Well Known Politico Undergoes Brain Surgery

Mary Jo Kopechne, 68, is reported to be recovering nicely from brain surgery preformed at Duke University Medical center. Kopechne comes from a storied political family in America and has served ably has a US Senator from Massachusetts since 1962. Kopechne’s brilliant career was marked by a auto accident early in her career where a young relatively unknown secretary named Edward Kennedy drowned in suspicious circumstances in Chappaquiddick. Kopechne was at the wheel when the car she was driving went off a bridge and was submerged in shallow water. Mary Jo Kopechne managed to escape while her date drowned in the car after surviving for nearly two hours taking refuge in an air pocket. Suspicions have survived for years that Kopechne was intoxicated and only reported the accident hours later when she had become sober. Rumors continue that Kopechne used inside influence in Massachusetts to avoid prosecution of serious charges. Kopechne was married at the time of the accident.

All of America, having forgotten the obscure Kennedy, continue to pray for Mary Jo Kopechne’s full recovery from her brain surgery.

Doggie Love

The link below, from a local Florida newspaper describes an arrest, prosecution, and judgment against a young man involved in bestiality.


Now I link this for one reason and that reason is the intuitive revulsion and disgust that this story works in most people who read it. People read this kind of thing and they think, “That is clearly beyond the pale. That person is sick. How utterly gross.”

And that is the response they should have!

Now keep in mind that same intuitive revulsion and disgust used to be the response of the average American 50 short years ago when reading a similar story about some guy involved in homosexuality. Now however, as we know, homosexuality is ‘just another lifestyle that is as normal as anything else.’ As it stands currently it is the person who responds to homosexuality the way that we respond to the bestiality as recorded in the link above who are seen as the abnormal ones.

What changed?

And what makes us think that in another 50 years or less (I think less) people who are coitally attached to their pet of choice will be seen a being perfectly normal while those who are repulsed by such behavior will be seen as the ones with a problem?

Homosexuality remains every bit as disgusting as some guy doing his doggie, and I don’t care how many courts in America say it is a perfectly acceptable form for familial organization or how much the media (see Anna Quindlend’s recent piece that ran in Newsweek) and educational establishments continue to brainwash us on its legitimacy.

Certainly we must be concerned for the soul of homosexuals, just as we must be concerned for the souls of those who like farm animals, but the way for showing concern for their souls is by continuing to reveal the pig behind the lipstick (that lifestyle can be dressed up all one likes but it remains highly destructive and more importantly violates God’s Law) and by holding out to them both the wrath and love of God — wrath against those who refuse to repent and love for those who will repent and flee to Jesus.

Narnia — The Horny Princess Warrior

Last week, I attended the Prince Caspian movie along with most of the families who are part of the Church I serve. A few observations.

1.) What’s with the collagen treatment on the lips of Anna Popplewell (The actress who played Susan)? When you compare Anna’s lips from the last Narnia movie with this one you can clearly see that Anna’s lips went through a growth spurt that Wilt Chamberlin could’ve only envied. When she laid a kiss on Prince Caspian at the end of the movie I was afraid that the guy was going to disappear in those lips, never to be found again.

2.) The writers of the script turned Lewis’s Susan character from being a soft spoken but wise Queen to a horny warrior princess. She went from being the Queen of Sheba in Lewis’s book to being an in heat Annie Oakley with a bow in the movie. On the transformation of Susan from being a Queen of Sheba type in Lewis’ book to being Annie Oakley with a bow in the movie the Director of Caspian, Andrew Adamson, made his views known.

“I know C.S. Lewis didn’t think women should fight, but I have a different view about how strong or assertive women should be. That was something I discussed and said there was no way I was making a film that says that.”

You know if Adamson wants to make a movie about his different views about ‘how strong and assertive women should be’ why doesn’t he first write a series of books called ‘The Chronicles Of Adamsonia,’ have them become treasured volumes and bestsellers to generations of Christians, and then make them into a Movie instead of defecating on the Chronicles of Narnia by injecting his modernistic Worldview onto a book that was decidedly not infected with modernity?”

3.) What gives with the kissing scene? This was another example of Adamson injecting his modernistic Worldview on to a book that was essentially medieval in its setting and flavor. I seriously doubt that most Christians thought about that scene as that kind of thing is the norm among our 15 year old girls today but it really isn’t a role model we should want most of our 15 year olds emulating.

