle ages were huge on “rights,” and, as Stanton Evans shows in his indispensable book “The Theme Is Freedom,” these came through a Christian influence. These included the rights of parliament, which also served as a justification for the American revolutionaries.
Finally, right after Luther’s death, the Lutheran princes did rise up militarily against the Emperor in the Smalcald Wars. And then later, in the Thirty Years War (which I am presently researching for a novel I am trying to write on Gustavus Adolphus), parliaments were deposting Catholic kings like crazy and replacing them with either Lutheran or Calvinists. Out of this came the principle that parliaments are above kings. And in the next century, this gave us the American revolution.
 Posted by Veith at 05:15 PM
Better ban all literature
A program in Florida to teach “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” in the public schools has some people in an outrage. That book has a clear Christian message, they say, what with Aslan dying in the place of a sinner and then rising again. That’s a clear violation of the separation of church and state! The civil libertarians, who a few weeks ago celebrated free speech with their “banned book week,” are now saying, Ban the book!
Would they also want to ban Dickens’ “A Tale of Two Cities,” which also includes someone dying for a sinner? Or Melville’s “Billy Budd,” which does the same? We’ll also have to ban the greatest authors in the pantheon of English literature: Shakespeare, whose works are saturated with Biblical allusions; Milton, whose epics are treatments of Bible stories; Spenser, whose “Fairie Queene” is an allegory of the Christian life that inspired Lewis’s books. For sure we’ll have to throw out the Metaphysical poets, John Donne, George Herbert, and the rest of them. Also Hopkins. Christianity shaped nearly all of literature before the 20th century. But even in the 20th century, we have Faulkner’s “Light in August,” with its flagrant Christ-figure “Joe Christmas,” and T. S. Eliot, a major founder of literary modernism who was a Christian convert and wrote about his faith in most of his rather difficult poems. The civil libertarians who are worried about Christian elements in literature and the arts had better just ban everything. Of course, banning great literature is what a lot of public schools have done already!
 Posted by Veith at 03:11 PM
200th Anniversary of Nelson’s Victory
A few years ago, I got hooked on Patrick O’Brian’s series of sea-faring novels about Jack Aubrey, a British naval captain during the Napoleonic Wars. And from there I discovered a series I like even better and C. S. Forrester’s heroic but inwardly conflicted Horatio Hornblower. And after that, though still enjoying lesser novels in that genre--with heroes like Nathaniel Drinkwater and Richard Bolitho--I became interested in real-life naval history. That includes the real-life seaman whose exploits outdo the fictional heroes (some of whose adventures are modeled after his): Admiral, Lord Horatio Nelson.
Today marks the 200th anniversary of probably the greatest and most important sea- battles of all time, the Battle of Trafalgar. Here, 27 British ships--many of them hundred-gun ships-of-the-line--traded broadsides with 33 French and Spanish vessels that constituted the fleet of Napoleon Bonaparte. When the smoke cleared, the British lost no ships (though 1,666 sailors were killed, including Lord Nelson). The French fleet lost 18 (with 5,239 killed and 7,000 captured). Brittania ruled the waves ever since, and Napoleon’s global ambitions were finished.
This is a huge deal in England, of course, which has been celebrating this bicentennial all year. And I’m glad to see it’s being recognized in this country as well. The Trafalgar anniversary is the cover story in the latest U. S. News & World Report, which includes a fine story on Nelson, the battle, and its importance.
 Posted by Veith at 01:03 AM
October 20, 2005
White Sox vs. Communism
Speaking of dictators, National Review Online says why conservatives should support the White Sox in the World Series: It will drive Fidel Castro crazy. The article tells the stirring story of how two of the Sox’s star pitchers, “El Duque” Hernandez and Jose Contreras, escaped from Communist Cuba. I will give equal time, if anyone can make a case for why conservatives should support the Astros.
 Posted by Veith at 10:32 PM
Saddam and Romans 13
Speaking of Iraq, I believe the trial of Saddam Hussein will do more to create an accepted government and rule of law in that country, even more so than elections and a constitution. According to Romans 13, earthly governments exist to “carry out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (vs. 4). That is, to punish criminals and, thus, restrain by force the destructive power of sin, which, otherwise, would make human societies impossible. I think the Iraqi people will build a legal structure around the necessity to punish Saddam.
But is Saddam one of those lawful, though pagan authorities, Romans 13 says citizens should submit to? If, as that chapter says, rulers exist to punish evildoers and reward those who do right, it would seem to follow that rulers who do the opposite (rewarding evildoers and punishing the innocent) do not have a calling from God, nor does He work through them. (Nor is Saddam a legitimate ruler, since he gained power by assassinating his lawful predecessor.)
I realize that an Iraqi Christian who lived under Saddam’s rule may still have a certain obligation to obey the laws and live a peaceful and quiet life under very difficult situations. I also admit that I am probably going further than Luther would in being willing to deny that certain rulers have a Romans 13 authority. Luther said that Christians just have to suffer under bad and even usurping rulers, letting God punish them. (Though examples of God bringing bad rulers to ruin would include their defeat in war--as in what the US military did to Saddam’s regime!)
 Posted by Veith at 07:00 PM
The military vocation
Some time ago, I wrote a column in WORLD about that general who got in trouble because he said that he enjoyed combat and took satisfaction in killing the enemy. I used Luther’s treatise “On Whether Soldiers Too Can Be Saved” (short answer: yes!) to show that being a soldier is indeed a God-pleasing vocation (under Romans 13, for those who “bear the sword”). And that just as all of us in our different callings can take joy in what we do, soldiers too, as Luther says, can “joyfully” do their work.
Man, did I take flack for that article! “The Christian Century,” the ELCA publication “The Lutheran,” and even many of WORLD’s conservative readers thought that was just terrible. The critics did not deal with my argument from vocation, of course, just from the sense that waging war is an intrinsic evil, if sometimes a necessary evil, and that it should be conducted in a spirit of tragedy and guilt. I was encouraged to hear, though, that many in the military appreciated what I had to say!
Anyway, a few days ago, one of these blog entries had a comment from someone with a military vocation, George F, reading this blog all the way from the front line in Iraq. So I gave him a link to my article, asked him what he thought, and got a great reply, which further illustrates what the mlitary vocation is all about. An excerpt, with his permission, edited for security reasons:
I fully agree with your view. There is a sharp difference, in my opinion, between killing out of personal vengence and killing as an agent of the state. The motives are the key. We take regular fire here and have lost fellow Marines and Sailors. (I’m a Navy Chief Hospital Corpsman…we patch em up as best we can). . . .
