Category: Life

You may have noticed the lack of postings here on The Plucked Chicken in the last several weeks. My online writing time has been dedicated to posting a series of excerpts from Telling the Next Generation, a new paperback released this year on the past and present vision for Christian education in the Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Those excerpts have been going up on the church blog instead of here, because they are of special interest to the members of the congregations I serve. However, they are also of general interest to a wider audience, so readers of The Plucked Chicken may wish to mosey over to Confession and Life and see some of these excerpts.

Otherwise, most of my spare time is spent this summer and fall in preparing our house for the arrival of twins, expected in December. Meanwhile, I’m trying to prepare as much October-through-December parish work as I can, anticipating a lack of opportunity to fulfill this aspect of my vocation as other demands take over.

There is much work yet to be done.

A while back we realized that we weren’t really watching television enough to warrant paying for Cable. These days, where we live, people with an old (15 years) CRT television set like us are pretty much dependent upon cable or satellite TV if we want any kind of variety from which to choose. So we ditched cable, deciding to choose what we watch via our Netflix subscription, which costs a lot less. Then came Netflix streamed movies on demand. In some ways, our household now watches more than before, only we choose what we want to watch, and there are no commercials. Well, somebody chooses what we watch.

I’ve always been a bit suspicious of media like TV, though admittedly more suspicious of newsy programs than drama. But then, drama, comedy, and other content all comes from somewhere too. That somewhere involves a worldview and an agenda. Today, I’m wondering just how much the worldview and agenda in family-oriented media contradict Christianity. Surely, there are contradictions, and most Christians realize this. But are we vigilant enough? Or do we too quickly become complacent? How many Christian households are well acquainted with Barney and Teletubbies, and what’s the worldview behind those innocent-looking stuffed aliens? How about Pokémon?

My suspicions here are similar to those of others, who may sound a bit shrill or even wacky. While I do appreciate concerns about moral corruption and insidious agendas to control the world, my deepest concern is about faith in Christ. Let those who want control of the world fight it out among themselves, as long as they leave me alone. Eventually, my family and I will no longer be in this world, and eventually, this world will be no more, while our true lives will be just beginning.

Through Pokémon (originally on videotape from a friend at church), my oldest daughter became interested in the Japanese comics called “Manga,” even finding some books of it in our local public library. I browsed one myself, finding the word “sadist,” which is not yet part of her vocabulary. They’re not checking those particular books out any more. It leaves me to wonder what anti-Christian agenda may lie hidden in the worldview promoted by Pokémon. “Aw, c’mon. Pokémon?” Well? If nobody ever asks, then we may never know. Stories are powerful.

All of this means we should be actively catechizing our families in the truth, and taking advantage of every opportunity to learn from God’s Word. That includes weekly church services, Sunday school, Bible studies, home devotions, and regular discussions to help us exercise good discernment. Some stories provide an excellent opportunity for these discussions. The biblical Christian worldview is certainly in the minority, and while opposing worldviews may not always be overtly hostile, they are nevertheless corrosive to faith, can destroy these short lives we have on earth, and may well lead Christians to lose our true, eternal life in Christ. With that, we should realize that there’s no escape from the influence of such things. We may be able selectively to reduce the influence (like with that Manga book), but we cannot eliminate it. This is the world we are living in.

Here’s a presentation of a certain philosophy that seems pretty compelling. I’d like to watch it again and digest it some more, but my initial thought is that it may contradict the biblical view of earthly government. I say may because, well, I’d like to watch it again to be sure I understand it. On the other hand, a philosophy like this may be in a different category than the moral strictures of holy writ. It may describe the way a government (for example) should operate, rather than the way it may operate. Is there room for such a distinction?

It would mean that this philosophy provides only part of a worldview, requiring other things, like religion, to inform morality. Of course, it would require Christianity to provide the Gospel, and that may indicate a serious weakness of this philosophy for the Christian: instead of being oriented around love for our neighbor as inspired by the Gospel, it’s oriented around individual liberty. Does that echo the Fall into sin, or does it echo the dignity of every human person as God’s creation? Maybe there’s something here for both the Old Adam and the New Man.

