Are human beings valued intrinsically or instrumentally?

This is no mere academic debate between ivory-tower philosophers.  This is a crucial question that touches upon culture and laws in the real world.  And it is not hard to understand.  It's a basic question about how we treat other people.  These two short videos viewed together really expose why we are seeing so much oppression and violence in our culture.

Alan Shlemon speaks on two opposing worldviews of what it means to be human: the Intrinsic Value Theory, vs. the Instrumental Value Theory (beginning at 28:44)...

Summer White with Apologia Studios interviews feminists on the most basic questions of what it means to be human and to have rights...




Shlemon's distinction between these two worldviews is clearly demonstrated by such interviews. This topic is worth pondering and discussing.

A Tommy Gunner on Espresso

This latest interview is classic Camille Paglia - my favorite lesbian left-wing feminist atheist professor.

Of course, I don't agree with everything she believes, and she is capable of some pretty over-the-top stuff, but hey, the world would be terribly boring if everybody simply agreed with me on everything.  Dr. Paglia is a thinker, a scrapper, a philosopher, a social and literary critic, pop-culture commentator, and interpreter of art who fearlessly articulates what she believes - with elan and erudition.  She is a feminist who outrages nearly every other feminist, a Democrat who praises the Republicans, a "liberal" who was a guest on Rush Limbaugh, an atheist who defends religion and pulls no punches when it comes to the modern atheist elite.  She is a true scholar.  If you read or listen to her, she will make you think, will challenge your premises, and will give your intellect a workout.  And just when you think you might be able to predict which direction she is headed, she will zag back and hit you upside the back of the head with a two-by-four before you can even turn around.

Camille Paglia is fun!

I got to see her lecture at Haverford back in the late 90s when Mrs. H. was a McBride Scholar at Bryn Mawr College.  Miss Grace was in the trenches doing battle against irrational and totalitarian Gender Feminism as it was being pushed on hapless students by dour-yet-smirking baby-boom faculty members - who were, by the way, all there when the diminutive lady professor swaggered to the podium like a tigress looking for something to toss to her cubs to play with.  It was as though the movie suddenly switched from drab Soviet-style black-and-white to full-blown HD color.  Paglia unleashed a mile-a-minute tirade that would not let up - off the cuff, laden with facts and figures, teaming with history and art, pop culture, rock and roll, political philosophy and literary references - all punctuated by quick breaths - a Tommy gunner on espresso.  She took fearless aim at every one of the Sacred Cows of Gender Studies.

The smirking guardians of Gender Feminism slinked away licking their wounds as Paglia held the field and held forth for hours.  Her talk began at 7:00 pm and she was still fielding questions at 1:00 am. when Mrs. H. and I finally left - toting our Camille Paglia books that we had brought with us to be signed by the author - who spoke with us in person with a humility and kindness that was almost shocking after her overwhelming stage persona.

And yet, it was not just an act.  What you see is what you get.  She is as real as they come, and doesn't play around trying to fit in or craft an acceptable image.  She can fit in with anyone.  She can offend anyone.

Here is the final three paragraphs of her interview, strafing such topics as homeschool mothers, the Tea Party, religion, atheism, art, the Democrat and Republican parties, pop culture, the 1960s, and drugs.  Take a deep breath, put on your seat-belt, count to ten, and pull the ripcord:

No, the Republican Party has become very provincial in terms of culture. Nelson Rockefeller, in contrast, was a collector of first-rate abstract art! That’s one of the things I’m trying to remedy with my book. One of my target audiences is home-schooling moms — whose powerful voices I heard calling into conservative talk radio at the dawn of the Tea Party. They are formidable and capable personalities whom feminism has foolishly ignored.

I don’t like the situation where the Democratic Party is the party of art and entertainment, the party of culture, while the Republicans have become the party of economics and traditional religion. What that does is weaken both sides. One of the themes in my book is the current impoverishment of the art world because of its knee-jerk hostility to religion, which is everywhere. That kind of sneering at religion that Christopher Hitchens specialized in, despite his total ignorance of religion and his unadmirable lifestyle, was no model for atheism. I think Hitchens was a burden to atheism in terms of his decadent circuit of constant parties and showy blather. He was a sybaritic socialite and roué — not a deep thinker — whose topical, meandering writing will not last. And I’m no fan of Richard Dawkins’ sniping, sniggering style of atheism, either. 

A responsible atheist needs to be informed about religion in order to reject it. But the shallow, smirky atheism that’s au courant is simply strengthening the power of the Right. Secular humanism is spiritually hollow right now because art is so weak. If you don’t have art as a replacement for the Bible, then you’ve got nothing that is culturally sustaining. If all you have is “Mad Men” and the Jon Stewart “Daily Show,” then religion is going to win, because people need something as a framework to understand life. Every great religion contains enormous truths about the universe. That’s why my ’60s generation followed the Beat movement toward Zen Buddhism and then opened up that avenue to Hinduism — which is why the Beatles went to India with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Then it all disappeared, when people became disillusioned with gurus. But spiritual quest was one of the great themes of the ’60s that has been lost and forgotten — that reverent embrace of all the world religions. This is why our art has become so narrow and empty. People in the humanities have sunk into this shallow, snobby, liberal style of stereotyping religious believers as ignorant and medieval, which is total nonsense. And meanwhile, the entire professional class in Manhattan and Los Angeles is doping themselves on meds and trying to survive in their manic, anxiety-filled world. And what are they producing that is of the slightest interest? Nothing. Nothing is being produced in movies or the fine arts today (except in architecture) that is not derivative of something else.

My Siberian Adventure - Day 23, July 19, 2011

Begin: Chelyabinsk
Drive to: Yekaterinburg
Drive to: Polevskoya
Drive to: Yekaterinburg

I woke up a little on the late side and took a shower.  I was beginning to think that there was no hot water - but my patience was rewarded.

Dan, Alexy, and I enjoy a very nice buffet breakfast in the Green Restaurant downstairs - which is included.  This breakfast is like Russian supper - with sausage, chicken, and pasta - along with more typical breakfast foods like boiled eggs.  There are also the traditional drinks - water and fruit juices.  One berry drink is translated as "hip drink."  Father Alexey doesn't know why.  The music is a little odd, quite loud, a sort-of disco or fitness club version of Indian or Middle Eastern music.  I actually dig it.  We check out of the hotel and meet Father Sergey.  I'm armed with bottled water that Alexey purchased for me.  Russians drink a lot of bottled water.  This one is sparkling ("living.").

We drive to a drab factory building where Dan's wife's company has a branch office.  He hopes to get inside for a picture, but security won't let us in.  We wait in a cramped reception area.  A manager with whom Father Daniel has corresponded comes down and apologetically gives Dan some brochures to take home.

We hit the road which is terribly bumpy, posing for pictures at the sign indicating that we have just left Chelyabinsk.  The terrain between Chelyabinsk and Yekaterinburg is wide open with bright yellow fields.  There are birch forests in the distance.

We arrive at the church flat, drop off our things, and eat lunch at the food court - at Blinoff, a pancake (blini) place.  It's outstanding!  I had a pancake with "old Russian meat" - which is a spiced beef - as well as a cherry pancake with a sweet condensed milk sauce.  I also had a soulanka, a roll, and a coffee (which was not instant!).  The pancakes are actually crepes.  They are made on the spot on two large griddles.

