From a cinematic point of view the movie is well done and enjoyable as entertainment. Since I have not read the series it was based upon I cannot compare the integrity of the movie to the novel, although I suspect it was fairly good. Historically I don't doubt that it is fairly accurate as well. What I found interesting was the portrayal of Jospeh Smith. As anyone who has done any background reading on "the prophet" can discover, Smith had a checkered background. For further reading I would recommend THE KINGDOM OF THE CULTS by Walter Martin. Joseph Smith's whole family is interesting, to say the least. With minimal education and a penchant for the mystical, Mr. Smith was a natural to start a new religion. Unfortunately, from an orthodox Christian point of view, his "religion" is not faithful to the witness of Holy Scripture.

The movie attempts to portray Joseph Smith as a sincere and unfortunately misunderstood thinker. Those who follow him are always reputable and above reproach. Those who disagree with the prophet are narrow-minded, bigoted, and intolerant. Clearly, the underlying point to be made by the movie is a call for tolerance. The Book of Mormon, which is despised by the townsfolk, is put forward as a harmless piece of religious writing that should simply be read and accepted at face value.

I was disappointed that none of the detractors of the Book of Mormon seemed to have any theological acumen when it came to analyze truth from fiction, as far as it concerns the truth of scripture.. Instead, it seemed that the lot of them were largely ignorant of what the Bible teaches. This, though, may account for why they were misled so easily.

THE WORK AND THE GLORY was produced by Vineyard, which I did not recognize as a big budget film company. Since I had not heard of it I don't suspect that it got any better coverage than LUTHER did, at least in terms of national exposure. Still, if Gerald Lund and the producers of this movie were intending to use the media to soften the image of Smith and the Mormon, they have struck on a brilliant plan. Popular media is now the way to go. People enter into the experience for entertainment and come away with changed views. It was the same with the LEFT BEHIND series, as noted before. I was aghast when I saw my good Lutheran people begin to read this material with hardly a thought. We need to be aware of its deceptive power. As with all series that seek to portray a subject in its best light we cannot expect the authors and producers to present "the rest of the story." For this we will need to do our own spade work. Do note, though, that Smith and the Mormons are not Christian. This was one deceptive portrayal that I did not appreciate in the movie, as they were put forth as simply another "Christian Church," or in Mormon lingo, the "restoration" of the true church, which is seen here as confused and conflicted.

Apparently there is a sequel movie that was produced in '05 ("THE WORK AND THE GLORY - AMERICAN ZION) and will be released this year sometime. When I get a hold of it, I'll let you know what I see. Until then, buyer beware. Not all the truth can be found on the screen.

The Episcopal priest turned beggar had his eyes opened in a way he did not expect. Sitting on the front steps of his church with a donation cup in hand, he discovered that he was virtually invisible to his own parishioners, many of whom avoided him. When he walked into church before service and revealed his identity, people were genuinely shocked, and all the more so as they were forced to look at their own perceptions and attitudes toward people. Fr. Myrick, according to Tom Heinen, “is convinced that many of them ignored him out of fear - the force, he says, that makes parishes self-centered, divides denominations, fuels wars and prevents clergy and bishops from boldly leading their people to a more hopeful, dynamic faith.”

To a point I might agree. In my last parish I interacted with more than a few of the homeless, and so I understand his point about fear. We are apprehensive about those who are different. This is exacerbated all the more when we consider that many of the homeless (in my experience) include the mentally ill who are unable to live stable and settled lives. However, to attribute this “fear” to all that is mentioned above seems a bit overstretched. Denominations, for example, are not always divided simply out of fear. Sometimes there are truly legitimate reasons concerning morals and biblical truth.

Still, Fr. Myrick’s experiment did make a point. And, he said, it scared him a bit too when he considered how his own friends ignored him. With vestments and collar he was someone to be noticed and respected. In rags he was someone invisible. We do judge by appearance, and sometimes our judgments are not very fair. As a parish pastor I have worked with all kinds of people, and sometimes it was not easy to work with those who lived lives very different from my own. I had to overcome my own biases and be willing to objectively approach them without forming opinions too fast. Yes, there are some homeless who make a choice to live this way. Every time I visit Denver I see this kind of street worker who panhandles the crossroads with signs evoking pity where it is not deserved, and it angers me. There are choices and opportunities and this is simply another example of exploitation. Yet there are also those who fall between the cracks, and devoid of hope and self-worth they slip into the shadows. We have a responsibility to see beyond the exterior and risk sharing the Gospel of hope with such as these. Many simply want to build another shelter and host another soup kitchen. That is fine. But what about the real Bread of Life? What about Christ? Perhaps this experiment may challenge us to think about the places we have been unwilling to take the Gospel out of fear. May God forgive us our sins of neglect.

Nevertheless, in a later book, published in 1981, Ms. Friedan wrote: "The equality we fought for isn't livable, isn't workable, isn't comfortable in the terms that structured our battle." She said that feminists had fallen into a new trap "which denied that core of women's personhood that is fulfilled through love, nurture, home."