4.) The character development was awful! You never got a sense of the refusal of ‘doubting Trumpkin’ to believe in Aslan. The film created no wonderment at Trumpkin’s loyalty in spite of his disbelief. The Nick-A-Brick character was completely flat and barely revealed the nature of his treachery. Peter comes across as a tyrant who will brook no counsel and who never repents of his boorish behavior. Reep-a-Cheep was the character that was perhaps most true to the novel. He was my favorite character in the movie.

5.) The character development could’ve been pursued somewhat if the script writers hadn’t decided to invent, whole cloth, a scene that is not in the book. The whole invasion of the Castle was yet another example of Hollywood try to improve a book instead of just telling the story of the book. This scene contributed nothing to the plot of the movie (though it had its due sense of daring and excitement) and it was used to despoil the Susan character by turning her into an assassin. You know, as I think about it, I think Susan had more kills in the movie then Caspian, Peter, and Edmund combined.

6.) Nick-a-Brick, who in Lewis’s book was the villainous ‘Black dwarf,’ was played by a White guy while the heroic Centaurs and Minotaurs were played by Black guys. Coincidence?

7.) The invented scene ended with the entrapment of a large Battalion of Old Narnians trapped behind the Castle Gate, who you knew were being slaughtered by Miraz’s army. It was a bit intense for children.

All in all if you could view it as a movie that had nothing to do with the book it was OK. The thing that gripes me is that these movies make their money by attaching themselves to the books. If they want to make stand alone movies that have nothing to do with the books then let them have at it. But if they are going to make Movies and suggest that they have anything to do with the books besides a few character names then it would be nice if they actually had something to do with the books.

Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull

Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull

1.) Sex outside of marriage turns out well for all involved

There is such a commonness about this state of affairs that it is easy to miss. In the film Indy knocked up the leading lady 20 years prior to the time shown in the film and suddenly discovers 20 years later that he has a son. Everything went just perfect for the damsel who was pregnant out of wedlock in 1937 (appx.) and the son grew up to be a mostly well adjusted young man whom Indy looks on in pride.

That is not the way it usually works in real life folks.

2.) Mankind received its intelligence from Alien ‘god like’ beings

This is a common theme for Spielberg. If you recall, he explored this theme in his films E.T. and in Artificial Intelligence. Spielberg is a Cosmic Humanist of some sort (remember the force in his Star Wars films) and that comes out in this flick. What I find interesting at this point is the correspondence between the Worldview in this film as it touches origins and the Worldview of some of the ‘scientists’ that Ben Stein interviewed in ‘Expelled.’ In both the Indiana Jones IV movie and from interviews in ‘Expelled’ you have a Worldview on origins explicated that holds that intelligence on earth and perhaps mankind itself came from Space Aliens.

I think we need to be very aware of this Worldview on origins that we are seeing from both the intellectual community as displayed in ‘Expelled’ and from the pop-culture as displayed in the recent Indiana Jones movie.

The answer to the question ‘How do we know’ is ‘We know because of the revelation of Space Aliens.’

3.) Knowledge is the ultimate treasure

At the end of the flick Indy makes some kind of observation that the inhabitants of the long deceased culture that they are searching for found its value in treasure, which knowledge was the highest expression of. This wouldn’t be so bad except obviously knowledge is not related to the God of the Bible but rather it is knowledge as measured on a humanistic scale.

The answer to the question ‘What is our ultimate value’ is, ‘Our ultimate value is knowledge apart from God who made us.’

4.) Women are physically tough.

From the pony tailed cheerleader in the 50’s sock hop Malt Shop who slugs the guy who slugged her boyfriend (with a right cross that would make Joe Frazier proud) to the female Communist villain to the Mother of Indy’s son, all the women roles in this film are men’s physical equal. No need to protect the women here.

File this observation under anthropology.

5.) The Issue of Myth

Clearly the movie deals with the myths that govern a culture. What is interesting here is that while many today in our post-modern culture will tell you that it doesn’t matter if the myth is historically true or not (since there is no capital ‘T’ truth) the myth that is initially seen as just being another myth (Indy initially says, ‘it’s just a story kid.’) ends up being not only Myth but also historically true. This is interesting because increasingly I am finding Christians who are saying that it doesn’t matter if the creation account is true or not since it is our guiding myth or that it doesn’t matter if the miracle accounts are true or not since they serve as our guiding myth. What is important, according to these folks, is that we show non-Christians the superiority of the Christian myth over other myths. Yet, even in a mind candy film like Indiana Jones there seems to be some recognition that myth needs to correspond to historicalness in order to be anything more than a ‘story.’