After lunch, we head off the to the Orthodox diocesan store for my last opportunity to buy icons for souvenirs.

Father Sergey drives us to the archbishop's residence - which is opulent.  There is an army of Mercedes and Lexus cars.  We see bearded and cassocked clergy surrounded by secret-service-type bodyguards with sunglasses and earpieces.  It was rather surreal - quite a contrast to our own bishop with his Toyota.  A lot of people have apparently been turned off to Christianity in Russia because of the financial dealings of some of the Orthodox churches.

After parking, we walk into the store and start shopping for icons.  Of all of our icon-buying trips, I have been unsuccessful in finding an icon of St. Raphael the archangel to bring back to Grace.  Even now I can't find one - until I visited the very last room and looked at the very last icon!  I see a small icon of an angel.  The Cyrillic letters are hard to read, but I sound it out and it comes out like "Raphael" to me.  I point to the icon to buy it, and the lady says: "Raphael."  Very cool!

Father Daniel and I pick up some icons and Father Alexey buys a stack of books.

Afterwards, we head back to the church flat for a quick change of clothes.  We all get into our clericals as we are headed to the local ELKRAS congregation for a visit.  This is Father Dennis's congregation, the pastor I offended regarding women's "ordination."  His predecessor was a woman who was there for three years.

Father Sergey drives.  He has been playing an interesting and eclectic mix of very good pop music in the car: soundtracks from House, MD, an album called Dead Man's Bones, a collection of Christmas tunes by Annie Lenox, some blues, and Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms album.  Father Sergey is a Dire Straits/Mark Knopfler fan.  Dan asks about Dire Straits and I fill him in on the Brothers in Arms album.  Sergey listens in with amusement.

The ELKRAS parish is located in Polevskoya.  The congregation meets in a rented room in an office complex.  We are greeted warmly by the pastor, who is young and speaks some English and German in addition to Russian.  The congregation is nearly all older women.  There are two younger women and one young man and one old man in the congregation.

Fathers Sergey, Daniel, Alexey, and I sit in the front row behind the small keyboard.  Father Alexey translates as Father Dennis explains that we will sing a couple hymns, have a prayer, and then we (the guests) will speak.

The service book has many short hymns.  They are essentially "praise songs" of a Taize character.  We sing one such song, singing the Russian part three times, a Latin translation twice, and then repeating the Russian again.  The next song we only sing n Russian.  Dennis led the singing and played the electronic organ.

There is a small but dignified altar set up for communion with a Bible situated in the middle.  There is also a small, dignified pulpit.  Both altar and pulpit are adorned by a pair of flickering candles.

There is a small icon of Christ on the wall, under which are three western depictions of our Lord.  There is a little table underneath with a candle, an open Bible, and a crucifix.  On the Bible is an Orthodox rosary.

After a short prayer, Father Dennis introduces us.  I spoke about our congregation back home, about New Orleans, and about my family.  Father Daniel does the same regarding his family and parish.  I related the story of how Grace had once told me that she would live anywhere but New Orleans which everyone found amusing.  I also told them how Grace was the daughter of a nun and the wife of a priest who was given a most appropriate name for a Lutheran pastor's wife.

Afterwards, a lady asked about Hurricane Katrina.  I took her e-mail and will send her links to pictures.

Dan also spoke about the catechism and the sacraments.  I spoke about the heroic nature of Russian Lutheranism and implored them not to take their freedom for granted as, unfortunately, many Americans do.  Sergey and Alexey also give brief addresses.

The congregation was very hospitable and treated us to tea and dessert pastries afterward.  They gave us a box of them to take with us.  I offered to take some home to my family, but they warned against it - as they were home-made with sour cream.  So I took a picture instead.

We drove back to the church flat in Yekaterinburg and reflected on what a tragedy women's "ordination" is.  These are nice people who have been led astray - including women in their eighties who had never seen such things in he churches of their youth.

We arrive at the flat and say our goodbyes to Father Alexey.  He is flying back to Novosibirsk, having found a flight for the same price as the train would cost.  Father Sergey will be by at 5:20 am tomorrow morning to bring us to the airport.

Dan and I change clothes.  I check e-mail and have an IM session with Grace.  I send my dad a SnapYap message.  Dan and I head back for one final visit to the beer tent.  First, we decide to walk around the mall.  Unfortunately, it is in the process of closing.  But we take a short walk and snap a few pictures.

We drop into the beer garden to find our familiar waiter working.  He knows just what beers to bring us.  I decide to eat, and so does Dan.  I order mante (steamed dumplings) and a plav (rice and meat).  The portions are pretty good-sized, and the price is reasonable.  Dan also orders a plav, and along with the beers and a generous tip, the total is 600 rubles - about $20.

Our waiter takes our picture.  We explain that we are flying back to America tomorrow.  Actually, Dan explains in Russian accompanied by hand gestures.

We head back to the flat to pack.  I decide to shower then rather than waiting until 4:30 am.  I am excited to be going home, as I am missing my wife and son terribly!  It is hard to fall asleep as my mind races.

Here is a link to all of my pictures from Day Twenty-Three.

  

Where women's "ordination" leads

This article about a recent conference (featuring a priestess of the goddess Isis) at a "Lutheran church" (sic) - a member congregation of the ELCA (not affiliated with the LCMS) - is an honest explication of what, and who, is behind the recent phenomenon of women's "ordination."  It is also an indictment of the leadership of the ELCA to not only tolerate this kind of thing year after year in one of their congregations, but to actually encourage it by allowing one of the "church's" leading scholars to participate (a point cogently made here by ELCA member Dan Skogan).

Here is a link to the conference.  Here is a link to the "church."  And here is a link to the Isis temple.  This is a crystal-clear confession of feminist theology.  At least they are being honest about it.

I know that we're not really in a position to throw stones, but when the name "Lutheran" is attached to pagan goddess worship, it affects us whether we like it or not.  Kyrie eleison!

Craftsperson?

I used to really love doing crossword puzzles.  I have not done one for many years, but I took one up this evening - the Newsday Crossword as it appears in today's (Nov. 11, 2010) New Orleans Times-Picayune.

The theme involved Swiss things.

The clue for 26 across was "Swiss ___ (precision craftspersons)" and was 11 letters: WATCHMAKERS.

Craftspersons?  What the heck is that?  Obviously, this is an agenda-driven euphemistic circumlocution to avoid the dirty word "man."  The creation of such an anguished neologism is due to the feminist movement and its attempt to control thought by manipulating language.  If we can brainwash people to use politically-correct words, so the logic goes, we can brainwash them into having politically-correct thoughts.  It's just simple, straightforward  Orwellianism.  Nothing extraordinary.  It is the linguistic equivalent of asking a man if he has stopped beating his wife, or to put it in Newspeak, asking a person if she or he has stopped beating his/her spouse or significant other.

The brainwashing is bad enough, but how about the verbal butchery?  I mean, is nothing sacred?  I understand people wanting me to abandon my Christianity for a diabolical fantasy of gender-neutralism.  I get it.  But can't brainwashing and political bullying at least be esthetically gracious and elegant?  Is that really too much to ask?  Am I being unreasonable here?  Instead of the economical "craftsman" with a simple pattern of stress on the first syllable, the "new and improved" brainwash-word stresses the antepenultimate syllable creating a hideously unnatural trisyllablic word that nearly must be grunted.  It forces the natural "PER-son" (with the stress on "per") to be said "per-son" with no stress on either syllable - thus rendering the word "person" into a syllablic no-man's land (no-person's land?).  It also includes the four consonants "FSTP" in a row - which somehow just seems more awkward than "FSTM."