I LOVE my job in the military. There are many, many Christians here who love the Lord with all their heart. We see what we do as not a necessary evil, but a privilige to reach out and touch the bad guys of the world in a very profound way.
One last thing. Being out here has a way of confronting a person of his or her mortality. My faith has grown leaps since being here, and I’m sure I’m not alone. Please continue to pray that the Lord would lead many to his saving grace.Whatever you think about the issue or the war, please, right now, say a prayer for George and the people he is patching up.
UPDATE: That link might just work for subscribers, so I’m posting the original article. Just click “continue reading”:
 “Onward Christian soldiers”
But is it wrong for a fighting man to enjoy his work? | by Gene Edward Veith
Actually, it’s a lot of fun to fight,” Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis of the U.S. Marine Corps said in a panel discussion in San Diego. “It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up front with you, I like brawling.”
That admission, from a “fighting general” who led combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq—including the Battle of Fallujah—caused an uproar. How terrible! How insensitive! The mentality that gave us Abu Ghraib! He must be disciplined! He should be thrown out of the military!
But if we are going to fight a war, we need to understand what war entails. The public supports our troops, but mainly by feeling sorry for them and their familes. We also should appreciate our troops’ facility in fulfilling their purpose, namely, killing the enemy.
There is a pleasure in battle. Yes, there is fear and desperation, but there is also excitement, exhilaration, and a fierce joy that go along with combat. At least that is the testimony of veterans and accounts of war that go back as far as the Iliad. “It is well that war is so terrible,” said Robert E. Lee at Fredericksburg, “lest we should grow too fond of it.”
The “fun” of combat is what non-warrior types pursue vicariously through entertainment. The competition of sports, violent TV shows, first-person-shooter video games, and a big percentage of Hollywood movies tap into the primal love of war.
Ironically, Lt. Gen. Mattis himself is the subject of an upcoming movie, No True Glory: The Battle for Fallujah. Playing Lt. Gen. Mattis is Harrison Ford. Mr. Ford is an action star who in the movies entertains millions by shooting people and blowing them up. In real life, though, Mr. Ford joined other actors in a public protest of the war in Iraq. Perhaps the movie’s producers will change the script to have Mr. Ford play a fictional character instead, now that Lt. Gen. Mattis has become so controversial. The makers of violent movies may find him too violent.
Lt. Gen. Mattis’s love of fighting, though, is very different from the recreational violence of our entertainment industry. His violence has a moral context. “You go into Afghanistan,” he said, “you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”
The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Mike Hagee, said that he had “counseled” Lt. Gen. Mattis that “he should have chosen his words more carefully.” While Lt. Gen. Mattis may not be a poster boy for compassion toward Afghans, Gen. Hagee nonetheless refused to discipline him, saying that his commitment “helps to provide us the fortitude to take the lives of those who oppress others or threaten this nation’s security.”
But what about from a Christian point of view? Should a Christian soldier take pleasure in killing people?
Luther wrote a booklet titled Whether a Soldier Too Can Be Saved, taking up the issue of whether a Christian, who is supposed to love his enemies, should join the military, where he has the duty of killing them. According to Romans 13, Luther argued, God has appointed earthly rulers to restrain sin and has given them the authority to “bear the sword.” The soldier, acting under a lawful chain of command under the authority of the state, therefore has a legitimate calling from God, who Himself acts through human vocations. Luther says the soldier should look at it this way: “It is not I that smite, stab, and slay, but God and my prince, for my hand and my body are now their servants.” The Christian soldier, living out his faith in his vocation, loves and serves his neighbors by defending and protecting them. Yes, soldiers can abuse their license to kill. Luther goes so far as to say that soldiers should refuse to fight in wars that are clearly evil. But those who have the Christian vocation of being a soldier may fight “in good conscience.” Before God soldiers should be humble and repentant. But before the enemy, they should “smite them with a confident and untroubled spirit.” Soldiers, Luther says, should go “forward with joy!” As in other vocations, so in the military, there is nothing wrong with enjoying one’s work. •
Copyright © 2005 WORLD Magazine February 26, 2005, Vol. 20, No. 8 ABOUT US | CONTACT US © 2005 WORLD Magazine -- Weekly News | Christian Views mailbag@worldmag.com
 Posted by Veith at 02:54 PM
October 19, 2005
Trick or Treat for Reformation Day
Actually, we already have an alternative holiday that overlaps with Halloween: Reformation Day. It was on an October 31, the day before All Saints’ Day, that Martin Luther nailed his Theses to the church door, thus igniting the Reformation.
The early church co-opted pagan holidays by giving them Christian meanings. Do you think we could co-opt Halloween? What would be some good Reformation Day customs? Dress up like Spalatin, Philip of Hesse, his two wives? Make bonfires of papal bulls? Replace trick or treat with giving out indulgences, with the children refusing to take them? Set up a Reformation Door, like a Christmas tree, and decorate it by nailing theses on it?
Seriously, we should observe Reformation Day by going to church and by reading the 95 Theses, noting how they apply today. How else?
 Posted by Veith at 08:09 PM
So what about Halloween?
I guess the last two posts, below, raise the obvious question about an upcoming holiday. Given the reality of the dark realm, should we celebrate Halloween? Here is a link to various views on the subject. Just recently, I came across an interesting defense of Halloween, arguing that since Christ is victorious over Hell and its minions, we have nothing to fear and that it is good to mock and vaunt over them in our Halloween customs. I thought it was a post on one of our community blogs, but I can’t find it. If you know, please post the link in a comment. But, seriously, what do you think about this? What do you do in your families?
 Posted by Veith at 07:52 PM
A change in his theology
This ties together both the post about spirits below and our earlier discussion about how Madonna is changing her tune (so to speak) after parenting in the real world: The ELCA pastor of the ghastly BTK killer tells how ministering to this member of his congregation has made him change from the liberal, mainline tendency to psychologize away evil to belief in a genuine, personal devil. Check out this interview with the Rev. Michael Clark of Christ Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas:
We’ve got a situation in which we are living off of a scientific model of understanding and explaining sin in people, a mental health model, whatever you want to name it, a psychiatric model. I use the phrase we psychologicalize evil in this world, and we explain it and justify it in psychological language. And the reason we do that is we can measure it, we can test it, we can diagnose it and then we can put it into a category. And it works. . . . .
Through my experiences and training I depersonified and I justified Satan or the devil as an object we need to project evil onto because the source of evil is within us.
