Tuesday, August 30, 2011

well, he predicted it, somewhat

First, what did he somewhat predict?

Q & R: Let's talk about premarital sex

One reason for the scarcity of safe spaces for dialogue will probably be demonstrated in the ways a sentence or two from this reply to your question will be lifted and spread around the internet ... "Can you believe what McLaren said (or didn't say) this time?"

Yep, Brian McLaren had it someewhat right, though I don't intend to lift just a sentence or two here.

First, a side comment--McLaren's blog seems to consist mostly of him replying to e-mails sent to him. One element most of the e-mails he chooses seem to have is that they contain great praise for his works. Just noting.

In this e-mail, a man has questions about if he and his then-fiance may have gone too far. While they were engaged, they had sex. The e-mail is on McLaren's post, so you can read it, and see how he justifies what they did, and how he engages in "If it feels so right, it can't be wrong" reasoning.

A real pastor would likely have gone to passages in the Bible that speak about fornication, sex before marriage, and how it is wrong and a sin against God's laws, something to be repented of. McLaren, well...

You and your (now) wife, it seems to me, took a more Pauline approach: instead of focusing on what things were lawful, you focused on what was expedient (1 Cor. 6:12 - the language sounds a bit clinical in this setting, doesn't it!). Your approach was also highly Jamesian ... focusing on wisdom (James 1) and "the royal law" of love (James 2). You monitored what was happening in your individual souls and the soul of your marriage, and when you felt that what was happening was obsessive and therefore "unfree" and not flowing from good faith (I think this is what you meant by idolatrous?), you changed course.

So, this couple was "Pauline" and "Jamesian", as if they were following what the Bible teaches about sex instead of going against it.

You didn't find a verse to justify what you were doing, and then conclude, "Now we have no more moral responsibility," but instead you tried to live in sync with the Holy Spirit and ultimately chose to be abstinent until your wedding because your heart and conscience made you want to do so.

So, by engaging in sex before they were married, then deciding to quit for a while, they were trying to "live in sync with the Holy Spirit"? What? Is really trying to say that the Holy Spirit was leading this couple to bed with each other before they were married?

Why doesn't McLaren just come out, say what the Bible says about this issue, even if it would disagree with the actions of this McLaren-praiser?

The standard way of engaging issues of sexuality seems to focus on "Where is the line? What is sinful, and what is not?" Then we engage in theological football - playing this verse and and that, seeing how one set of down turns out, followed by the opposing side lining up their verses and playing them. Over time, one side gains yardage and scores, and the game continues. Often (as I also discuss in NKOCy), this approach serves to strengthen what I call a constitutional reading of the Bible, and in that way, whichever team wins, we all lose - if (as I suggest) the constitutional approach is itself problematic, morally compromised, and in need of revision or replacement.

Oh, yes, those nasty people who think that Bible actually teaches us how to live and gives us rules to obey. So, if the people who teach what the Bible says about proper and improper sexual activity win, then somehow we all lose? Or perhaps we lose only when weasel-speak practiioners like McLaren win?

So, Mr. McLaren, in you refusal to correct this couple's sexual activities, you in essence came out in support of it. More than that, in saying that their actions were someone good reflections of teachings in the New Testament, you lend further support to them. You are the one who is wrong, and you are teaching others to practice sin. Shame on you, Mr. McLaren. At least, there should be shame, but I'm doubting you are capable of such a thing.

Friday, August 26, 2011

generation shallow ostentation?

I put the question mark in the, to keep open the option that I may be unfair, at least to some of these kids. But by and large, I think 'shallow and 'ostentation' are not inappropraite.

Generation Justice by Palmer Chinchen

For one thing, this whole article is shallow. The writer writes like he and his generation were the first to discover poverty in Africa. Really??? Has he never heard of Sally Struthers? Save the Children? Years ago, I remember TV commercials showing pictures of little African children needing food and clothing. And people responded, they gave. Churches supported missionaries and gave when they were presented with the needs. They sponsored children, giving to them and trying to help them with what they needed.