And how many female watchmakers in Switzerland are there anyway?  And even so, it really doesn't matter. For a "craftsman" can (like a "first baseman" or a "freshman") be a man or a woman.  This is why Congressman Helen Chenoweth refused to be called "Congresswoman" or "Congressperson."  A congressman can be of either sex.  In fact, a craftsman can even sometimes be neither male nor female, and the word "craftsman" itself can actually be "gender-neutral" - in the case of a power tool from Sears.

There would just be something morally wrong about a circular saw having a tag that says "CRAFTSPERSON" on it.

For a talented man or woman displays what is known as "craftsmanship" - a noun of the neuter gender.  It's hard for me to imagine even the most dyed-in-the-wool ideological feminista ever passing the word "craftspersonship" across her or his angry, humorless lips.  But I could be wrong.  "Craftspersonship" sounds like the name of a boat made of macaroni and cheese.

I think part of the problem is that most English speakers don't seem to know about sex.  Or gender.  If you don't know about sex, I'm going to fill you in.  Are you ready?  Have you sent the children out of the room?  Here's the big secret about sex: it is a biological attribute.  Most living creatures come in two biological varieties: male and female.  There are exceptions, of course.  But most of the animal world - human beings included - displays one sex or the other.  "Gender" has nothing to do with biology.  Gender is a grammatical category: nouns may be masculine, feminine, or neuter.  There is often, but not always, an overlap between sex and gender.

For example, a boy is of the male sex, and the word "boy" is of the masculine gender.  A girl is of the female sex, and the word "girl" is of the feminine gender.  Bulls, stallions, and men are likewise sexually male, and those words are masculine in their gender.  Cows, mares, and women are likewise sexually female and those words are feminine in gender.  Tables, chairs, and crescent wrenches are sexless and the words are gender-neutral.  A craftsman can be a man, a woman, or a cordless drill (and thus be male, female, or of neither sex).

In the German language, a girl (Mädchen) is sexually female but neuter in gender.  In French, a bicycle has no sex at all (poor thing...), but it can have either gender, depending on whether one uses the masculine word vélo or the feminine bicyclette.

Men who want to use women's bathrooms and locker rooms (and vice versa) have come up with an ingenious legal strategy to do so: confuse sex and gender.  A man may claim that God made a mistake and that he is really a woman trapped in a man's body.  And though he may be sexually male, he can describe his gender as "feminine" - and thus claim legal rights to walk into otherwise forbidden areas.  And vice versa.  I have heard some men claim that they are actually lesbians trapped in a man's body.  In that case, I guess the solution would be to use whichever bathroom is unoccupied.

With this notion that gender can be applied to people as opposed to nouns has come the curse of "gender-neutral" terminology.  Thus the waiter and waitress have become "servers"; stewards and stewardesses are now "flight attendants"; and women who appear in the movies are now "actors" - except when they are nominated for Academy Awards.  Ironically, Hollywood is a last-bastion, of sorts, for allowing gender to correspond to sex.

It also results in forms where we are to check off what "gender" we are.

All in all, I think "craftsperson" is cut from the same cloth as George Carlin's observation:

"They want me to call that thing in the street a personhole cover. I think that's taking it a little bit too far. What would you call a lady's man, a person's person? That would make a He-man an It-person. Little kids would be afraid of the boogieperson. They'd look up in the sky and see the person in the moon. Guys would say come back here and fight like a person. And we'd all sing 'for it's a jolly good person.' That's the kind of thing you would hear on late-night with David Letterperson."

The state as god

The religious landscape in Sweden has shifted radically in the last century.

What used to be a Lutheran country has become a radicalized society of so-called humanists who seem, in reality, to hold humanity in contempt. A brutal and severe religion of atheism, socialism, and feminism - carried out by force of the state - has taken the place of Christianity and has displaced the former's emphasis on the sanctity of life, of individual liberty, and of the duties of government officials to behave ethically and with restraint.

When the state becomes god, there is no longer any check on its power. If we have learned nothing from the 20th century, everyone on the planet ought to understand that there is nothing more ominous than an omnipotent state.

I think there are sobering lessons for in Scandinavia's experience with a shifting culture and rapidly changing religious landscape. Much of the rest of Europe is headed in the same direction, and I believe the U.S. is on a similar trajectory. As an aside, and as a word of hope amid the gloom, Christianity is not dead in Sweden. There is a faithful remnant of the Church of Sweden that continues to thrive - even against the grain - in pockets throughout Sweden. There is a similar heroic Christian resistance all across Scandinavia.

When the people of a civilized society turn away from God, they replace their religious devotion with the service of a god that does not respect individual freedom nor see the natural family as inviolate. In our day and age, that god is often the state. Many of these fights between the Church and Caesar are being waged on the battlefield of education. Do parents ultimately have this authority, or is this within the sphere of the state? Do parents grant teachers a temporary authority to act in loco parentis to educate their children, or does the state grant a temporary authority to parents to raise their citizens?

Unfortunately, when the government is god, children are wards of the state first, sons and daughters second. This leads to the extraordinary belief that it is profitable for children to be taken from their families to be raised by strangers in the name of the state - even to the point of arresting them on their way to leave the country and breaking up families for years! This is not the stuff of dystopian literature, but rather current events in the lives of real people around the world - even in the United States.

The following article appeared in the Home School Court Report of the HSLDA, Vol XXVI No. 1. I could only find it online cached here (reproduced below). Here is an additional report from the Johannsson family.


"State-Napping Exemplifies" UN Treaty’s Dramatic Potential

Seven-year-old homeschooler Dominic Johansson and his family were sitting on an airplane on June 25, 2009, ready to leave Sweden to start a new life in Mrs.

Courtesy of the family Dominic Johansson in happier times.

Johansson’s native country of India. Without a warrant—or even any accusation of crime—Swedish police officers under the direction of local social workers boarded and took Dominic from the plane and from his parents.

Mr. and Mrs. Johansson are facing this simply because they decided to homeschool their son. Local officials said that the action to intervene in this family was intended to guarantee Dominic’s right to an education. The Johanssons have been separated from their son since June, only being allowed to visit with him under supervised conditions for an hour or so every 3–5 weeks.

... THERE IS A TROUBLING TREND IN SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRIES TO RESTRICT HOMESCHOOLING ...

Just as disturbing is Swedish Embassy official Stig Berglind’s appeal to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in defense of the local Swedish authority’s actions.

Mr. Berglind noted in his response to a letter from Home School Legal Defense Association President Mike Smith that the CRC requires that a child’s best interests and the child’s “right to be heard” be “obvious starting points in all actions concerning children in social services.” However, Mr. Berglind and Gotland’s officials apparently ignored the fact that the convention also notes that children have a right to be with their parents as a family, and that separation is a serious act to be used only as a last resort. This action in light of an incredible proposal within the Swedish parliament to allow homeschooling only under “extraordinary circumstances” (essentially banning home education) is of grave concern and is part of a troubling trend in some European countries to restrict homeschooling.

Courtesy of the family Dominic Johansson and his mother in early 2009: Little did they know their family would soon be fighting for custody of Dominic because of their decision to homeschool.