I have changed my theology. I never thought I would. I’m here to tell you, Bill, that if on Feb. 24, 2005, a day before Dennis was arrested, someone had suggested that I would be talking the way I am today, I would have told them they were just plain crazy.
But I am convinced from what I have been through that there is definitely an evil force out there that is viable, and it’s something we need to know about. Posted by Veith at 03:04 PM
Spirits and the Biblical worldview
The blogger at Spirit and Life (one of the Cranach community blogs, linked at the lower right of this page) is a missionary to the Omaha Indians. Those folks have a pervasive though often unspoken belief in spirits--evil spirits that roam in the dark, spirits of dead relatives, benign spirits that you can get on your side. Much of this, of course, has a pagan, animistic origin. And yet, the missionary observes, spirits are part of the Biblical worldview, which we modern Christians perhaps tend to make overly rationalistic. He writes:
With all the talk recently among mainstream Evangelical Christians about the “Christian Worldview / Biblical Worldview,” almost all of it is directed toward affirming the belief in God, His act of Creation, talk of Natural Law, the existence of Moral Absolutes, the doctrine of Vocation and sometimes, the propriety of public Prayer in civil contexts. I cannot recall a single article of any prominence which includes any talk of the reality of spirits at work in the world. Oddly enough, Christians seem every bit as hesitant to speak of such things as do the people I meet among the Omaha.
He goes on to cite lots of Bible passages that affirm the existence of evil spirits, which are also referred to quite often in the Lutheran Confessions. He then talks about how he handles the issue in his mission work in a Biblical way. For a sampling, click “continue reading.” But you should really read his whole post (which he has made available as a downloadable .pdf file).
A CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
So given this Biblical and Confessional Worldview, how does a missionary respond to talk of spirits present and active among the tribe? As far as dealing with the tribe goes, I listen to their accounts without one ounce of patronizing cynicism. I don’t dismiss them. Neither do I swallow every interpretation offered of every unusual experience reported. That a person has experienced *something* dare not be denied, often something traumatic and quite disturbing.
After listening, sometimes I’m asked what I think about what was just told me. I often respond to these questions with an honest, “I don’t know. I am a Christian and I do believe spirits exist. God tells us that some are “ministering spirits” sent to help those who trust in Jesus (Heb. 1:14). Others are “deceiving spirits” who mean us harm and try to destroy our trust in the Lord (1 Tim. 4:1-2). About the only way to tell the difference between them is to compare what they have to say about God with what the Lord has to say about himself in the Bible. If they have nothing to say about the Lord or reminding us of His very present help and promises, I generally figure that one didn’t come from the Lord--but is probably up to no good. But I do know Jesus tells us He doesn’t want us to be afraid, because He’s defeated the evil ones on the cross.”
 Posted by Veith at 02:37 PM
October 18, 2005
More blogs are up
WORLD’s blogmaster is back, so he has posted a bunch more of the “community blogs” from the Cranach discussion list. (Scroll down to the lower right.) There are still a handful remaining to be listed, but they should be up soon. In the meantime, visit these blogs. I’ve been making a habit of regularly clicking down the list. I’ve found some real treasures.
 Posted by Veith at 11:46 PM
My approach to culture
I have done a lot of writing about other people’s ideas, so I find it weird to read something about mine. But the “American Family Association Journal” is doing a series of interviews on various Christian cultural critics and the way they approach the subject. So they did a piece on me. Click here if you want to read it.
Andrew, in his comment below, asked about resources for understanding the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. I lay out the concept in that interview. I go into it in more depth in an article that I wrote for “Modern Reformation” available here. I’ll be putting up some more stuff on the Biblical and Confessional sources for this view, but this will be a start.
 Posted by Veith at 07:06 PM
How vocation changes you
Since God acts in vocation, we often find ourselves, when we enter into our office, doing things we never thought we would or could. Vocation changes sinful people, at least externally, so that they serve do good and serve their neighbors despite themselves. Case in point: the morally rebellious Madonna now that she has entered the calling of being a Mom.
Madonna vigilantly protects her little girl Lourdes (9) and her little boy Rocco (4) from the decadent media environment she herself has helped to create. (Note to Madonna: In your next album and music video, think about OTHER people’s children.)
Now Madonna is preaching Hellfire and damnation. In her new documentary, “I’m Going to Tell Your a Secret,” she warns how people “are going to go to hell, if they don’t turn from their wicked behavior.” She also fusses that “Most priests are gay” and sounds like a Left Behinder in identifying the “Beast” of Revelation. “To me ‘The Beast’ is the modern world that we live in.”
Unfortunately, as often happens, Madonna has gone all the way to the other extreme in becoming a legalist. Her Kabbalah/New Agey worldview is also evident, preventing her from lightening up. Would that she--and poor Lourdes and Rocco--would discover the Gospel, which would give her and her family both moral order and freedom, and family vocations of mutual service, rather than harsh control.
 Posted by Veith at 02:33 PM
October 17, 2005
Worship music
Pastor Geo, in the comments to the post about worship below, asks if there is anything wrong with using “praise”-style music, as long as the basic elements of the liturgy are included and the Word of God still constitutiing what goes on there.
I’d have to say that the Word of God is the main thing, and that the music, strictly speaking, does not matter so much and may be changed. But I would add that the music should serve the text and the purpose of the Divine Service. As has been mentioned, pop music tends to be written to please on a rather simple level, and it is difficult for pop tunes to carry much substantive meaning--that’s no criticism, from this rock ‘n’ roll fan, just the nature. The words almost have to be repetitive and simple to go along with the rhythms.
But music can be contemporary, without being “pop.” The music of Lutheran Worship was written in the 1980s. That’s actually MORE contemporary than many of the praise songs, which date from the styles of the 1960′s. But the LW music was written functionally, in order to serve the liturgical texts. (I much prefer “The Lutheran Hymnal,” myself, simply because the music is older, and thus less familiar to me. It’s alienness adds to the sense of sacredness.) In Australia, the Lutheran church has a contemporary service which is very liturgical and sacred-sounding. The music is very contemporary--to the point of using guitars and drums--and yet it avoids sounding “pop.” I wish Lutherans here in America could sample that service, perhaps showing us how to make peace in our worship wars.
 Posted by Veith at 08:20 PM
Misquoted!