Then it was learned that far too many of these charities seemed to be most charitable to themselves, giving only a small part of what they collected to the people who needed it. You know, like the ooze write said BOBS and TOMS were. Or even that the charities were actually scams. People became leary of these charities, and rightfully so.

And this 'generation justice', as he calls them, will end up the same way, when they learn that the shoes they're buying that they think are doing so much good aren't doing as much good as they think. When they learn that all that government money they want to send is actually helping the rulers keeping the people down. When they realize, whether they know it or know, that they aren't addressing the real problems, and aren't really helping anyone. When the disappointment outweighs the litlte feelings of satisfaction.

And when they have "barefoot sundays", and no one's there to watch and praise them for their generosity.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

irony, rich irony

Oh, it makes me want to wax poetic. But since my poetry has been known to make Vogons bleed from the ears, I will refrain.

First, a bit from this article, which I may comment on further sometime later.

Generation Justice by Palmer Chinchen

The contrast to prior generations is striking. I went through college with the Yuppie Generation. We were a self-indulgent lot. Everyone wanted to drive a Beemer, wearing a Member’s Only jacket — with the collar popped on their pastel Izod.

Not this generation. They wear Tom’s shoes because Tom puts shoes on bare feet in places like Bolivia. They’ve made scooters cool again because you can ride a hundred miles on a gallon of gas. They embrace simplicity because they want to share more with people who have less. That’s the heartbeat of Generation Justice

Ok, having read that, a few moments later I then read this.

An Open Letter to TOMS and BOBS Shoes (by Tammy Fuller)

TOMS and BOBS: I wish to serve notice. I find your practices unethical… no, not the fact that you give a pair of shoes away to children in need, but the fact that you boast that it’s an act of generosity.

You, in fact, assemble your shoes (which are no modern marvels of lasting quality or art) in nations which employ unfair labor practices and often child labor. Then, you charge exorbitant amounts for said shoes, which the materials and assembly are below par. Your profit margin skyrockets with your laughably lining your pockets at a criminal level. To top it all off, you “generously” and “charitably” “give” a pair of shoes to a child in need. What about those who you unfairly employ? Your greed only gets you so far with the public who no longer brainlessly buys into your charade of charitability. Your marketing campaign is no longer acceptable.

I wish I knew someone in the WWE. I would love to schedule a match between these two writers. Maybe a Tables/Ladders/Chairs match, with two different objectives--Chinchen would have to climb the ladder to get down a pair of TOMS, while Fuller would need to get down a pair of Nikes. How about that match at next years Wrestlemania?

why did YWAM allow this liar to speak at their conference?

"You add to that, in my country, post 9-11, you have the phenomenon that is fearing immigration. We're trying to build a wall to Mexico, you know. As one brilliant black professor at Princeton calls it...hold on...the niggardization of white America. And what he means by that, Cornell West is his name, what Cornell means by that is, yesterday's soccer moms are todays security moms. Helicopter parents hover over their children. And I'm finding missionary congregations afraid, afraid to let people from other countries come into our countries, as though we own them, as though Psalm 24:1 doesn't exist. What is Psalm 24:1? The earth is the Lord's. And besides, if you put all 300 million Americans in the state of California (God forbid) we all had to live their together, we'd still be less crowded then Japan, and we'd have 49 empty states. So when you think about stewarding the Earth, I say let 'em come, tear down your walls, build bridges, let 'em all come here."
Dr. Ray Bakke, in a lecture called "Old Testament City Theology (Part 1)" at the YWAM North American Cities Conference in Vancouver, 2008, at about the 2:00 to 3:00 marks.


There is no better way to put it, Dr. Bakke is lying to these YWAMers, and YWAM was irresponible for letting this man speak to their people in this way.

