The OOC

This is an amazing story, Baby Stable After Second Head Removed, and a more amazing picture. I wonder if there was any thought that the second head was a living human being. Any thoughts?

Wichita Eagle 02/27/2005 Park City man held in 17-year killing spree

I grew up in Wichita. I lived there from 1974 through 1992, which overlapped exactly with the reign of terror that was BTK. Sometimes, my sister and I would play a childish (and cruel) game with each other whenever we heard one of those strange, misty noises in the night. We’d take turns telling each other that it was BTK just outside our home. Some days, in the early 80’s, we didn’t have to suggest it very loudly before each of us believed it–right to our souls.

Police now have captured Dennis Rader, whom they say is responsible for the BTK murders, and I have to tell you, that he looks nothing like how I pictured him. He looks like. . .everyman, and that’s just the problem. In his book Blue Like Jazz: Non-Religious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality, Don Miller relates a tale of a friend reflecting on the genocide taking place in an African country, and his friend asking whether he (Don Miller) was capable of such a thing. The quick answer was “No!” but as his friend pressed him on the implications of his answer, Miller reflects:

“Tony had me on this one. If I answered his question by saying yes, I could commit those atrocities, that would make me evil, but if I answered no, it would suggest I believed I am better evolved than some of the men in the Congo. And then I would have some explaining to do.”

That’s the crux of the problem of sin (not just the problem of evil–that’s too easy for us to get out from under: “Oh, I’m not evil.”). Each and every one of us has it within us to be a thief, a liar, a murderer. That’s the point of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:21-23

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgement.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement. Again, anyone who says to his brother ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”

It’s all within us. Any of us could be BTK. Don’t believe me? ask those he worked with. Ask those at his church. Ask his pastor.

You’ve probably heard the buzz about Disney’s attempt at producing the big-screen interpretation of The Chronicles of Narnia. An article in the New York Times raises the issue of the work’s Christian worldview, vis-a-vis the “marketability” of the film. The whole commercial element of Disney’s motivation rubs me the wrong way, though of course they’re entitled to it:

Having been criticized for failing to cash in on the merchandising opportunities offered by 2003’s “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl,” Disney is preparing for the kind of all-encompassing drive it hasn’t mounted since 1994, when it turned “The Lion King” into a pop cultural event that still reverberates in its retail stores and on Broadway.

But the real issue — to the players in the story, including the author — is how “touchy” the matter of the Christian aspect is:

But this time, the pros at Disney are wrestling with a special challenge: how to sell a screen hero who was conceived as a forthright symbol of Jesus Christ, a redeemer who is tortured and killed in place of a young human sinner and who returns in a glorious resurrection that transforms the snowy landscape of Narnia into a verdant paradise.

I was amazed at how ignorant the author and Disney execs seem to be about the nature of movies and worldviews: namely, that every film has one. The idea that Disney “stays out of the culture wars” or is apolitical is preposterous. Just because a movie isn’t Christian doesn’t mean it doesn’t present a religion or particular worldview. Plenty of Disney movies have very clearly defined worldviews.

It’s just sad that people’s overfunctioning political correctness prevents them from enjoying/producing a perfectly great, redemptive work of literature, just because someone told them it was “Christian.” I’m hopeful that it will be faithful (no pun intended), but I’m not holding my breath – Disney’s track record doesn’t bode well (I challenge readers to give me some examples otherwise).

Now if Mel G. decides to make a version of Narnia…

Hurray! Coffee is good for you! Now where’s that research on donuts?

This is truly amazing and wonderful. Hat tip to the World Mag Blog for posting this story.