Several months ago, the editors of the “Focus on the Family Magazine” asked if I would contribute an article, for their July issue (Independence Day), on Freedom. Since this is a concept many Christians and others are confused about, I did so. The gist of my article (which I can’t find on the internet) was to compare the secular view of freedom--as absence of constraints on the will, so that “I am free to do anything I want to do”--with the Biblican view of freedom, which sees the will as being in bondage to sin, true freedom coming only from the Gospel of Christ, who frees us from the slavery of sin so that we voluntarily do what pleases God.
Anyway, in my introduction, I pointed out the widely different understandings of freedom. I observed that all political spectrums claim to be advocating freedom, though they mean different things by that concept.
Conservatives champion the cause of freedom around the world, promoting democracy, human rights and free economies. They also champion the freedom to worship, own property and not be dictated to by an intrusive government. Liberals defend civil rights, abortion, pornography and homosexuality all in the name of freedom as well.
Imagine my surprise to read the Sunday paper yesterday, in an article originating with the Los Angeles Times and to find my words--edited, taken out of context, and spun to mean something completely different from what I said.The article, by Stephanie Simon, was about James Dobson and Focus on the Family. It surveyed the work of this prominent child psychologist and his efforts to help families with their problems. It then accused him of nefariously sneaking in political manipulation:
In truth, though, politics are entwined with much of the ministry’s primary work nurturing families — especially through the hotline.
When callers seek advice on a daughter’s pregnancy or a husband’s infidelity, the ministry sends them brochures, books and CDs that hint at political as well as personal solutions.
Some references are subtle. A pamphlet called “When a Loved One Says ‘I’m Gay’ ” attributes same-sex attractions to unhealthy family dynamics but also lays some blame on “today’s ‘gay-affirmative culture.’ “
Other political references are overt: A recent edition of the ministry’s flagship Focus on the Family magazine defined conservatives as championing democracy, human rights and “the cause of freedom around the world,” while “liberals defend civil rights, abortion, pornography and homosexuality.”The quote, of course, is from my Freedom article. But it leaves out the topic I was illustrating--to the point of leaving out the key words in the second quotation: “in the name of freedom.” (I think the positions I describe the different political ideologies holding are accurate, but while I don’t believe in abortion, pornography, or homosexuality, I do believe in civil rights. The LA Times’ grouping makes it sound like that the authori is considering civil rights to be a bad thing, along with the other three. The grouping makes no sense except that liberals use the rhetoric of “freedom” to defend these causes, which is true and without bias.)
Did the reporter not read my article? Did she read it, but just glaze over the theological topic and completely misunderstand what I was saying? Or was she just looking for ammo for an attack piece?
 Posted by Veith at 02:10 PM
Who does what in worship?
Ray Avery, a church musician, raised some important questions in his comments on the “Glory” post, below. Granted that in our different vocations we are to focus not so much on doing things for God but on what He tells us to do, namely, loving and serving our neighbors, what does that mean for a choir director? Instead of preparing music that glorifies God, is the choir director to calculate what the neighbors in the congregation want and just serve it up to them so they will like it, even if that means sappy pop music?
It occured to me that our worship wars often involve different theologies of worship. One way to get at them is to ask, who is the performer and who is the audience? Or, more precisely, who ACTS and who RECEIVES? Here are the different positions:
MAN acts and MAN receives. This is the Arminian approach to worship, deriving from the thought of Charles Finney, the 19th century evangelist. He believed that worship should be planned to manipulate the congregation’s emotions so as to provoke decisions for Christ.
MAN acts and GOD receives. This is the Calvinist approach. God is the audience, and we human beings perform for Him and for His glory.
GOD acts and MAN receives. This is the Lutheran approach. God gives His gifts to human beings in the “divine service” (understood as the Divinity serving US). This means worship should consist almost wholly in the Word of God--read, preached, and recited liturgically. (I can’t understand why evangelicals complain about Lutheran liturgical worship, since it is essentially just texts of Scripture.) Worship is sacramental, both in the sense of the Word being a means of grace and in the sacraments being distributed in the worship service. God is understood to be acting in the worship service, with the congregation receiving the Gospel and being built up in their faith. And God does this acting through VOCATION--through the “called and ordained” pastor, as well as others, such as musicians, who assist in worship. Their priority, therefore, should be fidelity to the Word of God--in sermons, liturgy, and music--as part of using their God-given talents to the utmost. Thus, they serve their neighbors with what is imperishable.
This explains why Calvinists, like Lutherans, also are very critical of the Arminian approach to worship that characterizes many contemporary services. It may also explain why some Lutherans are open to them, thinking of serving the “audience” above all.
As applied to Ray’s question, I would think the choir director should think primarily of edifying the congregational neighbors with good theology that comes from the Word of God. A very well-done classical performance might be as irrelevant to genuine worship as a performance of pop music (though both might have their place in other contexts). Pop music, of course, by its very nature, cannot handle very much substantive content, so the church’s hymnic tradition works much better for that (though there are also contemporary hymns of substance).
I’m sure this over-simplifies and leaves some things out, but what do you think of this breakdown?
 Posted by Veith at 01:42 PM
October 15, 2005
Vote for Kiihnworld
FLASH: Here is something you can do to fill the blog lull of the weekend. One of the Cranach Community blogs, Kiihnworld, is a contender for blog of the week. And right now, it is ahead! Go here and vote.
(This is Theresa Kiihn’s blog, the “Theresa K” of many comments. We haven’t got her blog linked yet on our Community listing--because the only one who knows how to do that is in California--but she is definitely on the list and is one of us.)
Show your solidarity with the Iraqis voting today on their new constitution by being a voter yourself. As the Iraqis are doing, vote according to your tribe!
 Posted by Veith at 03:45 PM
Weekend blogging
Our experience with all of the World blogs is that the number of visits drops precipitously over the weekends. Which tells us that most people read blogs while doing their VOCATIONS! Anyway, would you all get out of the habit of checking this new Cranach blog with great frequency, if we took it easy and blogged just a little bit or not at all on Saturdays?
Besides, this is my birthday, and I need to reflect on my mortality--not to mention eat cake, open presents, watch sports, and go out on the town tonight.
Thanks to all of you readers who have made this inaugural week of the Cranach blog a great success. I actually have a backlog of interesting stuff I’m anxious to get to, but I’ll save that for next week. (Our blogmaster is at the big Christian bloggers convention in California, so he has not yet been able to put up the links to all of the Cranach Community blogs, but that will happen. I’m really enjoying reading those blogs, so I hope the rest of you are too.)
