Andrew doesn't get it

Andrew Sullivan, who gets it so relentlessly when it comes to iPods, doesn't get the Pope. (Well, that's obvious, you might be thinking.) But he writes thusly regarding the Pope's illness (italics are mine)

THE POPE'S LIFE: We have been informed that the pontiff's current suffering and persistence against multiple illnesses and debilities is sending a message about the dignity of suffering and the importance of life. There is indeed a great truth to that. But there is also a point at which clinging to life itself becomes a little odd for a Christian, no? Isn't the fundamental point about Christianity that our life on earth is but a blink in the eye of our real existence, which begins at death and lasts for eternity in God's loving presence? Why is the Pope sending a signal that we should cling to life at all costs - and that this clinging represents some kind of moral achievement? Isn't there a moment at which the proper Christian approach to death is to let it come and be glad? Or put it another way: if the Pope is this desperate to stay alive, what hope is there for the rest of us?

Mr. Sullivan seems never to have read this:

It is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be put to shame in any way, but that by my speaking with all boldness, Christ will be exalted now as always in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labour for me; and I do not know which I prefer. I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better; but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you. Since I am convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with all of you for your progress and joy in faith, so that I may share abundantly in your boasting in Christ Jesus when I come to you again.

And the Pope's commitment is obviously that it is not up to him when he is to depart and be with Christ, and lie down and rest with the saints. Sullivan writes from his human-centered perspective - obviously, the Pope should know and decide out of freedom when his time is. John Paul II thinks differently - or should I say, he has a different conception of human freedom.

Program on St Matthew Passion

One of my absolute favorite - if not absolutely my favorite - pieces of music. I fell in love with it by reading Bernstein's The Joy of Music, and then going out and buying the CD. I was hooked immediately.

In 2002, for the School of Religion, I did a class on the Passion. It was not well attended, but a lot of fun all the same.

One half hour of interviews. Link is to New Testament Gateway Weblog - then to the program.

Edit 28 Feb. 2005: Oops. It's no longer there. You will get, however, an Arthur Miller retrospective - at least until tomorrow.

Hitchhiker's Guide - the Movie

My first response is: This. is. so. cool. Viewing the trailer, though, I see that there have to be some major plot changes. And, as far as I can tell, Zaphod only has one head.

Arthur Dent, however, looks very - well - Dent-ish.

http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/main.html

We have retreated into the iWorld

I do not own an iPod. I do not have a radio in my car. And I do not live in a large city. But this article still is relevant. And at the next lock-in, should we get rid of the iPods?

Walk through any airport in the United States these days and you will see person after person gliding through the social ether as if on autopilot. Get on a subway and you’re surrounded by a bunch of Stepford commuters staring into mid-space as if anaesthetised by technology. Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t overhear, don’t observe. Just tune in and tune out.

It wouldn’t be so worrying if it weren’t part of something even bigger. Americans are beginning to narrow their lives.

You get your news from your favourite blogs, the ones that won’t challenge your view of the world. You tune into a satellite radio service that also aims directly at a small market — for new age fanatics, liberal talk or Christian rock. Television is all cable. Culture is all subculture. Your cell phones can receive e-mail feeds of your favourite blogger’s latest thoughts — seconds after he has posted them — get sports scores for your team or stock quotes of your portfolio.

Technology has given us a universe entirely for ourselves — where the serendipity of meeting a new stranger, hearing a piece of music we would never choose for ourselves or an opinion that might force us to change our mind about something are all effectively banished.

Atomisation by little white boxes and cell phones. Society without the social. Others who are chosen — not met at random. Human beings have never lived like this before. Yes, we have always had homes, retreats or places where we went to relax, unwind or shut out the world.

But we didn’t walk around the world like hermit crabs with our isolation surgically attached.

My comments on Recommendation One

I sent a letter to our Synod Council (and also to the Presiding Bishop, Vice-President of Church Council, etc.) regarding the Recommendations of the ELCA Task Force on Sexuality. Recommendation One reads:

Because the God-given mission and communion we share is at least as important as
the issues about which faithful conscience-bound Lutherans find themselves so
decisively at odds, the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality recommends that
the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America concentrate on finding ways to live
together faithfully in the midst of our disagreements.

A relevant section of the commentary reads:

If the assembly approves this first recommendation, it is
declaring that this issue does not have to be church dividing.

Following were my comments:

In Recommendation One, the “Commentary” reads in part: “If the assembly approves this first recommendation, it is declaring that this issue does not have to be church dividing.” If the issues of blessing same-sex unions or rostering individuals who are sexually active within a committed same-sex relationship is solemnly defined as “not church dividing,” then to me the burden of proof has suddenly shifted to those who would oppose a change in policy. Why, if this issue is not church dividing, should anyone oppose allowing changes in the policy?

Moreover, I am concerned about the first statement in the Recommendation: “...the God-given mission and communion we share is at least as important as the issues about which faithful conscience-bound Lutherans find themselves so decisively at odds...” On the face of it, the response to this phrase ought to be and is a hearty Amen! However, I would also submit that in a world that is saturated with sexuality, in a world where people look to the Church of Jesus Christ for guidance and the Word of God regarding sexual conduct, the matters on which we disagree are not incidental to the mission we are engaged in together. The questions we are facing are not on the level of whether or not flowers should be put on the altar or even on the level of whether a new service ought to be added with guitars and drums. The questions we are facing are fundamental questions regarding what the Gospel means when confronted with a particular situation.

The questions should and must be asked: When we reach out in mission to the world God made, what is the content of our proclamation of Christ to those who seek answers concerning human sexuality? How can the Church give two conflicting answers to the questions concerning same-sex genital relationships and still claim to be “one in mission?” Moreover, do the differing answers we give on these matters illuminate fundamentally differing understandings of the mission we have been given from God?

What I am currently reading

Just finished Bonhoeffer's Creation and Fall, as noted below.

Am hopping and skipping through sections of Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God.

At the recommendation of Dwight P., have begun Christ Present in Faith by Mannermaa.

Am reading Augustine and the Catechumenate for my Society of the Holy Trinity presentation two Mondays from now.

And am preparing for John 9 two Sundays from now.

Otherwise, I'm not reading anything. :)

I'm speechless

In the "My View" column, our denominational magazine features an article by an ELCA pastor who defends communing the unbaptized with a few anecdotes and the question that trumps all other answers: "Jesus didn't exclude anyone. Why should we?"

Doesn't our denominational magazine have any responsibility to its readership? Does its solicitation of reader viewpoints extend to any opinion, no matter how uninformed, misinformed, or damaging to Christian faith? Does the magazine have any responsibility to Scripture, tradition, or even the efforts of the ELCA Worship Staff?

Sigh...this is why I'd never recommend The Lutheran to any of my parishioners interested in learning or living the Christian faith.

Here I raise my Ebenezer...uh oh

Ebenezer Lutheran Church...

Such a solid name for a congregation, and yet...

click here

Creation and Fall...

...rules.

Just finished it tonight. Oh wow. I am, like, speechless.

The Ethics awaits, as does my discussion with Brett...