This was in 2008, though the issue is still around today--the issue of illegal immigrants coming to the US from Mexico. There are many reasons this is an issue. There are drugs and narcotics being brought in to the US illegally. Accompanying this is violence against people, American and Mexican. There is the exploitation of people desperate to leave their poor conditions in Mexico, by charging them high prices to transport them, by using them to transport drugs. There is the fact that people here illegally usually work for less pay then people from the US may do the work, which means they are being economically exploited, which sets up a kind of underclass, even a form of servitude. Plus, there is simply the fact that we have people who go through the legal process of immigrating to the US, and those who are waiting to do so, and they are following the legal process, while those who are entering through illegal means are to some degree jumping ahead of those who were doing things the right way. Add in the threat of terrorism, and how such illegal means may be exploited for terroristic means, this is a real and serious issue.

Dr. Bakke's lie is to say that we in the US, I assume he means conservatives, are anti-immigrant. That's nonsense. We are the ones who celebrate immigration. We are the ones who even acknowledge that there are those who need to ask for asylum from particularly bad governments. But we want people to come here legally, to respect and follow our laws.

I've traveled to other countries a few times. When I have, I have respected the laws of those countries for entering. I have followed their rules for getting visas. I did not get haughty concerning their rules, and try to enter the countries without them. I did not try to sneak into the countries in some other way. As I respected the rules of those places, I expect the rules of my country to be respected.

One can wonder what he sees in Psalm 24:1 that is some call for open borders. This is the same God who gave the land to Israel. There is no call here for a lack of responsibility to one's own land and borders.

So, I'm saying here and now, YWAM should be ashamed for letting this liar teach these things in one of their conferences. Whatever else that may have been good he may have taught, here he is flat-out lying.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

find the heroes

So, over a Emergent Village, a person has posted a particularly whiny blog entry.

An early post I wrote raised concerns. I provocatively titled it: My Evolution Towards Theistic Evolution.* When a couple friends read this, I was accused of being an atheist. Someone then forwarded that article to my senior pastor at the time, attempting to get me fired from my youth pastor position. Luckily, my leader had an open mind on this particular issue. Yet, this incident drove me into theological hiding, with a determination to prevent this from happening again.

So, here we have the tone of the entry--this person has beliefs that are contrary to the church or churches he is working for, working for even as a youth pastor, and fear that discovery of his real beliefs will result in his losing his job. Would I be wrong in think that, in his role as youth pastor, he may have been trying to get those youths to share his beliefs? Were the people of the church not right to be concerned about what this person as youth pastor was teaching their kids?

Eventually, he leaves that church and goes somewhere else, still trying to keep his blog and online activities separate from his ministry, to a degree.

Then, it happened. I received the following comment on the Groans From Within contact page:

Wow, you actually believe this stuff? Well, it [the blog] is titled correctly, however, you might consider this groan to be the gas pains from deep within your own bowels. I hope the church isn’t paying for your time to produce such…wow.

After checking the name, email, and IP address, I knew exactly who left the comment. The following week, this person sent a five-page email to the pastoral staff and church board about why his family was no longer attending the church. And guess what, half-a-page was devoted to my “liberal” blog with the final sentence quoting a passage about false teachers being in danger of destruction. My guess is that they found my site through a Google search, in hopes to find dirt on leaders in the church. That week, I made the painful decision to set the blog to private and announced that I would be fasting from blogging indefinitely. This was a spiritually rewarding time, but in all honesty, the blog shutdown was mostly driven by an impulse to hide

But this doesn't end his 'trials and tribblations'.

After a few months of fasting, I reinvented my site and moved to a new domain. This time I determined to keep church and social media separate. Google search engines couldn’t find my new site, The Pangea Blog, and I chose to only use my first name. These steps certainly would hide my identity enough so that I wouldn’t get outed. But no such luck. Someone on my email update list was a spy and sent word to all the people who were angry at the church I worked at. Tensions rose among the more conservative crowd, but luckily at the close of the fiscal year, my “church planter residency” came to an end. The timing of this prevented greater dissension in the church. My attempts to hide didn’t work. Instead, hiding held back a part of who God designed me to be.

So, this guy, a covert emergent, is working in churches, pretending to be one thing while being something else, and when he's outed, he blames those who found out about him and his real beliefs, and who contact the churches he works for and takes money from to minister for them.

Read the entire post. This whiny emergent wants to paint himself as a hero and martyr, and be praised for being so brave about coming out of his theological closet. But this man is no hero.