Obviously, YOU are reading blogs on the weekend, so it isn’t fair to neglect you in favor of the people who are NOT reading. So I declare this an open thread. YOU be the blogger, posting in the “comments” things YOU want to talk about. And if hardly anything gets put up, well, then, I have my answer about weekend blog reading.
 Posted by Veith at 03:11 PM
Joanna Hensley, Crocodile Hunter
Here is my daughter Joanna, newly married and living in Australia, with one of that country’s strange but intelligently-designed creatures:
 
echidna: a burrowing monotreme mammal covered with spines and having a long snout and and claws
 Posted by Veith at 09:11 AM
October 14, 2005
Glory
What is the difference between these two statements?:
I did my work for God’s glory.
I did my work and to God alone be the glory.Click “continue reading” for my take on the matter.
Calvin wanted to do everything “for God’s glory,” and the Jesuits wanted to go one better by doing everything “for God’s greater glory.” The greatest Lutheran artist, Johann Sebastian Bach, inscribed his magnificent compositions “to God alone be the glory.” That is, he was crediting God--the inventor of sound waves, creator of aesthetic impressions, the bestower of his musical talents--for what he had done in his art. Bach wasn’t composing for God, exactly. He was composing, using the gifts God had given him, for his neighbor and giving God the credit.
 Posted by Veith at 06:56 PM
The Work of God
A couple days ago, I posted a clipping about the Roman Catholic lay group Opus Dei and its approach to vocation in everyday life and work. The post provoked some excellent discussion. Here is my take on the matter:
One of the contributions Luther makes to vocation--which you don’t have to be a Lutheran to appreciate and draw from--is that as we exercise our multiple callings in the world, God works through them. What we do in our families, our jobs, and our citizenship is not just our doing. Rather, God works through us. That is to say, vocation is not just Law (what we should do as Christian parents, spouses, workers, etc., though this is part of it) but also Gospel (what God does for us and in our behalf).
The other approaches to vocation--be they Roman Catholic, Calvinist, or charismatic--focus on our callings as Law. We do them for our self-discipline, to gain merit, to sanctify ourselves, to glorify God. There is truth and value in that perspective, but Luther stresses that our relationship to God is based solely on the work of Christ. “God does not need our good works,” then significantly adding, “but our neighbor does.” Out of our faith in Christ flows love and service to our neighbor. So our works--and our callings--need to be neighbor-centered.
There is such a labored, ascetic, self-flagellating tone to much of what Christians try to do “for God.” You don’t see that so much in Lutheran reflection on vocation, which tends to be more relaxed, more natural, more happy. Yes, there is discipline and, yes, there is suffering. But God is at work. If you are going to discipline yourself to proofread your every e-mail, good, but don’t do it as a favor to God or to build up your virtue. Proofread for the sake of your neighbors, the actual human beings who will read your e-mail, so they will have an easier and more pleasant time reading your message. I just wish the Opus Dei folks would pay more attention to their name, both in salvation and in vocation: Opus Dei, which is Latin for “the work of God.”
 Posted by Veith at 03:17 PM
Baseball’s theological controversies
So not only is one of the baseball playoff games being called “the greatest game ever” (as noted previously on this blog), another one is said to have produced the most controversial call ever.
This sports columnist also calls for instant replay of umpire decisions and derides “baseball fundamentalists.” I’m trying to decide if that is what I am. I’m certainly no “baseball liberal.” I might be a “baseball evangelical,” except I don’t approve of video screens and instead of recorded pop music I much prefer the organ. I guess I’m a “confessional baseball fan,” wanting the game to keep its heritage, stick to the rule book, and do it all in a spirit of freedom.
 Posted by Veith at 02:39 PM
Joanna update
Some of you know, directly or indirectly, my daughter Joanna. She ran WORLD’s blog until she up and got married last August and moved to Australia, where she seems to be living happily ever after. Thanks to the literally world-wide-web, we can still stay in contact, though. In fact, since I’m having trouble learning how to post pictures on my new blog, she did it for me, from all the way down under. Here she has mutated into a real outdoors person. Here she is, after a night of surf-fishing.
 
 Posted by Veith at 02:48 AM
October 13, 2005
Today’s theater of the absurd
The delicious contradiction in Nobel laureate Harold Pinter, in the post below, is very common today. He doesn’t believe in truth. But he wants the truth about Iraq. I have noticed that the very people who say there is no such thing as morality are now insisting that the Iraq war is immoral.
 Posted by Veith at 04:24 PM
Absurdist playwright wins Nobel
The Nobel prize for literature went to Harold Pinter, the British dramatist known for his bleak, depressing plays about the meaninglessness of life. I did not realize that he was still alive! The absurdist pose seems strangely dated today. The 75-year-old Mr. Pinter has reportedly stopped writing plays, spending his time instead protesting the war in Iraq. Here is a quote from the Nobel Laureate:
In 1958 I wrote the following:
“There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.”
I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false?I do not begrudge him the Nobel prize. It’s fine to give it to denizens of the Norton Anthology before they die. I just wish we had more authors of stature today who could offer us something better.
 Posted by Veith at 03:30 PM
Greatest baseball game, ever?
Houston’s 18- inning playoff victory over Atlanta is being called the greatest baseball game ever played. The one double-length game had the equivalent of TWO shut-outs, almost a no-hitter in the second half, and epic comebacks. I like long games and extra-innings, and I’m kicking myself for missing this one. But I wonder how many people who aren’t from Atlanta or Houston had the patience and time to watch this five-and-a-half hour game, though it may have been the greatest of them all .
 Posted by Veith at 12:50 PM
Mindy, the Penguins, and ABC
When WORLD reviewed “March of the Penguins,” our film critic Andrew Coffin commented that the birds’ way of breeding and caring for their young is a good example of intelligent design. So lots of mainstream media types have been interviewing him, asking him what he meant. A reporter from ABC’s World News Tonight wanted to interview him on Monday, but he was all tied up. Our editor, Mindy Belz, wanted ME to do it, but I haven’t even seen the movie. So Mindy herself took up the task.
A camera crew drove hundreds of miles to interview her. I gave her a few talking points. Afterwards, she later called me to tell me how it went. It sounded like she acquitted herself well, as I knew she would. Anyway, Tuesday, after fighting both Chicago and Milwaukee traffic after the Narnia movie preview, I got home fifteen minutes before the news was over. I switched it on, and there was the Penguin story. The angle was that many conservatives see “March of the Penguins” as evidence for family values and intelligent design. (Have any of you seen it? Do you agree?)