The inhuman treatment of this family by a so-called Western civilized nation is indefensible. HSLDA calls on Swedish officials to return Dominic to his parents. To find out how you can help the Johansson family, go to www.hslda.org/sweden.

Although the United States has not ratified the CRC, the Obama administration is looking to submit this treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification in the near future. The Johanssons’ story graphically illustrates how the CRC would endanger parental rights. Visit to learn how the passage of a Parental Rights Amendment would help to preserve your rights as parents.

— by Michael P. Donnelly

The Levitical Law, part deux

I got an interesting response to my last post as a comment on facebook from a facebook friend, Michael, whom I met immediately after Katrina. He is an accomplished photographer from California who came to New Orleans right after the storm to do animal rescue. He stayed with a bunch of us at Rev. Brad Drew's home which became an emergency-powered beehive of a headquarters. We all worked together with boats and ATVs to help people get into their homes. Michael is a great guy, and he worked tirelessly to help both humans and animals left helpless by Katrina. He has a few of his haunting pictures from Katrina here.

Anyway, he posed a great question concerning how we should understand laws from the Old Testament. He asked:

"King James Bible Deuteronomy 22:5 'The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.'" Just wondering if all abominations are equal. If so when do we pass laws to put women back in dresses?"

It's a great question, because it gets to the heart of the matter. I think the way we understand the law - especially those of the Old Testament - is a source of confusion to Christians (and Jews) and non-believers alike.

First, Michael asks if all abominations are equal. No, they aren't. They are all sinful and contrary to the way God designed the universe to work, but just as keying someone's car and slaughtering 10 million people in a genocide are both sinful and abominable acts, they certainly aren't "equal." Some abominations have far-reaching effects and bring about world-changing consequences, others not so much. And yet, all sins demonstrate our fallenness.

And as far as laws about women and dresses go, there is sometimes an assumption that the word "law" means "state enforcement."

In Old Testament Israel - especially before the establishment of a monarchy - there was a kind of theocracy. The state enforced religious laws. This is why we have, for example, many religious and ceremonial offenses in the Book of Leviticus that are treated as capital crimes. There was no distinction between secular and religious - as everyone in the community was expected to abide by the religious and ceremonial laws - in addition to the kinds of laws that every culture has (what we would call "secular" law).

So, obviously, we are not bound to laws regarding the temple - since there is no temple. We are not bound to laws regarding the treatment of slaves - since we have no slaves. We are not bound to the laws governing animal sacrifice - since we have no need for animal sacrifice. We are not bound to the laws regarding leprosy - since we now have medical treatments that did not exist at that time. Just as the laws regarding horses and buggies and oil lamps are no longer germane to American life, the civil laws of the people of Israel - even when written in Scripture - no longer apply. And yet, there are still underlying principles.

Furthermore, for Christians, the Old Testament religious and ceremonial laws distinguishing "clean" and "unclean" were fulfilled by Jesus, whose incarnation in the flesh in space and time, has declared all things clean. This is why the old dietary restrictions of the Old Testament are no longer applicable to us (see Mark 7:17-19 and Acts 10:12-15).

But this is not to say that the entire Old Testament law is obsolete. It is still wrong to murder, to lie, to worship false gods, to covet, and to steal. St. Paul teaches us that this law of morality is universal and inscribed on men's hearts (Romans 2:15). Jesus did not come to set us free to murder and steal, to make the moral law of the Old Testament a thing of the past. Does anyone really believe that to be the case?

So, no, not all laws are equal. Not all things declared to be abominable in the Old Testament remain so today. Crawfish, for example. And yet, there is still something to learn even from laws that no longer apply. There are still certain principles that are behind even those laws, and we would do well to pay attention.

The Deut 22:5 law about cross-dressing is not so much a statement on specific external fashion trends (pants vs. skirts). Rather, this law speaks against a sin that is internal, of which outward attire is only a symptom. The issue is that God created us male and female (Mark 10:6-9) - with all the implications this has for our life as men and women. That is our sex. Our sex is not our choice. It is the reality that we are creatures and we are not the Creator. God designed and made you to be the sex that you are, and being submissive to God means to accept this and live within your skin.

Some people rebel against this. Cross-dressing may be a manifestation of this sin. Then again, maybe it isn't. The motive is important. Homosexuality is, according to St. Paul, at its root a form of idolatry (Romans 1:24-27), for it replaces submission with God with an assertion of the self.

We see this rebellion in matters of sex in our own day and age in things we take for granted every day. For example, when you fill out a form and it asks you your "gender" instead of your "sex." "Sex" is a biological term, and can be "male" or "female." However, "gender" is a grammatical term, and can be "masculine" or "feminine" or "neuter." Sex is objective and based on biological reality. Gender is subjective and subject to feeling.

This is how it is that a man with all the physical equipment of the male sex can put on a pair of high heels, a wig, and some lipstick and may legally check the "F" box on the gender form - and in some cases, may even stroll into a women's bathroom or locker room.

So, even though the civil law of the nation of Israel no longer applies, there is a moral component, a commentary on sex and creation and the sin of rebelling against God's order that still speaks with relevance to us today. And once again, this is an internal matter, involving motives and desires even more so than fashion trends and fads.

For example, it is a common misconception (hopefully changing) that has been pushed by feminists and others with a gender-driven agenda or worldview that the only differences between male and female has to do with reproduction and excretion, that sexual differences are merely cultural constructs. The demonstrable falsehood of this myth is known by any parents of small children. With the power of imagination, a little boy will often turn a Barbie Doll into a four-wheel drive monster truck or a bazooka, and a little girl will convert a G.I. Joe with kung fu grip into unicorn-riding fairy daintily sipping imaginary tea. The differences between male and female are not surface matters of subjective psychological gender, but rather foundational characteristics of objective biological sex. God's law says that as creatures, we are obliged to submit to the reality of these created differences.

Michael's question about passing laws about women and dresses presumes that matters of sin and divine law are equally matters of civil law, of the state. I think this is a source of confusion for believers and unbelievers alike.

Would it be an abomination for a Lutheran pastor to sit on his altar, kick his feet up on a stool, and read the newspaper? Absolutely. That would be sacrilege and blasphemously disrespectful to that which is holy. Should Congress hold hearings and send a bill to Barack Obama to protect Lutheran altars from abomination? Of course not. This is not their realm. Similarly, if someone were to show disrespect to the consecrated host of Holy Communion, he would be committing an abomination and breaking God's law. Should such a person be put in prison? Should the State of Louisiana have a section in its criminal code governing the procedures of Christian Eucharist? Of course not. However, as a pastor, I would enforce this law (as opposed to government enforcement) by denying such a person communion, and barring repentance, formally excommunicating the person. That is the realm of the church, not of the state.

Not all laws are to be enforced by the state.

Jesus says it is sinful to look upon a woman lustfully (Matt 5:28) , to call people ugly names (Matt 5:22), and to make a big deal about how much money you give to charity (Matt 6:2). And yet none of these things are matters for the state. The laws concerning the right worship of God and of sins against the Lord are not necessarily issues of city, county or parish, state, or federal involvement. If a person were to go around killing Christians in the name of a demented form of atheism, or if a person were to go around killing abortion doctors in the name of a demented form of Christianity (both examples do happen) - then it is the state's business to address the issue of protecting life under the secular and civil law.