On one level, the heroes of this story are the people who found out about him, and notified the churches he worked for on his double life. They are the people whom this whiny emergent blames for his hard times, calling them "spies" and attributing to them what he considers bad motives. I am grateful for people who still try to keep the wolves from entering, especially under the guise of 'youth pastors'. These emergents always seem to try to target the young, the ignorant, the unlearned, the vulnerable.

On another level, the hero of this story is Christ, the Good Shepherd still protecting His sheep. I'm glad this emergent charlatan is out of his theological closet, so that any church worth its salt will know to avoid him.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

it does boggle the mind

The things and people other people put their faith in, that they take as authoritative and to be accepted without question, it does rais the eyebrows.

Climate Witness as Act of Faithfulness

During the 1980s, many Christians were at the forefront of a movement to avert nuclear annihilation.

Let me reinterpret that, please--they wanted to stop the arms race that was one major reason the Soviet Union eventually collapsed. Throw in Star Wars (not the movies, the missle defense system) too, which I would image they opposed.

Sojrones--all these years and all those failures, but still gamely trying to make the world safe for Communism.

The scientific community is warning that we approach a “tipping point” when tremendous natural forces spin out of control and the laws of physics will take over. When that line is crossed, humanity will be helpless to stop a frightening slide into global disaster.

To show just how far this faith in 'science' goes, I'll borrow a bit from a comment.

. If it isn't in the bible then it isn't true.
2. If it is in the bible then there is a spiritual reason why it is happening or should happen and we should not mess with the outcome.
3. If it interrupts people's rights to jobs it takes away freedom and therefore it is Un-American.
4. If it is promoted by progressives or liberals, it is both Un-American and Un-Christian.
5. Science is Un-Christian.
6. Scientists are not Christian. This is true primarily since the advent of Darwinism.
7. We were told to subdue, conquer and use what God has given us.
8. I never heard any earth care or wise stewardship verses from the bible any year I was growing up. I was oblivious to their existence.
9. If I am a holy and righteous, church attending, God-fearing person, God will take care of me and I don't have to worry about anything else because I'll be snatched away from the really bad stuff that the unrighteous will suffer as a result of their sin.

And a source that shows that not all in the scientific community are as united behind the global warming scare as this Sojrone wants us to believe.

NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming

Bonhoeffer questioned how someone could claim to be Christian and yet maintain silence in the face of the Nazi holocaust. Now we are faced with a holocaust even more sweeping. Is it not legitimate to ask the same question? Does not silence in the face of the greatest moral crisis of our time constitute a failure to follow the most fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ?

And here the Sojrone goes off the rail, which will likely mean that he will be accepted all the more by fellow Sojrones, and the blame for him going off the rail will be laid on those who dare disagree with him. But it is outlandish that those who are skeptical of the global warming scare, who know that the data has been faked, are here being compared to Nazis, and the faked threat of global warming is compared to the very real horror of the Holocaust.

Worse than silence is mindless acquiescence and irresponsible rhetoric. Silence may at least indicate thoughtfulness and a willingness to look at all real evidence, and to not engage in fear-mongering.

But the point of this entry is this. Read Sojo, read the people who blog there, read those who are on their side of the issues like Emergent Village. See how they handle the Word of God. They will go to great lengths to try to discount it's teachings, especially in regards to things they disagree with it on. Great favorites are sexual morality, eternal punishment, salvation through faith in Christ alone, but there are those who go so far as to make the Bible essentially a work of fiction in order to make it say what they want it to say about any social issue.

God can be questioned, His Word can be hacked and slashed, and they will praise the hacker to the stars. But dare to question man when he poses as scientist, dare to question the anti-god people who have put forth the theory that I am a monkey's uncle, dare to point out that the facts behind global warming are not facts at all, dare to point out how liberals have in the passed used the fear of global cooling to push their agendas upon people, and you are anti-all-science and are not worth listening to.