Here is the clincher: Out of the long, well-reasoned interview she did, Mindy was on the air for about a second and a half, making a good point about order and complexity. But most of the bit was about two gay penguins in a California zoo! They have formed a “pair” and are taking care of baby penguins. That had nothing to do with the movie or the ostensible topic of the feature. The reporter, quoting Michael Medved and Mindy, said how conservatives like the way the penguins act, then tried to undercut the message by making a penguin case for same-sex marriage and gay adoptions! ABC reporters could not allow themselves to present a conservative position without making a huge stretch to try to refute it!
 Posted by Veith at 08:13 AM
October 12, 2005
Better than “the Passion”?
I am also thinking that “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” MAY have a stronger witness to the Gospel than “The Passion of the Christ.” How could that possibly be? Bear with me on this one. . .
During the Reformation, someone (Zwingli?) arguing against the Roman Catholic uses of images, made the point that if we just send a picture of Jesus being crucified to the heathen, that would not be enough to convert them. They might feel sorry for the suffering of the person being depicted, but they would not know Who is being killed, or why, or what His death means. They would not know that this Person died for THEM. All of that has to be proclaimed with LANGUAGE. After all, faith comes by hearing of the WORD.
Mel Gibson’s movie--which I think is excellent--was made in Aramaic, a language its audience does not understand. For Christians, who know “the Word,” this movie was very powerful. For non-Christians who can read and follow the subtitles the movie could have been Gospel-bearing. But for most viewers, it was a purely visual experience. And the reaction varied wildly, from just feeling sorry for Jesus to claims of anti-semitism to outrage at how violent it all was.
“The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe,” in contrast, explains, explores, and proclaims the Gospel. In the medium of a story and using symbolism, we see a whole world enslaved by the Devil and a particular sinful little boy whose behavior repels us. We see the creator of this world giving himself as a ransom to save this child. He dies in the sinner’s place. He rises from the dead. The sinner is saved, the power of the Devil is broken, and new life comes into the world. This may still need to be unpacked for non-believers and related to Christ in the real world, but Lewis’s story seems more evangelistic than Mel Gibson’s. (Am I right, or not? I am always willing to be corrected.)
 Posted by Veith at 03:20 PM
Bigger than “the Passion”?
I am thinking that “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” may even be a bigger box office hit than “The Passion of the Christ.” For one thing, it will be rated PG, giving it a vastly larger market to draw on, with whole families going to the movies and buying three or four or five or more tickets at a time. Also, it appeals to many different audiences. Sci-fi and fantasy fans, judging from their magazines, are eagerly awaiting this movie. It has a huge fan base among children. And then, of course, there are us Christians. This movie might have the draw of “Lord of the Rings,” “Harry Potter,” and “The Passion of the Christ” combined!
 Posted by Veith at 03:15 PM
Scare the kids
Douglas Gresham had this exchange, in a Q&A time, with a woman in the audience. She asked if this movie--with its epic battle scenes with the White Witch and her repulsive minions-- might be too scary for young children. Gresham replied that Americans are too concerned with this. “Children like to be scared,” he said. “It is good for them to be scared, if they are scared of the right things.”
But what about the emotional trauma, the woman replied, of children getting all attached to Aslan, and then to see him killed? “Children should cry when they see the death of Aslan,” Gresham said. “I cry.” His death is why he came. Besides, it will mean all the more when he is raised from the dead.
 Posted by Veith at 03:07 PM
Gems from Douglas Gresham
The best part of the “sneak peek”--besides the filmclips--was getting to hear and meet Lewis’s stepson, Douglas Gresham. (Charles Opitz, a commenter on this blog, invited me to check out Sacred History, a new magazine on church history that he and Gresham are involved with. I stopped by their table, was greatly impressed with the publication, and I subscribed on the spot.)
Anyway, Gresham had some great lines. He said he and Lewis were brought up with “19th century values,” such as faith, duty, honor, chivalry. He said that the 20th century had deliberately thrown them away, but that in order to preserve our civilization “we need to get them back.” This movie, which also has 19th century values, may help, he said, in that recovery.
“Every child will be offered Turkish Delight. If they have seen this movie, they’ll know what the consequences will be.”
 Posted by Veith at 02:56 PM
Narnia resources
There are all kinds of goodies available for churches and other groups that want to do something with the Narnia movie. You can go to Narniaresources.com for information about previews and buying tickets in bulk. You can also get posters, banners, invitations, and customizable flyers (which can be printed with information about your event). Also bulletin inserts and bulletin covers (I draw the line at those!).
The site also offers downloadable study guides for various age groups. We were told, though, that the resources from Disney and Walden are “generic,” and not “faith-based.” They appear to be designed for public schools. Mission America, though, an evangelistic ministry that is co-sponsoring these sneak peek events, will be churning out children’s Bible studies, evangelistic talking points, and other resources. (I could not find them on Mission America’s website, so I guess they are not ready yet. There is information for people who want to sponsor one of these previews in their own congregations.)
 Posted by Veith at 02:39 PM
What I learned from the preview
If the movie proves successful, pre-production will begin soon on “Prince Caspian.”
I had heard that one problem the filmmakers were having was finding the right voice for Aslan. The first one they had used did not work well. So now the actor voicing the Lion is Liam Neeson.
The same team that did the special effects for “Lord of the Rings” did them for the Narnia movie.
Douglas Gresham, the son of Lewis’s wife Joy Davidman from her first marriage, was 8 years old when his mother married C. S. Lewis in 1953. Joy died of cancer in 1960. Douglas continued to live with his step-father until Lewis died in 1963. What I learned at the preview was that after his step-father died, J. R. R. Tolkien offered to take 18-year-old Douglas in. Mr. Gresham tossed that fact out in the course of talking about the deep and continual friendship of those two founding figures of modern fantasy.
 Posted by Veith at 02:24 PM
Hyping to churches
The “sneak peek” of the Narnia movie was part of the effort to market the movie to and through churches. The event was held in a church, with pastors and “Christian leaders” packing the place. This was the same approach--with the same publicists--used to push “The Passion of the Christ.” A bunch of these events will be held throughout the country. We were urged to buy tickets in bulk, buy tickets to give out to people, and to use this movie as a “ministry opportunity.” This may be perfectly legitimate, or it may be a case of using churches commercially. What do you think?