Where the issue gets messy, for example regarding homosexuality, is when it effects other people. For example, declaring homosexual unions to be a form of marriage does compel people who do not believe in its morality in a position of some kind of acceptance - say for instance to the landlord who does not want to rent a house to a gay couple. There is a conflict between the beliefs of the property owner and the desires of the ones who wish to rent his property. But where it really becomes a touchy issue is regarding the adoption of children. God created men and women different - in body and mind. It is a wonderful and glorious design for humanity. Husbands and wives complement and complete one another. Procreation is an act that involves both sexes - as is the nurture of children. In this broken world, we do have orphaned children and those being raised in broken homes, but the situation of a child having only a father or only a mother is never treated as ideal. The best situation for children is to have a loving mother and a loving father. Homosexual adoption takes even the possibility of having a parent of both sexes off the table.

I think a lot of people misunderstand how to read and apply the Old Testament laws, and this is is a huge distraction from the real issue. The small minority of Christians who believe the federal and state governments should enforce the Old Testament religious laws (such as declaring ham and cheese sandwiches to be contraband and sending bratty teenagers to death row) completely miss the point. And fortunately, such depictions of Christians by unbelievers are nearly always nothing more than mythical stereotypes.

What are these parents thinking?

Stacy McDonald has a disturbing report here regarding the loss of innocence among pre-teen girls - not only with the lucrative encouragement of corporate America, but also with the blessing of their own parents. This sexual exploitation of children was the predictable result of feminism replacing Christianity as the dominant worldview in our culture - as certain as day follows night.

One can only hope the pendulum will soon swing back the other way before yet more children are psychologically and spiritually damaged by this unbelievable lack of judgment and common sense by immature parents who are more concerned with being "cool" than being godly protectors of children and loving mothers and fathers.

Hopefully, these young kids will grow up and prove to be better mothers than their own "absentee landlords."

Wear the Pants!

Wow.

This Man-ifesto has to be the most politically-incorrect advertising campaign to come from a major corporation in a long time - maybe since Santa was pitching Lucky Strike.

Be sure to check it out now before it is quashed by the gals who don't shave their legs and by the guys who do (no offense to competitive bicyclists and swimmers - you fellas get a pass).

Is this just a shallow curmudgeonly shock-ad looking for some cheap media attention, or is it a barometric indication of a sea-change toward a reclaiming of the masculine and its place in society that even Levi's cannot ignore?

Thanks to Stacy McDonald for passing this along with her fine commentary.

Girls Gone Wild, WELS Edition

In spite of the Wisconsin Synod's reputation for "conservative" rigor, WELS has a rather "liberal" view when it comes to women officiating at the Eucharist.

According to this Q&A from the WELS's own website, there have been at least two instances where laywomen in the WELS have said the Lord' Words of Institution over bread and wine and served it, claiming that it was the body and blood of the Lord. The practice was in no way condemned by the WELS hierarchy, but rather, the practice is current under a "moratorium" in order to "keep from offending our brothers."

This error has come about by the intersection of an error on the doctrine of the ministry combined with a legalistic view of the role of women.

First, WELS does not believe the pastoral office has been divinely established, and further teaches that "The Bible establishes all of public gospel ministry but does not establish a pastoral office as such or vest certain duties exclusive to that office" (Emphasis added).

From this starting point, WELS adds the next premise that the differences between male and female are limited to a legalistic "thou shalt not," as the article puts it:

"Since the Bible does not assign specific duties to the pastor, WELS approaches the matter of women communing women from Scripture's man and women role relationship principle. WELS doctrinal statements on the role of man and woman say that a woman may have any part in public ministry that does not assume teaching authority over a man. That, of course, would include women communing women" (emphasis added).

And this has moved beyond the theoretical into the practical:

"WELS has had only two instances of women communing women, and our Conference of Presidents has since issued an indefinite moratorium on such practice to keep from offending our brothers until the matter is mutually resolved" (emphasis added).

The "it's only happened twice" defense reminds me of the Monty Python sketch claiming that the British Navy now has cannibalism "relatively under control."

In other words, the theology of male and female boils down to an oversimplified and law-based overarching principle that women are free to do anything and everything in the Lord's economy so long as she does not exercise authority over a man in doing so - when in fact, the role of women is much richer than the "anything other than..." approach of the WELS. Accepting these two premises and following them to their logical end yields the result of women saying the Words of Institution over bread and wine, and distributing the elements to each other as if they were the true body and blood.

This is roughly the equivalent of my asserting that since I'm an American citizen, I can sign my name on a bill and make it a law, or that I can authorize people to go up into the Statue of Liberty's crown, or may indeed put stars on my lapels and order military personnel about. I can do no such thing. It is a matter of authority. Pastors are ambassadors of Christ, and speak by His authority, standing in His stead and by His command. The American ambassador to Canada speaks with the authority of the government of the United States. Of course, I am free to visit the Parliament in Ottawa, but unlike the word of the ambassador, my word bears no authority. Any statements I make have no force behind them, as I have not been placed into any such office by those who have such authority to delegate.

This is quite different than the Roman Catholic assertion that at a man's ordination, a metaphysical change in his person has happened. But this is also quite different than the Protestant assertion that ordination is nothing more than a quaint ceremony. Sometimes the president of the United States is called "the most powerful man in the world." Not so. I'd be willing to wager than any middle linebacker in the NFL could take out President Obama in any kind of a strength competition or fight. What the president has is not personal "power," but rather delegated personal "authority" that he exercises "by virtue of his office." Not even someone more "powerful" than the president can make laws and issue commands to the military. If someone were to attempt to do so lacking authority, it would be a mutiny and a rebellion.

The examples in Scripture of those who assumed and usurped authority not given by the Lord do not end well. Korah's rebellion comes to mind.

And lest we become too smug in the LCMS, I think we should be on guard. We do have deaconesses who are described as "ministers," some even serving in institutional chaplaincies, providing spiritual care to both men and women. I have even seen this work described as being "pastoral" - though there is great care not to turn this adjective into a noun. At some point, the earlier understanding that deaconesses would only teach women and children has been superseded in the LCMS, as deaconesses are now permitted to teach men as well as women and children. What authority they have and do not have seems to be on a sliding scale of gray, and varies with whomever is asked.

But the problem goes well beyond the malleable role of the deaconess. I recently heard firsthand of a "laying on of hands" in the LCMS that involved not only clergy, but the congregational elders (after all, see 1 Tim 4:4...) and the female congregational president as well. I know that sometimes clergy wives are even involved in these ceremonials.

We also have an oxymoronic "office" in the LCMS called "lay minister." Male "lay ministers" have been given "license" for "Word and Sacrament ministry" by district presidents. Female "lay ministers" take the same classes and hold the same synodical designation, yet (to my knowledge) there have not been instances of female "lay ministers" either preaching or presiding over an alleged Sacrament of the Altar. But I do think this toe-to-the-line of the Wisconsonian view of the office of the ministry and the roles of the sexes leaves the possibility open.

One of the most foolish things anyone can ever say is: "It can't happen here."

We in the LCMS have a similar rather limited theology of the sexes as the WELS. We tend to focus on the narrow and myopic legalistic issue of "what women are allowed, and are not allowed, to do" (functionalism) rather than the deeper and eternal issue of what men and women were created to do (ontology). Function ought to flow from ontology rather than trying to reverse-engineer the situation in the opposite direction.

