Books I've been reading lately suggest that if one wishes to know what's going on in the culture, the arts are a fruitful place to begin. I kept that thought in mind recently while sitting in a darkened movie theater watching “The Dark Knight.” Although comic book fans thank Marvel Comics for injecting serious reflective issues into characters not accustomed to being taken seriously, the writers assigned to beef up the Batman film franchise have certainly not ignored the trend. This Batman is filled with good intentions that go wrong. He is a vigilante run amok, according to his detractors. Even his defenders and cohorts notice how his desire to right wrongs and clean up injustices creates unintentional moral dilemmas and bad consequences not only for himself but for those whom he tries to protect. His development of a universal eavesdropping mechanism designed to impede the Joker's plans earns him a scolding from an associate who rebels at justifying the end with this means. Batman himself is plagued by questions of self-identity and purpose.

Could there be a more transparent allegory about the United States? Our nation has determined to deal with madmen like the Joker, who seem to kill and terrorize senselessly. Our missteps have led to self-criticism and doubt among some, unswerving determination on the other. Outsiders don't know how to view us – noble heroes or cowboy vigilantes ready to go it alone when others will not step up to join the fight. I think The Dark Knight strikes a chord with viewers who understand that more than power and good intentions are needed to overcome evil and injustice. This is a movie whose tenor is far different from that of yesterday's James Bond adventures. The reason I draw that comparison is that a number of similar gadgets have appeared in those films too, but in those earlier films, the hero is self-assured and his cause is unquestionably just with no moral entanglements.

So is this film just a left-leaning Hollywood piece of propaganda? In his little book, The Spiritual Society, LCMS pastor Frederic Baue says, “cultural change registers first in the arts.” The media mirror society, not vice-versa. We are in the throes of another bout of self-doubt and angst that move us beyond postmodernism. For dialog between the Joker and Batman at one point yields this disturbing thought: good and evil need each other to justify their own existence and work. While another round of films will take us into end-of-the-world blow ups and threats of destruction, sometimes using ecology, sometimes otherworldly hostilities, make no mistake: the nation is nervous about its future. It is frustrated that its idealism has yielded tainted results. They may be a conflict that rages forever.

Now my purpose for writing is not to do a movie review. It is to say that in this dark time of national frustration with both the President and Congress (their ratings have never been lower), we Christians have a word to speak. The victory over darkness has been won. Although the devil prowls about like a roaring lion, the risen and triumphant Christ walks about his churches and has not left them alone to face these unsettling times. The movies tell us no surprises – we know the ambiguity that the devil likes to create as he spoils noble causes with questionable self-interest. Yet our hero does not cloak himself in anything but light – pure light, Light of Light. His mission is just and complete. Accomplished not with the latest gadgetry but on two pieces of wood. The “hardware” used consisted of spikes, not of ingenious circuitry. So while we all may have our doubts about the future of the kingdom of the left hand and the madness which is always astir, the kingdom of the right hand is in sure control of its white knight. From the reported gross box office receipts of The Dark Knight's first week-end, a lot of people would benefit from hearing about the White Knight.

- President Cripe

.

Will Rogers said, “Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there.” Had the Holy Spirit not been poured out on the disciples, Will's words would have applied to them. The Holy Spirit was not about to work apart from moving human voices to carry the Gospel to human ears. I think St Paul's words also fit here when he said, “He who sows sparingly reaps sparingly.” In this seventh ABLAZE segment, I want to talk about one of the specific ABLAZE goals, that of reaching 100 million people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ by 2017. Some have been critical of this as an attempt to use numbers to measure success. Is it wrong to set goals like this? Is it wrong to measure such goals? St Paul certainly set mission goals for himself, as when he said to Barnabas, “Let's return to the congregations we started and strengthen the brothers.” Observable, specific and measurable. We know that he had set for himself the goal to reach Spain with the Gospel. Observable, specific and measurable. Jesus himself set a goal for the 72 who were to go ahead of him to every town and village where he was to go. Observable, specific and measurable. If Jesus was only planning to go about Galilee in a haphazard fashion and did not lay before them his travel plans, he was a pretty poor steward of their time. How would they know where to visit and in what order if He had not provided them with a plan? Whenever a congregation does a neighborhood canvass it has set an observable, specific and measurable goal for itself.

Here's something else we know: St Paul and Barnabas didn't make it back to all of those congregations that time. The Spirit changed their travel plans, diverting them to Macedonia via a dream. In fact, we know that Paul didn't make it back to a lot of places he intended to revisit. Do we call Paul a failure because he didn't reach that goal? Some believe he didn't make it to Spain either. Does that make Paul a double failure? Christ told the 12, “I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” Would any wish to call them failures because their assignment went unfinished? Even more, would any want to have argued with Jesus, “Well if it isn't attainable, why bother with it at all?”