 Posted by Veith at 02:16 PM
Narnia preview report
The first test of the upcoming “Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” film is whether or not it is going to be a good movie. Is it going to be lame, embarrassing, badly done? Judging from the excerpts I saw at the “sneak peak” yesterday--and, again, they did not show the whole movie--it looks like it is, indeed, going to be a good one. Film is a visual medium, of course, and the production is stunning to behold. The cinematography, the special effects, and the visual design are magnificent. Also, the young actors playing Lucy, Susan, Peter, and Edmund seem exceptionally well-cast, and their performances (from the little I saw) appear to be outstanding.
The second test is whether or not the movie will be faithful to the book. Does it preserve the Christian symbolism, specifically, its dramatization of the Christ-figure dying for the sinner and rising again for his redemption? That is indeed in the film. All of the representatives from the different groups with a hand in the production assured us that they were faithful to the material and its meaning. The representative from Disney walked us through the story, illustrating her presentation with stills, to show that “we are not ruining” the story. The man from Walden Media said they view this project as a “sacred trust.” Lewis’s stepson, Douglas Gresham, had the status of co-producer, and his job, he said, was to be “to blame” if the movie did not do justice to Lewis’s book. So far, I believe them.
 Posted by Veith at 02:05 PM
October 11, 2005
Narnia report
I just got back from the “sneak peek” of the Narnia movie. They didn’t show us the whole thing, just clips and commentary from some of the people involved, including Lewis’s stepson Douglas Gresham. I’ve got a lot to report and to talk about. The bottom line: It looks very, very good. The symbolism appears to be intact. The representatives from Walden Media, Disney, and the Lewis family kept assuring us that they “didn’t ruin it,” that, indeed, they were faithful to the source. The event was part of a Passion-like attempt to market the movie to and through churches. Anyway, I want to talk about all of this--along with some new information about the movie and some thoughts about it all--tomorrow. Right now, having fought my way through rush hour traffic in BOTH Chicago (this morning) and Milwaukee (this evening), I’m going to enjoy not being in my car.
 Posted by Veith at 11:36 PM
The Opus Dei approach to vocation
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has an article about Opus Dei, the conservative Catholic lay order that provides the boogeymen in “The Da Vinci Code.” Consider this view of what we would call vocation:
When Terry McHugh gets to his desk at Computer Associates each morning, he resolves to do things the hard way. For Jesus.
McHugh, 52, and a member of the Catholic movement Opus Dei, proofs all his e-mails to make sure they are punctuated correctly and capitalized in the right places before he hits “send.” If he has to return six phone calls and there is one he’s dreading, McHugh makes that call first.
But not just to get it over with. McHugh attacks the difficult, if sometimes mundane, parts of daily life to identify with Christ’s suffering and offer his daily work to God -- the central idea at the core of Opus Dei.
“Even the little details, the menial tasks of life, if done well can be done well for the love of God,” he said. “You bear the crosses that are coming your way anyway -- you embrace the cross.”Is this a good approach to living out one’s Christian vocation, does it miss the mark, or a little of both?
 Posted by Veith at 07:17 AM
Luther on God’s masks
What is our work in field and garden, in town and house, in battling and in ruling, to God, but the work of his children. Our works are God’s mask, behind which He remains hidden, although He does all things. -- Martin Luther
HT: Amor et Labor, a blog about psychological counseling as a Christian vocation
 Posted by Veith at 06:30 AM
A positive theology of culture
D. G. Hart, in the article posted yesterday, is right in appreciating how Luther’s doctrine of the Two Kingdoms rejects utopianism and ensures the church retains a spiritual rather than power-seeking focus. But Luther’s theology values culture far more than D. G. Hart says it does, and far more than Augustine does. Yes, culture is temporal and passes away, but God is active and actually present, though hidden, in the secular realm, including earthly government (our big emphasis on Romans 13), how God gives His gifts through ordinary vocations (the farmer giving us our daily bread), Luther’s extraordinarily high view of the family, his advocacy of secular education, his critique of Puritanism and ascetism and championing the pleasures of everyday life.
The belief that the secular realm is also God’s kingdom--in which He is hidden but active--provides a very powerful positive take on ordinary life. Utopians reject the culture just like separatists do, though they think they can erect something better. The belief that God is already ruling in the family, the state, the marketplace, gives a basis for affirming culture as it is, while encouraging its citizens to apply the moral law in fighting sin in the world. Hart does see part of this, I think, but in his eagerness to escape utopianism, he seems to downplay the positive implications of this doctrine for engaging culture.
 Posted by Veith at 06:18 AM
October 10, 2005
Narnia preview
I just got invited to see a preview of the upcoming movie of “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe”! This means having to drive to Chicagoland early tomorrow, but I’ll report when I get back. I will be very interested to see if the Christian symbolism survives intact, or if it gets all Disneyfied.
 Posted by Veith at 05:21 PMWhat is he missing?
I’m glad that D. G. Hart, in the entry below, is embracing the Lutheran doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. But do you think he really grasps the concept? Yes, this view is skeptical of earthly utopias. But doesn’t it also give a profoundly positive basis for engaging the culture? Read his article or the excerpt posted below. What is he missing?
 Posted by Veith at 03:21 PM
Cultural confusion in the church
D. G. Hart is one of the most penetrating church historians around. The author of The Lost Soul of American Protestantism, Dr. Hart is a confessional Calvinist. In a lecture entitled Transformed? Protestants and American Culture, he chronicles how American Christians today are totally confused about how they should relate to their culture. For example, he says how most evangelicals are cultural conservatives in their politics, but are cultural liberals when it comes to their churches! He ends up recommending that Christians adopt Luther’s theology of culture, the doctrine of Two Kingdoms.
For a sampling, click “continue reading.”
Dr. Hart deals with the utopianism of much American protestantism, the post-millennial assumption that we can build our nation into the perfectly righteous “city on the hill.” This view, he argues, does not work, even to support traditional values. Then he moves to an alternative:
In conclusion, let me say a few words about an alternate eschatology that may have yielded dependable Protestant allies in the culture wars.
In the introduction to his book, Aliens in America, Peter Lawler suggests that Anglo-Protestants are not alone responsible for thinking it possible to create heaven on earth. He writes that “the goal of modern philosophy and science has been to transform our condition so as to make us completely at home.”
“That is,” he explains, “the philosophers have aimed to bring history to an end,” in other words, to inaugurate the eschaton. Lawler contrasts this effort with the outlook of Walker Percy who could not understand why a scientist like Carl Sagan spent so much time searching the cosmos for aliens, when “beings stranger than any extraterrestrials we could imagine are right here on earth.” Lawler goes on to explain that Percy’s instinct is essentially Christian. “As St. Augustine says, we are pilgrims or aliens in this world because our true home is somewhere else.” Consequently, “Homelessness is a fundamental human experience, and the best human beings can hope for is to become ambiguously at home in this world by coming to terms with that ineradicable experience.”