I suspect there are some in our midst who indeed would make the argument that women have the divine authority to bless bread and wine (even as they have the power to physically say the words), that they can indeed also have the churchly permission ("call") to do so as long as no men take the "sacrament" from her hand, and so long as she does not lay claim to the title of "pastor." And there are some that will, no doubt, make a couple arguments in favor of women consecrating based on:

1) The charge of "Donatism." This is the ancient heresy that the validity of the sacrament is based on the moral standing of the officiant. However, sex has nothing to do with moral fitness. It is rather an ontological distinction. For example, men are not denied the privilege of carrying a child in the womb based on a moral reason, it's rather a question of reality and vocation. Just as a good and righteous American citizen can write his name at the end of a bill passed by Congress, the fact is that his righteous signature is not effective whereas that of even a wicked president is - by virtue of authority. A person's sex has nothing at all to do with Donatism.

In fact, the Donatism charge can even go the other way. For example, a very pious and morally upright lay woman can say all the right words over bread and wine without having any authority from God, neither from Scripture nor from the Church, and yet a wicked ordained male pastor with a valid call can do the same thing - and there is no doubt whatsoever of the validity of the sacraments he officiates over.

This is because the issue is authority, not moral fitness.

In fact, there was an interesting conversation between some LCMS seminary professors over this very issue. You can read the initial article about the "validity of churchly acts of ordained [sic] women" here and the rebuttal against the charge of "Neo-Donatism" here.

2) Emergency baptism. The argument goes that if women can "confect the sacrament," so to speak, regarding an emergency baptism, then it follows that she can similarly officiate over celebrations of the Holy Eucharist. But this is a leap of logic that presumes that all sacraments are equal and that we are not bound to any authority in these matters apart from our own modern whims. The crux of the matter is that emergency baptism is just that - a life and death situation. The Church has long established this form of Holy Baptism, and has never denied the fairer sex the extraordinary authority to administer the Holy Sacrament in matters of extremity. However, the same cannot be said for other sacramental and churchly acts. For there are no emergency marriages or confirmations or communions. Our confessions cite the scenario attributed to St. Augustine in which one dying man baptizes the other, and the newly-baptized administers the Sacrament of Holy Absolution to his fellow. There is no mention of any other sacrament or church rite. Most certainly there is no precedent for emergency lay Communion.

Just as female ordination inevitably leads to the blessing of same-sex marriages, I also believe that a functional view of the ministry inexorably leads to women functioning (if not outright claiming to be) pastors. Until we in the LCMS come to grips with the idea of ontology (both of ministers and of the sexes), we will continue to follow in the train of our conservative brethren, even though the tracks have taken a radical turn to the left.

HT: Dr. William J. Tighe

Real Men

Here is a great blogpost by Pr. Peters about what it means to be a real man.

Here is a little teaser...

Real men... Real men are spiritual leaders and role models for their household. This is not about ruling the roost or barking orders but embodying the faith for the rest of those within the household. Real men love the Lord, they worship the Lord in the Lord's House, they sing out the hymns, they bow their heads in prayer, they listen intently to the sermon, they bring tithes and offerings to the Lord, they kneel at the table of the Lord... and they live out what begins here in their homes, workplaces, neighborhoods and communities.

Religion is not for sissies. Faith is not a crutch for the weak. It is the call of the Lord who is strong enough to suffer to those who would take up their cross, deny themselves, and follow Him. His work has born the fruit that enables us to hear and heed this call, by the power of the Holy Spirit. The love which Scripture talks about is not some passive acceptance but the active and strong love that redeems. This is the love real men show to their wives, children, parents, friends, family, co-workers, and even strangers on the street corners.

Real men... Real men talk about the Lord -- not so much in the context of feelings but as voices that tell the story of the cross and empty tomb and the gifts that flow from Jesus' Passion and Resurrection... Real men pray -- not just when they have no where else to turn but all the time... from the table at mealtime to the morning hours before the day fully begins to last fleeting moments before sleep claims us. Real men know what they believe -- they know the catechism, the know the voice of Scripture as the familiar voice of THEIR Shepherd Lord speaking to them... Real men make no apology for the faith but defend their faith in workplace conversations and when the challenges of life and people press down upon the power of belief.

Again, click here to read more, and feel free to browse around for some thought-provoking work.

You've Come a Long Way, Baby!

Bryn Mawr alumna (McBride Scholar) and former MicroSoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE) Mrs. Hollywood, barefoot, in the kitchen, and making a sandwich for the husband.

That sound was Gloria Steinem's head exploding.

Mmmm! Turkey pastrami! Thanks, Mrs. H.!

Not the Onion...

...or Truth is Stranger than Fiction, Ecclesiastical Edition:

Here is an article that would have been funny had it appeared word-for-word in The Onion (which, by the way, some people accuse me of writing), but is actually from the newspaper of a certain very large American Lutheran demonization, er, I mean "denomination."

Joseph Heller could not have done better.

Community Prayer Events

St. Joseph Roman Catholic Church, Gretna, LA

I love my community and city, Gretna, Louisiana. We are, for the most part, well-governed and small enough to have access to the city council, chief of police, etc.

I get a lot of invitations to "prayer breakfasts" and "prayer dinners" put on by the city - which always strike me as odd, a weird admixture of church and state, and ultimately, a denigration of prayer. These events turn the privilege of addressing our heavenly Father into a kind-of political gala showcasing area movers-and-shakers - which a lot of clergy seem to want to be a part of. I believe our humble petitions in the Divine Service for our elected officials is a far more effective use of prayer than these spectacles.

Prayer is not about access to the mayor, but access to the Creator.

There's always something phony and cheap about these kind of things. Even the flippancy about the LSU tigers baseball team being a cause for prayer showcases the lack of profound belief at work - as though prayer is all just one big joke. And if the Christians don't take their faith seriously, why should anyone else? I don't know if it is more a Southern thing or not, but sports is truly a god to many people. Some of the same folks who think nothing of spending hours in a stadium (not to mention hundreds of dollars) cheering on a bunch of millionaires will gripe and moan if the Sunday service goes on for more than an hour and would think it ridiculous to put anything more than a couple bucks in the plate.

But what's worse, here is an example of the local Roman Catholic parish hosting a woman "pastor" to be the keynote speaker, and the local Roman Catholic pastor giving the benediction. The function was funded by the Knights of Columbus.

What a coup for Satan! How else could he get a priestess to lead a bunch of Catholics in prayer?

But, of course, to publicly object (or even to decline the invitation) runs the risk of alienating oneself and one's church from the community and from the local government. Christians who actually believe the Bible can expect to be increasingly marginalized in our own communities - even as other church bodies that don't ordain women see no problem with inviting them to lead prayers in the context of unionistic worship services.

This is a sad situation.

Here is the article from the West Bank Beacon, July 2009, page 35:


Gretna “Dares to Believe” at annual prayer dinner by Blair C. Constant

The 16th annual Gretna Prayer Dinner was held on Tuesday, June 23, at the St. Joseph gymnasium in Gretna. Those in attendance were entertained by Grammy award winner and local singer Irma Thomas, and were challenged to “Dare to Believe” by the event’s guest speaker, Rev. Kathy Radke Storey, who is the chaplain at the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center and Rivarde Detention Center. Food was cooked and provided by the St. Cletus Knights of Columbus.