Too bad Ms. Friedan didn't discover the truth of feminism's pitfalls through the biblical truth of womanhood and family. Feminism has largely been a movement about the selfish desires of power, control and personal fulfillment, and has failed to realize the real fulfillment in the godly vocation of motherhood and family as God ordained it. Where was servanthood in all of this?

In the church we are still feeling the effects of the movement she started, and it is increasingly obvious that many have yet to learn the lessons that she discovered in retrospect. May the Lord preserve us from the worst this movement has brought, and enlighten our church yet to value the proper roles of man and woman as God has revealed it, seeing in the sanctity of the marriage bond a reflection of Christ's love for his bride, the church.

Charlie Reese, writer for the CLARION-LEGER, notes that "when we consider the size of the galaxies and the vast distances that separate them, when we consider how exactly everything had to be just so without even one atom's difference to produce us and our habitable planet, then it seems...more superstitious to believe it is all a meaningless accident than to believe in intelligent design and an intelligent designer." (Quoted in "Evolution and Intelligent Design" by Haven Bradford Gow in the magazine LIBERTY).

Yet to understand the clash between Evolutionists and ID proponents one ultimately has to come to grips with the philosophical differences that divide them. This debate is not won so much on scientific 'one-upmanship,' each side trotting out their experts and degreed researchers to prove the point. No, the heart of the issue strikes at the question of the scientific philosophy that under girds the theory.

It would be helpful in the ongoing discussion if the proponents of Evolution could come to terms with the philosophical basis of their views instead of presenting it as if the whole issue is simply pure science. No intellectual endeavor is without some bias and preconceived belief. Likewise, a theory like Evolution is as much an historical inquiry as a scientific investigation. There are missing pieces that must be "filled in" by assumption to make it hold together cohesively. There are no live eye witnesses to the distant misty past of Evolution's mind ogling beginnings. Data, such as it is, must be interpreted and made to fit with preexisting data. Thus, in order to offer a sense of direction and cohesion a philosophy is adopted first, like a template onto which the date is placed and interpreted.

It is well known that Humanism is a major player in the scientific community, a philosophy that excludes, a priori, the existence of deity at any level. Deity and the supernatural order that finds its existence in deity is deemed outside the scientific realm, being largely unobservable and unable to be adequately measured. Thus, when an evolutionist looks at the complexities of the universe he sees random coincidence, despite the fact that everything in his immediate world argues the other way.

ID proponents, to their credit, are at least willing to admit the obvious "design" in the complexities. Their philosophy allows them to see it and consider it. They look at the intricate web of information in the DNA strand of the human genetic code and logically assume that such a well ordered code would not likely happen by sheer accident. Even the mathematicians would admit to the astronomical absurdity when the probability is measured and the "odds" become staggeringly large. In this sense ID is a more honest and open-minded philosophy. Doors are not closed to the possibility.

Still, is there a "bias" to ID? Yes. Again this is just being honest. Scientific theory, like historical inquiry, is not without bias. The ID people are simply willing to admit it. Yet at the same time they do not immediately define what this "intelligence" is. The theory does not cross over into theology and begin to define the identity and attributes of God.

This debate will not be resolved, but it is hoped that the discussion can be made more honest. Mr. Gow perhaps had the best advice for our public school curriculum people when he ended his article with this proposal: "Perhaps our schools can incorporate into their physical science classes a two-week examination of the *philosophy* of science so that creationism may be legitimately discussed." (page 15, LIBERTY, Jan/Feb 2006). Would that be so difficult to achieve?

In another letter printed by Rev. Otten in this issue, Lazar, Orthodox bishop of Vancouver goes even further in claiming that the Reformation doctrine of Justification is essentially "pagan" and a development frm the medieval era.

Lutherans and other Reformed Christians will readily admit that Luther is largely credited with a rediscovery of Justication as the central doctrine of the church. But did it all begin with him, or was this taught long before Luther came along? In other words, is Justification by faith a novelty of history from the 16th century on?

In the WELS website: (http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?process&procID=1518&cuQA_qaID=1&cuTopic_topicID=45&cuItem_itemID=11118), there is a nice article referencing the seminal work on Justification by Dr. James Buchanan (1804-1870), a minister in the Scottish Prebyterian Church (and no, not the past president of the US!). They note: "Buchanan reckoned that there were at least 28 Fathers of the Church who taught justification through faith alone. At least until the 1100s there was always at least one theologian teaching the doctrine in a systematic way."

If you would like to read more of what Dr. Buchanan wrote, his chapter on the history of this doctrine is on the web and located at: http://www.modernreformation.org/jbjustification.htm

Obviously Justification by Faith is not a novelty of the modern era, nor is it "pagan."