I’d appreciate your thoughts on this, or your reaction to the presentation. Note that this philosophy is not even nominally Christian, but I think it draws much from the Christian worldview.

And the doublespeak is more culturally pervasive than previously thought. Case in point. See this WSJ article: Wisconsin GOP Ends Union Stalemate. (I love good news.)

It says,

On Wednesday night, Republican senators convened on short notice and removed appropriations items from the bill to allow a vote on the remaining issues–including curbs on the collective-bargaining rights of public-employee unions. The vote to pass the amended bill was 18-1, with no Democratic senators present.

Republicans said they had waited long enough for Democrats to return to Madison. Democrats complained that their political rivals had abused their power. Spectators in the senate gallery screamed, “You are cowards,” while the vote was taken.

While the insane do have a right to scream almost anything they want, this particular scream is masquerading as reasoned political speech. Nothing new here. But for entertainment, let’s see how the statement fits in the context described by the WSJ. This senate was pressing ahead toward a balanced budget, through anti-democratic resistance by irresponsible colleagues, and despite the loud braying of threats by hungry union puppets. Is that really cowardice? No. It’s the exact opposite. Yet I have no doubt that the screamers truly believed their own words. A stunning display of doublespeak.

Meanwhile, three paragraphs down, we hear about those irresponsible colleagues:

Senate Democrats were driving back to Wisconsin after the Republican vote when they thought better of it and decided to remain in exile in Illinois, said Democratic Sen. Jon Erpenbach. He said they feared that Republicans would reassemble the original bill and force a vote on the whole thing. “We don’t trust them at all,” Mr. Erpenbach said.

Well, I suppose that’s supposed to be bravery. Instead of participating in the democratic legislative process for which they campaigned and were elected, these brave souls think better of returning to the state they serve. Apparently, they think that they might be victimized by the elected majority. In other words, they could lose a vote.

So the doublespeak in this case has risen to plain view. Of course, there is a plot behind the whole story too. Many of those brave senators hiding out in Illinois have most likely been in bed with public employee unions for a long time, a form of political corruption that has been allowed to fester legally for far too long. This symbiotic relationship has provided the unions with lackeys in the legislatures of the country, while keeping those politicians willing to pay the piper in secure political careers. Meanwhile, it’s the taxpayers and union members who really end up paying the piper, as the unions extract dues and taxes, using them to secure their own future, while forcing state and nation in a socialistic and fiscally shaky direction.

This norm of political corruption and doublespeak shows a society badly in need of moral guidance. It’s a good time for Christians to display the kind of “cowardice” recently shown in the Wisconsin senate. In other words, show up to life and defy the fuming threats of our enemy by fulfilling your God-given responsibilities in every aspect of your Christian vocation. We will be maligned. We may be harmed. We could even be put to death. It’s happened before. Yet not even death can deprive a Christian of the true life we already possess in Christ.

My friend The Mom has a great meditative post today on justification and sanctification. Here’s a sample:

One country song in particular got my brain juices going. Writing (and reading) this is probably going to be a lengthier process than the few moments it took for my brain to get through it, but that’s the way brains are. They leap to big realizations in a mere moment’s time.

The song I heard was Awful Beautiful Life by Darryl Worley. The song paints the picture of a regular guy, making regular mistakes and finding joy in regular things.

If you read the rest of her post (via the link above), notice how applicable her line of thinking is to all kinds of people. Maybe even to you. Maybe even to me.

The most frequently-used lyrical songs in my experience these days are hymns. And I suppose theologically-sound, Christ-centered hymns are the best lyrical diet for anyone. Yet we should also take a little time now and then to ruminate on the other things we might hear. Sure, it may have false doctrine in it. (What on the radio, other than Bach night on MPR, doesn’t?) But the exercise of distinguishing the good from the bad can draw us into an edifying train of thought, even repentance and a renewed appreciation for God’s grace.

From the Messenger of Hope, Newsletter of Hope Lutheran Church in West Jordan, Utah:

“Let’s not mince words. I like to eat. I like it a lot. And, I’m used to it: eating what I want, when I want, and however much I want. And if I should ever regret it, it’s usually a passing wish that I looked better or had more energy. Or that I hadn’t gorged myself on some particular binge. Most of the time, I just enjoy it.” 