Belinda Constant, a councilwoman for the city of Gretna who chaired the event for the second year, and Ms. Jo Duhe, co-chair, enjoyed a record number of attendees at just over 550 people. “This was the largest crowd since the event began, and it was very exciting for me to see the community come together in such a meaningful way,” says Constant. “I was invited to be the chairperson two years ago and commit to chair the event for two years. I was incredibly pleased with the turnout despite of our competition that night,” says Constant. The competition referred to was the second game in the final series of the College World Series. While attendees later learned that LSU lost that night, the Tigers answered the prayers of many spectators by winning their sixth national title.

The Gretna Prayer Dinner was started by the Gretna Community Association under the direction of the Gretna Prayer Dinner cofounder, Ms. Jo Duhe. “Ms. Duhe is the only original volunteer still actively involved in the event, and much of the success of the prayer dinner is because of her commitment to her community and her efforts as a volunteer,” says Constant.

After Rev. Storey’s inspirational message, which resonated with many dealing with trials of the current economy, the Gretna Community Association recognized with awards two local community non-profit groups who have been serving on the West Bank: the Boys & Girls Club of the West Bank and the Community Center for Life, which is an non-profit group that cares for the needs of women involved in unplanned motherhood. With a final performance by Irma Thomas and benediction by Fr. James R. Day, the new pastor at St. Joseph Church in Gretna, attendees may have daring to believe for an LSU championship, but hopefully were inspired to believe in better days to come.

Bible Quiz

The following amusing take on womanhood comes from a biblical account of an oratory contest. Whoever can give the book and chapter first will get an internet award. I don't have the award yet, but I guarantee it will be worth every penny paid for it.

Anyway, here is the text according to the English Standard Version (ESV):

"Gentlemen, is not the king great, and are not men many, and is not wine strong? Who then is their master, or who is their lord? Is it not women? Women gave birth to the king and to every people that rules over sea and land. From women they came; and women brought up the very men who plant the vineyards from which comes wine. Women make men's clothes; they bring men glory; men cannot exist without women. If men gather gold and silver or any other beautiful thing and then see a woman lovely in appearance and beauty, they let all those things go and gape at her and with open mouths stare at her, and all prefer her to gold or silver or any other beautiful thing. A man leaves his own father, who brought him up, and his own country and holds fast to his wife. With his wife he ends his days, with no thought of his father or his mother or his country. Hence you must realize that women rule over you!

"Do you not labor and toil and bring everything and give it to women? A man takes his sword and goes out to travel and rob and steal and to sail the sea and rivers; he faces lions, and he walks in darkness, and when he steals and robs and plunders, he brings it back to the woman he loves. A man loves his wife more than his father or his mother. Many men have lost their minds because of women and have become slaves because of them. Many have perished or stumbled or sinned, because of women. And now do you not believe me?

"Is not the king great in his power? Do not all lands fear to touch him? Yet I have seen him with Apame, the king's concubine, the daughter of the illustrious Bartacus; she would sit at the king's right hand and take the crown from the king's head and put it on her own and slap the king with her left hand. At this the king would gaze at her with mouth agape. If she smiles at him, he laughs; if she loses her temper with him, he flatters her, that she may be reconciled to him. Gentlemen, why are not women strong, since they do such things?"

My Favorite Atheist Lesbian Feminist...

... is definitely Dr. Camille Paglia, professor, art historian, and lit-critic of the University of the Arts in Philadelphia. She also writes columns for Salon - many of which pop up on the Drudge Report.

Paglia is not your run-of-the-mill feminist. Although she is a Democrat with a libertarian streak, she has been a frequent guest on the Rush Limbaugh program (and considers Limbaugh to be a good friend). She is also a fierce critic of the trendy Big University type of hysterical male-bashing "gender feminism." She's not afraid to mix it up with anyone. Even though she is a lesbian, she is critical of the homosexual agenda's attempt to redefine marriage. And even though she is an atheist, she has a lot of admiration for the Church and for Christianity.

She respects everyone and no-one, if that makes any sense at all.

Paglia is uncritically beholden to no particular -ism, and her position on just about anything can (and sometimes is) just about anything. But above all, she is a scholar and thinker of remarkable depth and erudition. Even where you disagree, you have to admire her intellect - not to mention her espresso-fueled machine gun delivery. She couldn't use a teleprompter if she wanted to. It was quite an experience to see her speak at Haverford back in the nineties at a lecture that started at 7:00 pm and was still going strong for Q & A at 2:00 am when then-Bryn Mawr student Mrs. Hollywood and I left (after asking the surprisingly diminutive professor to sign our books). Her whole presentation was off the cuff.

She had managed to offend just about everyone in the largely-female and overwhelmingly leftist audience - especially the English prof from Bryn Mawr who had done just what Paglia was railing against - turning a class on English composition into a feminist indoctrination camp.

Dr. Paglia's columns in Salon are as frenetic, eclectic, and unpredictable as she is in person - hitting all the hot-button topics like politics, religion, and rock music with no regard for structure. Her remarks about Judge Sotomayor and feminism in general in this Salon column linked to Drudge really struck my funnybone:

But Sotomayor's vainglorious lecture bromide about herself as 'a wise Latina' trumping white men is a vulgar embarrassment -- a vestige of the bad old days of male-bashing feminism when even the doughty Ann Richards was saying to the 1988 Democratic National Convention: 'After all, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels.' What flatulent canards mainstream feminism used to traffic in! Astaire, idolized even by Mikhail Baryshnikov, was one of the most brilliant and peerless dancers and choreographers of the 20th century. The agile but limited Ginger Rogers, a spunky, smart-mouthed comedian, is only a footnote. Get real, girls! This is the kind of mushy balderdash I doggedly had to plow through for five years in trying to find a good feminist poem for my collection, 'Break, Blow, Burn.' I never found one. Rule of art: Cant kills creativity!

OK, on to pop! It's been two decades since I bought my last U2 album. The peripatetic Bono's messianic do-gooder complex plumb wore me out...

Whew! I'm exhausted after just reading a paragraph.

An Analysis of Notre Dame and Infanticide

Put on your asbestos suit before reading Thomas Fleming's treatment at Chronicles regarding the the latest scandal at Our Lady and how pro-life Christians ought to respond.

Here is the start:

'He came, he saw, he conquered,' is the headline of the Washington Post’s article on President Obama’s much heralded visit to Notre Dame. In a particularly stupid exercise in leftwing wishful thinking, Thomas Reese, S.J. – what a foul order the Jesuits have become – lauds the President...

click here to read more.

New Religion Commercial

I saw the above “PSA” recently. I found it disturbing. The one audible line in the spot comes about 25 seconds in. A teenage girl says: “I love my life. I’m not gonna mess it up with a pregnancy.”

How perverse it this?

This is not an anti-promiscuity message, but rather anti-motherhood propaganda. Why should the word “pregnancy” be associated with the ruination of one’s life? I suppose this is similar to the president of the United States’ comment that he would view a grandchild as a “punishment” and would rather his daughter murder his grandchild in the womb.

This is a commercial for a New Religion - not the Mormons, not Scientology, but something entirely different. And look how the New Religion of death has progressed.

It used to be that we, as a society, encouraged chastity. Pregnancy is a blessing - but it is best in the right context - in marriage, with two loving parents. This is why God gave us the sixth commandment and the blessing of a man and a woman being forged into one flesh. That should be the premise that drives the advice we give to young men and women.