Calvinists and Lutherans both stand in the Augustinian tradition but the latter generally receive credit for better preserving the Christian notion of human life as one lived in exile. According to H. Richard Niebuhr, whose book on Christ and Culture continues remarkably to define American Protestant debates about culture, Lutherans conceive of Christ and culture in a paradoxical relationship while Calvinists believe in a cultural model of Christ transforming culture. Although Niebuhr has surprisingly little to say about eschatology, clearly, the Anglo-Protestants who tried to create heaven on earth exhibit the transformationist ideal.
Conversely, the Lutheran outlook, which is closer to the Augustinian understanding, has been less attractive to American Protestants who, whether through the Social Gospel or faith-based initiatives, have been trying to Christianize American society. As Niebuhr put it, “Both Paul and Luther have been characterized as cultural conservatives,” by which he means that they “were deeply concerned to bring change into only one of the great cultural institutions and sets of habits of their times — the religious.” Niebuhr does give Luther credit for understanding well “the actual struggles of the Christian who ‘lives between the times.’” Still the over all effect of the dualism inherent in Lutheran theology is the idea “that in all temporal work in culture men are dealing only with the transitory and the dying. Hence, however important cultural duties are for Christians their life is not in them. . . .”
Finding examples of this Lutheran ambivalence about culture is not difficult. Martin Luther’s most popular song, “A Mighty Fortress,” the one sung on Reformation Sunday by those Protestants who still sing hymns, has a final verse that supports Niebuhr’s contention that the Augustinian understanding of Christ and culture is insufficiently reform-minded:
That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth; The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth: Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also; The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still, His kingdom is forever.
Of course, the line about letting goods, kindred and mortal life go is not exactly a blueprint for cultural renewal or preservation. In fact, that line has all the connotations of otherworldliness typically associated with fundamentalism. But not to be missed in the concluding stanza of “A Mighty Fortress” is the fairly explicit assertion of the two-kingdom theology for which Lutheranism is legendary. The “earthly powers” in the first line contrast sharply with God’s kingdom. The former is temporal, the latter is “forever.” Even more important for my purposes is the eschatology implicit in this contrast. The word of God, like his kingdom, transcends “earthly powers.” In fact, even without the help of those earthly powers, the divine purpose endures.
The implication for cultural life in Luther’s understanding would appear to be discouraging. Since the kingdom of God does not depend upon human agency, whether in statecraft or cultural life, the preservation and cultivation of the true, the good and the beautiful in human associations and cultural endeavors is seemingly pointless. In fact, without the incentive that postmillennial eschatology supplies, Protestants appear to be lacking a clear cultural mandate. This is why Luther’s two-kingdom outlook has so often prompted mainstream Protestants to dismiss it as merely fundamentalistic or pietistic. By separating culture from the kingdom of God, Luther seemed to condone indifference to the quality of human life in this world.
In point of fact, Luther and also Calvin did not so denigrate cultural life. That they appear to do so may simply be the effect of almost four centuries of Anglo-Protestant assumptions about the relationship between this world and the one to come. In his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews Luther addressed specifically the importance of culture despite its temporal or transitory character. Writing particularly on the verse in chapter eleven that refers to believers as “strangers and pilgrims” (Heb. 11:13), Luther wrote: “We must not seek to build for ourselves eternal life here in this world and pursue it and cleave to it as if it were our greatest treasure and heavenly kingdom, and as if we wished to exploit the Lord Christ and the Gospel and achieve wealth and power through Him. No, but because we have to live on earth, and so long as it is God’s will, we should eat, drink, woo, plant, build, and have house and home and what God grants, and use them as guests and strangers in a strange land, who know they must leave all such things behind and take our staff out of this strange land and evil, unsafe inn, homeward bound for our true fatherland where there is nothing but security, peace, rest, and joy for evermore.”
Of course, regarding life in this world as a pilgrimage will clearly color the way we view cultural life. It will significantly diminish thoughts of attributing to any work of human creativity, love, or duty the kind of eternal significance that nineteenth-century American Protestants ascribed to the telegraph or their twentieth-century heirs to the Internet. But the question remains, will a recognition of the exilic status of human existence yield sufficient resolve to take cultural life seriously?
The answer to that question depends on what other pieces are in place to sustain an Augustinian eschatology. In Luther’s own case, his understanding of the two kingdoms leaned heavily on other ideas about the goodness of creation, divine providence, and vocation.
In fact, one could plausibly argue that Anglo-Protestant millennial optimism dissolved this fuller account of the necessity and importance of culture. Still, that older Protestant outlook, indebted as it was to Augustine and to the biblical writers, refrained from the sort of utopianism and despair that has afflicted eschatologically-challenged Anglo-Protestants.
No matter how important cultural life was, its significance was only temporal. The danger today is that if American Protestants attempt to recover the older Augustinian outlook without also appropriating a fuller account of the created order and man’s place and function in it they may retreat to a position of cultural indifference. At the same time, if millennial optimism is the only rationale sustaining a vigorous cultural life, then aside from deceiving themselves, Anglo-Protestants will continue to be fickle allies in the preservation of the West. Posted by Veith at 02:36 PMWelcome to Cranach
Greetings! As the Cultural Editor of WORLD MAGAZINE who has been contributing to the main blog from its inception, it’s nice to have a blog of my own. The focus here will be Christianity and Culture. Though I’ll post on all kinds of things--Christianity and Culture includes a lot!--I’d like to use this blog to help sort out how Christians should approach cultural issues. For this I hope to enlist your help. This will be a discussion blog, not just a pontificating blog, so I plan to post items to provoke lots of back-and-forth COMMENTS.
I have found Luther’s theology of culture--which is strangely little known in today’s evangelical scene--to be especially helpful. His doctrine of vocation seems to be the key to how Christians can live out their faith in the culture in every station and walk of life (in the workplace, in the family, in the church, and in our citizenship). His doctrine of the Two Kingdoms seems to be the key to how we can be in the world without being of the world, and shows how God is rules even in the secular sphere. The great Reformation artist Lucas Cranach, for whom this blog is named, exemplified those principles. I’d like to use this blog to brainstorm on how they can be carried out today.
So, welcome, come back often, and let’s get started!
 Posted by Veith at 02:09 PM