ABLAZE planners did a very Lutheran thing by not setting for ourselves a numerical goal to measure those saved. Setting a goal of seeing 100 million saved would be specific. But certainly not measurable or even observable because only God knows the heart. It is for that reason that Paul says, “I planted, Apollos watered ....” God gives the growth and only He knows those who are His. But setting a goal to speak the Gospel (planting or watering) to 100 million people is observable, specific, and measurable. Ah, but again, there's that bugaboo for some: numbers! According to some, numbers are not a big concern for the New Testament apostles and evangelists and shouldn't be for us either. I would agree if we are talking solely about figures. Paul did not have a goal of reaching x number of people with the Gospel. But he did have a plan to reach the cities of the Mediterranean world and inherent in that is numbers of people. So let me ask those who object, "Would you have an equal objection if ABLAZE set as a goal to reach the ten major metropolitan areas of the United States with the Gospel, neighborhood by neighborhood? Would you object if your congregation set a goal of engaging the people of every neighborhood in your town by 2017?" I know at least one of you would ask, “What's the matter with the other major metropolitan regions of the country? Why target only the top ten? What's the matter with small towns and villages?” I'm afraid you will first need to direct that question to St Paul, because he only selected certain places to go. As he recognized the presence of other workers in the field, so we must as well.

You see, when we are talking about speaking the Gospel, we are always talking about numbers - either directly or indirectly. Whether or not we attain our goals perfectly does not make us failures or successes in the sight of Christ. Only the man who did nothing with the treasure he received was censured by the Lord. He was moved by fear rather than faith. If fear of setting goals, if fear of using numbers keeps you inactive, be prepared to get run over ... and worse.

President Cripe

Ohio District ABLAZE

In this month's ABLAZE segment, I'd like to address those who love our church year. Its schedule of seasons and readings really does help us preachers cover more of the whole council of God. It does create a nice rhythm and flow that rings truer than observing a bunch of other contrived celebrations. It helps us rehearse and re-present to ourselves the whole life of Christ and our place incorporated into that life. But there is a hidden treasure here that I'd like to use to challenge you, and it also has to do with the church year. In the distant past, the Church set aside the season of Lent as a time for catechesis, to prepare catechumens for baptism on Easter. The Church Year drives so much of our ministry, why not let it shape our outreach strategy as well?

Why not set aside the season of Lent for new member instruction that is designed to lead up to their baptism/confirmation on Easter? Then an Easter vigil would be truer to its original intent. Yes, I know, the vigil also works for renewal of baptism, but isn't that supposed to be an every morning event? Renewal of baptism just doesn't have the same caliber of celebration that baptism/confirmation does at an Easter vigil/Easter morning and if you've ever held baptisms then, you know what I'm talking about.

Scheduling this instruction and baptism according to the Church year would also provide some fodder for members to start thinking about whom they could invite to the instruction classes already after Christmas – nice if you've had a number of visitors during that season, too.

The point of all of this is intentionality. Setting aside a specific time for Christian instruction takes it away from the haphazard notion, “I'll offer the class when I have some takers.” That attitude shows one is still living in a churched culture, where the expectation is that “they” will come to us if "they" want what "we" have to offer. But that's not how life works in a post-Christian era. We are living in missionary days and that means going out to the highways and byways to proclaim the kingdom's nearness and call for repentance. So if having a class ready to begin by Ash Wednesday is the anticipated fruit of labor, then one realizes that some sowing must necessarily precede Ash Wednesday. That sowing can happen throughout the rest of the year through a variety of means by which unchurched neighbors, friends, family, etc. are ordinarily identified and seeds planted. A good friend of mine has used various Issues, Etc. programs to answer some questions his neighbor raised as they discussed Christianity. Others carry with them copies of Portals of Prayer with their church's name, address, phone, etc printed on the back cover.

If any of you readers are currently using the church year to shape your outreach and catechesis labors, drop me a line. I'd be happy to hear from you about this. If this is new to you, why not run it by your elders, outreach committee, etc. for their thoughts?

- President Cripe

This month I'd like to talk about revitalization. If you remember the goals of ABLAZE, you recall that one of them is to revitalize 2000 congregations by 2017. While a number of our congregations have asked to hear a presentation on this process, and while some have already begun the process, I want to draw your attention to a different kind of revitalization that four of our District pastors have been involved in at one time or another in their ministry (and not all of these happened while they were in the Ohio District). When they reached their congregations, these four pastors made a surprising and sad discovery: their congregations were no longer Lutheran. Oh, they were Lutheran in name, but certainly not Lutheran in teaching and practice. In several instances, some lay leaders and members proved to be quite hostile to any suggestion that Lutheran teaching should be reintroduced. Yet, to their credit, these pastors very patiently and lovingly set about to bring those congregations back into something resembling Lutheran congregations. For the most part, they taught and preached from Luther's Small Catechism. In some cases the teaching was received happily; in other cases, life became very difficult and challenging for them, especially when strong objections came or when people packed up and left. But these pastors persevered and with God's help, most saw progress. To their credit, when some laity saw that they were now being taught Lutheran doctrine, they left. They admitted they really did not believe our Lutheran teaching after all. I commend them for that integrity.

.