But at some point, the message changed from encouraging chastity to encouraging “responsible promiscuity.” For a long time, the PSAs and the Hollywood/Madison Avenue message was to have “protected sex” rather than chastity. And if that is too much trouble or fails to prevent pregnancy, there is always the failsafe of abortion - of which we’ve had over 40 million in the U.S., and over a billion in the world in the last generation.

Even the pro-life side has made the mistake of fighting on enemy turf. By promoting “abstinence” instead of “chastity,” we have given the world the evil impression that Christianity is anti-sex. In fact, Christianity encourages sex, and always has: “Be fruitful and multiply” we were told from the beginning. Scripture always speaks of children as a blessing, and even in this day and age of test tubes and turkey basters, the easiest and most efficient way (and the way the God Himself designed) of procreation is best. Christians are not for “abstinence,” but rather for “chastity.” Everything has a time and a place.

Chastity, however, is antithetical to the New Religion.

But simply encouraging young people to eschew chastity and to be promiscuous is not enough for the New Religion. For religion isn’t only about deeds, but about attitudes. A true conversion is internal, hence the need to catechize the new generation of proselytes (especially young women) that “Pregnancy Ruins Lives.” There is no qualification that pregnancy is a great blessing in the proper context. For in the New Religion, it is wrong to suggest there is such a thing as a “proper context” - as that would be a confession of absolutes, of right and wrong; and would be discriminatory against single women who choose to have fatherless children, and against homosexual couples who choose to deny children a mother or a father. In both of these cases, the “parents” are more interested in their selfish desires and civil rights than in the well-being of children. In the New Religion, the traditional path is never the right path.

So, here is where we are today: “Pregnancy Ruins Lives.”

Of course, there are unintended (or perhaps “intended”) consequences. Young people now wait until they “get an education” and establish their careers before getting married and having children (if they ever get around to that). It isn’t exactly realistic to expect chastity until someone is thirty or forty years old. The New Religion thus encourages singles to engage in the very act that leads to pregnancy - making contraception and abortion all the more sacramental in the New Religion.

It also leads to extreme self-centeredness. Notice how this message uses the term “love” in a way that is antithetical to Christianity. It’s about self-love. And notice how the word “life” is also co-opted: “I love my life.” In the New Religion, love of life is demonstrated by the religious act of preventing and even destroying life. And this self-centeredness carries through to all aspects of life. Marriage is seen as a temporary arrangement, work is seen as a means to money for the satisfaction of materialism and greed, and anything that is not immediately self-gratifying is seen as a waste of time.

Hence in the New Religion, we might as well add the use of the credit card, careerism, entertainment, and divorce to the list of sacraments.

Of course, none of these are sacraments in the Old Religion, in which chastity is a commandment, selfless love is the highest ideal, committed lifelong marriage is a sacrament, children are a blessing, and sin is something to be repented of and forgiven, rather than something to be celebrated with religious zeal.

Of course, the New Religion thrives not only on selfishness, but ignorance. Hence the other part of the homily: “Stay clueless.” Death wants nothing to do with life, and the New Religion wants people to be unaware of the Old.

For this is what the New Religion wants us to be clueless of: in the Old Religion, life is a gift of the Creator and human beings are created in God’s image. Women are given the gift of nurturing life in the womb, and sexuality is also a gift from God to be used responsibly. And when we fall short of this ideal, we have a gracious Redeemer, who was not contracepted or aborted, born of a woman who was willing to “mess up her life” with a pregnancy, a Savior who forgives our sin and grants us eternal life by conquering death and its god.

Salem's New Chasuble

Salem Lutheran Church has a new chasuble for Lent and Advent. Unlike my old plain white chasuble, this vestment was custom made to match our church paraments.

The chasuble is the traditional vestment worn by the celebrant over the alb and stole during the celebration of Holy Communion (Mass). The chasuble looks like a pancho, is typically adorned with Christian symbolism, and is usually either gold or the color of the season of the church year. It is an article of clothing that dates back to the Roman Empire, and has been part of Christian worship since the earliest days of the Church.

We were planning on buying chasubles from the Lutheran-owned and operated D.K. Brunner and Son. In fact, many of my colleagues have Brunner vestments, and they are beautiful. But in our case, the colors would have clashed with our paraments. So, Mrs. Hollywood did the research, ordered the fabric, and did all the sewing. We saved hundreds of dollars because of her work - some of which was done painstakingly by hand.

Sewing vestments has traditionally been the loving work of churchwomen - sometimes clositered nuns, sometimes pastors' wives, sometimes sewing circles of ladies in the church. Sadly, such work is largely denigrated today. I heard from a seminary wife recently that one of the seminary professors was saying that sem wives should be doing more "important" work than sewing vestments. How sad.

I suppose it was an inevitable result of "equality" and the "sexual revolution" that loving acts of service and devotion to our Lord and His Church, pioneered by such women as Sts. Mary and Martha, should be seen as beneath the dignity of modern women, who want to chair committees, be presidents of congregations, and even serve as elders and chaplains - all of which are done now by women in the Missouri Synod, even as most of our churches lack things like beautiful chasubles - especially those sewn by ladies of the parish (so far, the LCMS is not actually ordaining women to the pastoral office).

I am blessed to have a wife who dismisses all such demands for women in "more important" leadership roles as nonsense (of course, "nonsense" might be considered a euphemism). And, her Bryn Mawr sisters might well be appalled to see the above picture of the skirted Mrs. Hollywood sewing barefoot on the kitchen floor. Somehow, I don't think the alumnae bulletin will be interested in running such a picture.

But thanks to donations from faithful church members and Mrs. H.'s hard work, you can see just how such an object of beauty is fitting in the Lord's House and bespeaks the dignity of Christian worship. It is also a link to the antiquity, continuity, and catholicity of the Church in a way that a bandstand or a Power Point screen just doesn't cut it.

And by saving money on the labor, we were able to afford the finest silk damask for the chasuble itself, and added a beautiful lining. This chasuble is designed to last. There is no reason why a century from now (or even two) this vestment won't continue to proclaim the majesty of our very present Lord when His Holy Supper is celebrated at Salem's altar.

Scroll down for more pictures...




And note the applique of the pelican on the back of the chasuble. It was the most beautiful that Grace was able to find, and the company (Tonini) was gracious enough to make an exception and send it to her in a way that allowed her to make her own vesica (the oval part) and sew it onto the chasuble. Mrs. H. sewed all around the pelican by hand so the color would match.

Louisianians will be familiar with the imagery of the mother pelican and her three chicks - as it is part of our state flag. It is actually an ancient Christian symbol, and a nod to our state's Catholic heritage (don't tell the ACLU!). It is based on the legend of the mother pelican sacrificing her own life by piercing her own breast to feed her young. This symbolism is found in LSB 640, Thee We Adore, O Hidden Savior, stanza 3:

Thou, like the pelican to feed her brood
Didst pierce Thyself to give us living food
Thy blood, O Lord, one drop has pow'r to win
Forgiveness for our Word and all its sin.

The original Latin is here:

Pie Pelicane, Jesu Domine,
Me immundum munda tuo sanguine:
Cujus una stilla salvum facere
Totum mundum quit ab omni scelere.

This hymn was composed by St. Thomas Aquinas (ca 1225-1274) in the thirteenth century and is to this day sung according to a plainsong melody based on ancient Gregorian chant.

Soli Deo gloria!