There comes a time when a person realizes they need to change their ways if they’re going to live well. So sometimes folks—even like the guy quoted above—go on a regimen of diet and exercise. Then what everyone else is enjoying—you can’t.

You can’t eat whatever you want, whenever you want, and however much. You throw away the junk food. You quit colas. You give up the midnight snacks and sweets and breads. Even the Reese’s. You skip the drivethru. Steak and Potatoes give way to turkey and steamed vegetables. You still have all your cravings… you just don’t want to work against yourself.  You get a taste of self-denial.

Of course, even this isn’t pure. We do it for our selves: to look better, or feel better, or get noticed, or to make a love interest who kicked us to the curb regret it.

But St. Paul talks about a spiritual self-denial, which grows out of faith. For God knows better than we do what’s good for us; and our sinful desires (running contrary to His word and will) are not good for us.

St. Paul writes, 1 Cor. 9:24-25: Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever.

For a braided crown of fading glory, people train hard, and consider carefully what they’ll eat, how much of it, and when… and they train, and train hard… all with a view toward the race, and all with a view toward the prize.

I must confess, I don’t often think of my faith in those terms. I don’t think of my sins in those terms. But let’s not mince words. According to sin at work in me, I like to gossip. I like to horde. I like filthy talk and lust. I’m like a morbidly obese man with a greasy drumstick just handed a number to pin to my shirt.

But even then, this race is not uncertain. The race is already won. For our sinless Lord Christ has run the straight race, the way of the cross, to the finish. He purchased us by His blood and won us by His death. His grace forgives every sin. We believe. And when we believe, sin doesn’t look so good anymore. What holds our hearts is the promise of that crown of life.

Christ grants it to all those who believe and remain in Him by faith. That crown is theirs to keep. 

Here are some pictures from the last long-distance visit we enjoyed here in Oregon. I was looking for one with the Abrahamsons too, but the best one I have includes underwear. I won’t say whose. I may yet find a better one from another time.

The Hamiltons visiting in 2010

Hamiltons and Jacobsens and inflatable canoe

Thanks for coming out to visit. This is a bit late, but I hope you all had a good time. We should go camping together again.

As long as the cure holds, that headline is big news. Very big news for anyone who lived through the HIV fears of the 1980s, and who has seen this disease as “incurable” ever since.

That the cure seems to have happened as a side effect of a painful leukemia treatment should not make the cure for HIV any less significant. Yet it strikes me that in this article, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, seems to downplay the importance of this first-ever cure for HIV. Why could that be? Other than heading off unrealistic hopes for those currently suffering with HIV, I have no idea.

On the other hand, I think it’s also significant that this treatment, which has apparently cured both the leukemia and the HIV infection, involved the use of adult stem cells. Those are the type of stem cells that do not require the death of a human being for their use. I have no moral objection to this kind of medicine, which is apparently capable of amazingly effective treatments. However, I do object on moral grounds to the use of embryonic stem cells, because in order for them to be “harvested,” the living human embryo to whom they belong must be put to death.

Since the value of human life has sadly become a political issue in the United States, I would expect advocates of the so-called “culture of death” (proponents of legal abortion, embryonic stem cell research, physician-assisted suicide, etc.) to be somewhat conflicted by this news. I’m sure everyone’s glad to hear about a cure for HIV, but the fact that the first cure has come through adult stem cells tends to vindicate the moral objection to embryonic stem cell research. Not only does it intentionally destroy innocent human life, treating it with far less regard than the U.S. military treats collateral damage, but embryonic stem cell medicine may be no more effective than adult stem cell medicine. Now that pluripotent adult stem cells can be produced, there is no longer even a weak justification for the destruction of innocent human life necessary to obtain embryonic stem cells.

Just finished a book from 1983 by Massad Ayoob, called The Truth about Self Protection. Mr. Ayoob, besides being a writer, is a well-respected expert in the field of combat and self protection. Already in 1983, he was a well-known instructor in several martial disciplines and weapons. He has been an expert witness in this area, which is one of the first things I heard about him in detail. Having served as a police officer for 14 years (and now part-time for 36 years), he is well respected by many in both law enforcement and the legal system. He was the director of Lethal Force Institute for 28 years, and now heads the Massad Ayoob Group. Both organizations provide expert training in the legal use of force.