Indiana Jones is a fun adventure movie in the Spielberg strain. It’s worldview is decidedly messed up but what epistemologically self conscious person watches movies in order to be informed in their Worldview?

Defending ReformedTheology From R2Kt Attacks

Dear Herbert Goforth Marcuse,

Let’s start with a definition of culture.

Culture is the outward manifestation of a people’s inward beliefs.

Culture thus reflects and incarnates the God and the theology that it worships. As such culture is hopelessly theological and while in itself not redemptive it does reflect some kind of theology. The R2kt insists not only that culture is not in and of itself redemptive (something all Reformed Christians agree with) but goes on to insist that it isn’t theologically rooted and imbued, as if it is a-theological. This is more than unfortunate.

Your letter seemed to affirm the idea of a ‘wall of separation between Church and State. The Puritans never agreed with the pagan idea of a wall between church and state. The puritans believed that there were two distinct realms, (one responsible for ministering grace while the other was responsible for ministering justice) but that the realms were complimentary and interdependent. The Puritans never held that the Church should have a wall between itself and the State and later protestants wanted a wall only in order to keep the State from meddling in the affairs of the Church, not to keep the Church from influencing the State. Frankly, the idea of a ‘wall between Church and State’ is a pagan idea and one that isn’t possible anyway as the current arrangement in this country reveals where the Church is located in the government schools and serves as the State Church.

The idea that ‘by looking for religious significance not in this world but in the world to come, liturgical Protestantism lowers the stakes for public life while still affirming politics’ divinely ordained purpose’ is an idea that creates a kind of platonic dualism with religious significance, including what happens in Church, being placed in the upper story while the ‘common realm,’ including what happens everywhere but what happens in Church, is located in the lower story. This is why it is often accused of gnosticism. This argument completely divorces nature from grace seeing them as two completely different and irreconcilable realities. Now, to be sure, there is always the danger of over identifying nature with grace not making the necessary distinctions between the two but the danger of one extreme doesn’t justify embracing the danger of R2kt virus. The danger of immanentizing the eschaton isn’t solved by making the eschaton so transcendent that it touches only the cultus.

Second, you quote somebody who talks about politics as the divinely appointed means for restraining evil but ‘evil’ is a theological category. In order to know what evil is we need Christian theology to inform the magistrate as to what evil is. As one example of the problem here, Natural law, in a community of homosexuals, is not going to restrain the evil of sexual license. So, even your quote above advocating R2Kt virus must presuppose my position in order to deny my position.

Third, since Theocracy is an inescapable category and since we are living under one even now, I see nothing un-Biblical in desiring a Theocracy that is increasingly reflective of Biblical categories then one that is increasingly reflective of the values of Marx, De Sade, and Freud. I am amazed at your disparaging attitude that Christians should desire the Kingship of Jesus in the communities in which they live.

Fourth, Woodrow Wilson had divorced Christian anthropology and soteriology from His eschatology and as such he was a defacto operating humanist. Accusations against him don’t lay a glove on post-millennialism. In a biblical post-millennial theology it is Christ who is bringing His Kingdom to earth and not in your words, ‘his followers who are trying with their human effort to build utopia.’ Therefore your criticism on that count doesn’t stand either, though as a functional a-millennialist I am not surprised that you would accuse post-millennialism of being just another brand of Oneida type utopianism.

Fifth, it is true that the R2Kt virus does define morality but only on an individual and personal level. They may say that murder is wrong but they dare not, if they are consistent, proclaim from the pulpit during the preaching of the Word, that killing Jews is wrong for that is something that belongs to the political realm and so not something that the Church should speak to since the Church’s responsibility is to proclaim personal salvation as found in Christ. As such, Church members are free to advocate killing Babies or not killing Babies in the public square and if R2kt virus types are consistent they will not be disciplined. Now, it may be that they will be inconsistent and speak to the issue but given their position if they are consistent they will follow their own theology and recognize that the Church as the Church has no voice on these matters.

You may indeed voice your concerns as a Christian in the public square on a host of issues. You may even contend that your position is THE Christian position proving it from scripture. BUT theoretically it is the case that a person who shares membership with you at the local R2kt Church can voice just the opposite view as yours, likewise proving it from Scripture and likewise insisting that theirs is the truly Biblical position. And since the Church as the Church can’t speak to such issues believers are left without a Word from the Lord and with each man doing what is right in his own eyes.

Give my best to the family,

Pastor Bret