Sunday, August 14, 2011

probably not the best kind, then

I’m Not that Kind of Feminist

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that there are many forms of feminism. And I’ll even admit that this rugged individualist strain made up of (as Sarah Palin described it) “gun-toting self-reliant women” is, in its own way, a form a feminism. But I am highly uncomfortable with people who, like Wolf, reduce feminism to simply being about “individual choice and freedom” (and I’m not the only one).

Well, we are so glad that you can somehow find it in your heart-of-hearts, whatever and wherever that is, to allow Conservative women a place in feminism, if that isn't some kind of back-handed compliment. But what does Wolf say that is so "highly uncomfortable"?

The core of feminism is individual choice and freedom, and it is these strains that are being sounded now more by the tea party movement than by the left. But, apart from these sound bites, there is a powerful constituency of right-wing women in Britain and Western Europe, as well as in America, who do not see their values reflected in collectivist social-policy prescriptions or gender quotas. They prefer what they see as the rugged individualism of free-market forces, a level capitalist playing field, and a weak state that does not impinge on their personal choices.

So, oh dear, Wolf says that the Tea Party sounds more like feminism than those on the left like Sojo? Well, can't have that at Sojo, can they!

But, contrary to what those who fear their loss of power might assert, individual freedoms and rights has never been what feminism has been about for me.

And, of course, if it's not what it meant for you, then of course it's not what it meant, period?

Holding so tight to privilege that one rejects discussions about helping others, or disdains collectivist social-policies that mirror the sort of eucharistic life Christ expects of us, is more in line with rugged individualism than the feminism I have known. Associating feminism with that selfish, individualist, and blatantly unchristian way of living that the far right preaches these days, hurts.

Ah, here we go. Conservatives can't be feminists, and even their Christianity is called into question.

Just as I often have to say in response of some far-right Christians’ attempts to neglect the poor, destroy God’s creation, and keep people captive, that that sort of Christianity has little to do with the message of Jesus I find in the Bible, I guess I now have to start saying to the rugged individualist feminists that I am not that sort of feminist. Palin and Bachmann can have their “it’s all about me and my privilege” feminism, but, as a Christian, that has nothing to do with me.

So, how do far-right Christians attempt these things she accuses them of?

How, for example, do they "neglect the poor"? Well, truth is, they don't. But they don't like the social programs the left wants to instill and install, which have pretty much resulted in a perpetual underclass which sees themselves as helpless victims.

How do far-right Christians "destroy God's creation"? The recent parade of fear-and-trembling posts at Sojo over the Keystone XL pipeline I think show what this means--far-right Christians actually believe that God put natural resources here to be used, and we grow weary of screeching environmental whackoes who say that we can't access them because polar bears will drown.

And how do far-right Christians "keep people captive"? Perhaps the people of Iraq would like to debate that point. But I suspect this is, among other things, racial fear-mongering, the old "the right wants to keep (insert non-white race here) down!" tripe that is untrue.

Finally, how is what Palin and Bachmann say and stand for in any way saying "It's all about me and my privilege"?

Bachmann and her husband have cared for several foster children. Palin is raising a child that far too many of the liberal feminists would have aborted.

Both have been treated horribly by the liberal media. And last I checked, Sojo still hadn't come to Palin's defense when her daughter was the subject of a joke about statuatory rape. Nor have I noticed Sojo decrying Newsweek for their cover photo of Bachmann.

And now, this little Sojrone screed, which seems to be about nothing at all about Palin or Bachmann or even Conservatism as a whole. Just one little woman's attempt to hurl hatred at Conservatives.

If this is indicative of this Sojrone's type of feminism, then it seems like far from the best kind out there. I'd much rather be around the "mama grizzlies".

Friday, August 12, 2011

addicts unite!!!

Oil Addicts Anonymous

If the United States is a fossil fuel addict, then the Alberta tar sands are our next big fix.

Of course, I think the operative word in that statement is 'if'.

Borrowing wisdom from the twelve step program pioneered by Alcoholics Anonymous, theologian Ched Myers contends that addiction — “the inability to say no because of captivity to pathological desires” — names our spiritual and cultural condition. Perhaps nowhere is this clearer than in the case of fossil fuels.