In fact, Dr. Lowell Green in the article "The Question of Theosis in the Perspective of Lutheran Christology" (from ALL THEOLOGY IS CHRISTOLOGY: Essays in Honor of David P. Scaer), notes that the Orthodox teaching of "theosis," rather than being truly biblical and in accord with orthodox teaching, is more akin to Neo-Plantonic philosophy. He also challenges the idea that the "high point" of theology was necessarily the first five centuries. "Gerhard Muller points out, to the contrary, the Ancient Church lsot sight of the all-important doctrine of justification and that, between the time of Paul and Augustine, the distinction of law and gospel was lost in the ancient church partically recovered under Augustine, adn had to await its full explication until the appearance of Luther. Early Christian theology was misled by Neo-Platonic dualism to confound the doctrine of salvation with notions of deification or inward renewal of the believer." He then adds, in reference to the facination some have with Constantinople: "Moreover, the opinion
of some that the Lutheran Church should turn away from its confessional theology and seek solutions in teh Neo-Platonism of Eastern Orthodoxy is dangerous and needs thorough discussion today." (page 165) In a footnote he also notes: "Muller shows that Greek as well as Latin fathers failed to understand law and gospel and that works righteousness prevailed among such prominent writers as Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Ambrosiaster, and Ambrosius." (page 177)

One can debate the merits or demerits of cinematic adaptation, and whether the producers were faithful to the original story, but I think that would ultimately miss an important point of this film. In the trial which follows the young lady’s death, the heart of the case concerns the charge that the priest was guilty of “negligent homicide.” In other words, he should not have allowed the young lady to discontinue her medicine (for epilepsy), and should have made sure that she was provided with basic medical care, especially to prevent her eventual death from starvation. Yet this charge unearths an even deeper issue the court must now face: Was Emily’s and the priest’s belief in this evil presence misguided superstition, or was it a valid basis on which to proceed with spiritual remedies? Beyond this another question is begged: Were all concerned bound to accept the psychological diagnosis as the final word, or could spiritual counsel finally overrule? In Germany, where the original exorcism was performed, the idea of a church-sanctioned exorcism seemed to fly in the very face of their sophisticated and deeply rational culture. The U.S. is little different. Many still view such things as exorcism as outdated, medieval throwbacks to a more primitive time.

Personally I have no doubt about the presence of evil identities which Scripture variously identifies as devils, demons or unclean spirits. I also have no doubt that these personalities can and do invade the bodies of people and hold them captive. I do not believe this based on first hand experience, for I have not directly witnessed an example of possession. But I believe the Scriptures, and I hold credible many of the accounts of such phenomena over the centuries. Malachi Martin, former Jesuit professor and prolific author, wrote a very well documented book on this subject entitled HOSTAGE TO THE DEVIL: THE POSSESSION AND EXORCISM OF FIVE LIVING AMERICANS. It was published in 1976 by the Reader’s Digest Press. It took me several years to read this book. Although it covers over 470 pages, it was not the length that deterred me. It was the same chilling hesitation I felt again as I watched this film. Evil is very real and for the Christian we know that we are locked in a deadly war with it (Ephesians 6:12). While we are not unprotected as Christians, we know that as in any war the soldier will be at times wounded and injured. One does not take on a direct encounter with an evil spirit either eagerly or quickly. To the Roman church’s credit I am thankful that they have traditionally exercised great caution in the diagnosis and approval of any exorcism. The Pentecostals, I fear, rush into this realm far too fast.

The Roman church, by the way, reissued in 1999 the ritual of exorcism that dated back at least to the 17th century. Although, the practice of exorcism stretches back throughout the history of the church. Recently (in the last year, I believe), a special class was held in Rome to train priests in this ritual.

In the Lutheran Church we have been slow to deal with this subject, and as I look back on my training at the seminary I realize that precious little was devoted to it. It does not seem to me that Luther addressed exorcism very extensively, perhaps due to so much of the unscriptural material attached to Catholic ritual in his time. However, let no one doubt that Luther was deeply aware of the presence of Evil Spirit and its power. He truly felt that his Reformation was a war directly with it. Darrell McCulley is the only Lutheran scholar, that I am aware of, to do any substantial research in this area. He has written a book entitled A HOUSE SWEPT CLEAN, that unfortunately is at present unpublished, although you can request a copy from the author. He sponsors a website www.christiandefenseministries.org.

As a pastor I hardly know where to begin. Yes, times have changed, and they bear little resemblance to the previous eras. I have attempted to preach on these issues, and I have counseled on God's truth when given the chance. But is it enough? Even though the people to whom I minister are by and far confirmed B & B Lutherans, it seems as if they have forgotten that there even is a 6th commandment! What is a "sexually pure and decent life" for most Lutherans? I suspect that the best answer you could get is "as long as no one is being physically abused or violated against their will." In other words, as long as a violent crime is not committed, all is ok.

I fear that the end result of this cultural attack on God's will regarding sex will be the continued demise of marriage and family. We are witnessing its decline even now. The byproducts of this decline is confusion with our young people who are ill-equipped for mature relationships, and are truly not ready for marriage. For too many of them sex is something you use for pleasure, little more. Forget it's place as an expression of the intimate and mystical bond of husband and wife, and the gift of children to be raised by committed parents.

May God have mercy on us in this difficult time!