I found this article to be interesting in its own right, but especially following Ron’s sermon on Sunday (which by the way, I found to be very compelling). I know that Ron wasn’t focusing on the same issues as this article, but the theme of order vs. authenticity is very present in both. What Mr. DeGroat labels as authenticity in his article, seems to some degree to be what Ron was calling order – a longing for a return to a more structured, liturgical church with historical roots and away from the pop-culture reflections of church that has proliferated over the past 25 years or so. This is something that I have been seeing for at least the last 10 years as several of my college friends (including me) looked very closely at Anglicanism, Catholocism, and Orthodoxy as a way to counteract what we perceived as a watered down Christianity that seemed to focus on exerience.

If anyone else has read this, I’d love to hear thoughts on it.

Just a quick post on how much the we (the Nelson family) enjoyed the time last Friday at the Milligan house.The music was fantastic and I wanted to say a big thanks to Rene who put it together as well as the musicians for providing us all a terrific evening.

Max especially was enthralled and expected us to do the same thing on Sunday morning. When we got to church, he informed us that he wanted to stay upstairs and sing – then when church was over, he was ready to go over to the “Migilan” house to sing some more.

Thanks to all who contributed!

NFL wide receiver Terrell Owens, whose football-catching talents are only exceeded by his propensity to ensure that everyone knows about them, once again put himself in the headlines this weekend, not by appearing in a contraversial Monday Night Football ad or self-aggrandizing end-zone shenanigans, but but remarking on God’s will for his life:

“I think God put me on this stage for a certain reason,” Owens said. “I got hurt for a reason. I understand that. A lot of people don’t. A lot of people are questioning my ability and probably the risk that I take playing this game 6½ weeks after surgery. But it doesn’t really matter what people say about me, I know what I can do. I know how my ankle feels and that’s all that matters.”

When asked the reasoning behind his injury, Owens went on to say: “I think God is using me [and] put me on a platform to really show the world how great he is. God has put me in the position, and I’m welcoming that challenge. Just by the timing of me getting hurt, he had to sit me down and put things into perspective for me. And that’s what he’s done. He put me on the biggest stage of my life to show people how great he is.”

As intriguing as Owens’ comments are, I was struck more by how the media have jumped on — piled on — them in their own self-righteous and sanctimonious columns, none of which I’ve read demonstrate more than a superficial or conventional understanding of Christianity:

• T.O. goes too far claiming recovery miracle
• Is God Owens’ orthopedist, too?

Surely, Owens is off-base when he makes claims like “God made me controversial,” as are these columnists when they sarcastically say, “God stepped in and made everything better … Do I hear, ‘Amen?'” Perhaps God is using Owens, all right: to push into the public sphere the discussion of God’s purpose and inscrutable ways and decisions, including healing of everyone from Tsunami victims to obnoxious professional athletes.

Well, I don’t suppose this will bother “Mr. ASV” Ron Lutjens, but it always seems newsworthy to the Christian when a new Bible translation is released. To wit, the TNIV (Today’s New International Version) from Zondervan (yes, this is the same one in the Rolling Stone kerfuffle). Zondervan is a reputable publishing house (as far as I know), and the company’s spokesman makes some reasonable arguments for some of the changes:

“In situations in the Bible where it is very clear from the original language, and also from the context, that the writer or the speaker was talking to men and women, that is simply provided accurately and specifically in the TNIV,” explains Paul Caminiti…

And, as the article points out, “God remains a ‘he’ in the TNIV,” which is too often a casualty in new translations. As it turns out, though, I also trust the comments of the “critic” quoted, Wayne Grudem, research professor of Bible and theology at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona (his son, Eliot, and I helped start an alternative newspaper in college). Anyone have more information on this?

Since Pope John Paul II’s recent sickness and trip to the hospital, many Catholics around the world have been dreading the worst. When this pope does enter eternity, how will the next pope be elected? Time.com has the answer.
The pope is supposed to be considered infallible by all Catholics. If that is true, how is that they have a completely fallible process for choosing him? Or a better question is; How can Catholics around the world continue to believe in an infallible pope who is chosen by fallible men? (Who, mind you, are not popes due to the fact that they were not chosen and therefore not infallible.)