Though there are several areas where the book is dated, there is a lot of good advice too. From a confessional Lutheran point of view, Mr. Ayoob (in 1983) has an unscriptural perspective on the spiritual side of the decision to defend oneself. That’s not unsurprising, since only a small minority of Americans really understands what the Bible says about salvation. However, Mr. Ayoob’s perspective only affects a particular course of reasoning behind a Christian’s decision to use deadly force. There are better reasons to reach the conclusion that a Christian may defend himself and others from the immediate threat of death or grave injury by using deadly force. Since Mr. Ayoob does not claim to be an expert in theology (Christian or otherwise), I think we can still appreciate his expertise in the area of self-protection.

There is an essential spiritual element left out of any approach to self protection, because of its limitation to the self. Naturally, it falls outside the scope of Mr. Ayoob’s book. This essential spiritual element is faith in the grace of God through Jesus Christ. Without Jesus, I could see why non-Christians might scoff at a reliance upon God’s protection. But since God’s only-begotten Son became a man for the express purpose of redeeming us and granting us eternal life, we can be sure that God always has our best interest at heart, and will influence the world accordingly. But notice that this does not mean we know our best interest. Sometimes it is in our best interest to suffer, at least until we reach our true home in heaven. Furthermore, our Creator and Savior has also provided us with hands, feet, and a mind capable of defending ourselves and our loved ones from unlawful violence. (Unfortunately, there is also lawful violence and injustice exercised by every earthly government, and we are only allowed to resist it when it would force us to disobey God’s law.) Especially in the United States, where the law-abiding citizens’ right to own and carry arms is constitutionally protected, the Christian citizen in the face of immediate threat to life and limb becomes part of God’s temporal plan to curb that violence, in a way comparable to Melanchthon’s case of necessity in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, paragraph 67.

So I don’t recommend that Christians rely only upon temporal resources for their self-protection, but I also don’t recommend that we neglect them. Perhaps you have heard the old joke about the Christian caught in a flood who remained praying in his house despite several visits from helpful neighbors in cars, boats, and finally helicopters. After he died, he angrily asked God why He didn’t answer his fervent prayer to save his life. God’s reply: “I sent you cars, boats, and helicopters. What more do you want?” So God’s protection may be closer than we thought, even in our own mind and limbs. But whatever may happen to us, a Christian need not be anxious, because we have a reliable promise stronger than any temporal threat or power.

I’m sure that Mr. Ayoob would add many other things to his presentation today, now that technology has given us cell phones, and the legal system has been adjusting to the age of terrorism. Judging from this book, it is probably well worth the cost to receive his classroom and range training, where the student would receive all of the latest he has to offer.

It’s been quite a while now since my last post. Sorry about that. Over the last three to four months, I’ve had a higher-than-usual online workload as I worked to upgrade a pretty serious web site. The upgrade is now officially finished, but as always, there are aftershocks of work to do. In the meantime, the vicar at my parish has received a call to his own church. I’m thankful for that, because he’s been ready for a while, but had to mark time here for a few months. So my parish duties are now adjusting back to something like they were in the pre-vicar era.

By the way, the web site upgrade brought us into Plone 3, which is in many ways a great improvement over Plone 2. The experience has been pretty good overall. There are times when I’m sick of doing things on a computer. That has the benefit of driving be back to my ginormous backlog of “to-read” materials. On the other hand, the creative digital juices have also been stimulated from time to time, and I’ve been able to take a few minutes here and there to advance the state of some of my selfish software projects. (Selfish because I am the chief beneficiary of my efforts.)

Here’s something spiritual to think about, a theological nugget to chew. Check out Deuteronomy 29:29.

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

That’s a distinction between things that God has chosen not to reveal, and those things that He has revealed in His law (aka His word). It means that it’s fruitless, foolish, and probably against our best interests to pry into the things God has kept secret, but it’s fruitful, wise, and very profitable to give our attention to what He has revealed.

Neat verse. It encapsulates an important theological distinction and expresses it rather clearly.