Just for the sake of argument and satire, let's run with this kind argument, shall we?

Hello, my name is (insert name here). I'm an oxygen addict. I need it, I really do. I can't live without it. When I go a few seconds without it, I feel like I'm gonna die.

Hello, my name is (insert name here). I'm a food addict. I need it, almost every day. And when I don't have it, when I go without it, I feel horrible.

Hello, my name is (insert name here). I'm a water addict. I need it, every day. Almost every hour, I'm looking either for water or something made from water so I can drink it. I can't live without it.

Hello, my name is (insert name here). I'm a sleep addict. I have to have it, several hours of it, every day, or bad things happen. I get irritable, cranky, just can't function.

Hello, my name is (insert name here). I'm an electricity addict. I like light bulbs, I like televisions, I like my computer, and all of them are powered by the sockets in my walls. Heck, they even want me to buy electric cars.

Hello, my name is (insert name here). I'm a people addict. Oh, sure, sometimes I like being alone and stuff, but really, I need people, too. I need to talke to people, see people around.

Hello, my name is (insert name here). I'm a book addict. I love to read, I almost always have a good with me, and enjoy reading them. I can live without it, I suppose, but life would be so much narrower without good books to munch on.

Hello, my name is (insert name here). I'm a video game addict. I love video games, I can't get enough of them, and by golly, if you touch my systems, I'll send the Mario Bros. after you. You don't wanna mess with them plumbers.

Now, in what way is the US in any way addicted to oil? I would say, none. I would say, this is a really bad argument. Oil is a natural resource, oil is important in many ways to our current cultural, especially in regards to travel. But saying we are addicted to it is like saying we were addicted to camels and horses before we had the automobile. It's like saying we were addicted to sunlight and candles before we had electric lights. It like saying we were addicted to the theater before we had television.

In other words, it's just more Sojrones and their allies trying to spin the opposition in a dastardly light.

So, drill, baby, drill!!!

Monday, August 8, 2011

sojo's great hero

A Call to Civil Disobedience Against the Keystone Pipeline

It seems that the Sojrones are continuing their jroning in support of high gasoline prices. Now, they have a low-grade martyr, of sorts.

Environmental activist Tim DeChristopher was sentenced recently to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine for disrupting a federal oil and gas lease auction in 2008 that was later deemed illegal. But don’t cry for him. Having met the man, I can confidently say the last thing he wants is pity.

Ok, so, Tim DeChristopher. New name, what did he do?

Tim's Bio:

Tim DeChristopher, as Bidder 70, disrupted an illegitimate BLM oil and gas auction in December of 2008, by outbidding oil companies for parcels around Arches and Canyonlands National Parks in Utah. Tim subsequently founded Peaceful Uprising, a climate justice group working to build an uncompromising movement to defend a livable future. Tim’s actions earned him a national and international media presence, which he has used as a platform to spread the urgency of the climate crisis and the need for bold, confrontational action in order to create a just and healthy world.

Oh, so he's an environmental whacko who has bought into the lies about global warming, and practiced "civil disobedience" by disrupting an auction that would have resulted in the US being able to access it's own resources rather than continuing to buy it from people who dislike us, like the Saudis. And he got caught and sentenced to prison, which makes him a convenient rallying cry.

Yes, folks, next time you have to fork over about $4 a gallon for gasoline so you can get to work or go to the store or whatever your reasons, and whenever someone tells you that the money used to buy that gas goes to some rather questionable people, you can thank Mr. DeChristopher and those at Sojourners for think he's a hero. For my money, he's not hero, just a misguided twerp.

Sunday, August 7, 2011

frankie schaeffer's daddy issues

It seems a shame that one of Francis Schaeffer's legacies has been his son, Frankie. While one can have hope for the prodigal, first that prodigal must cease to revel in living with the pigs and to think that slop is a choice delicacy.

Sadly, Frankie seems to still be reveling in it. In this article, he is in full-bore, rabid hate mode, denouncing anyone who would dare to disagree with him, not least of whom is his father, who happens to not be around to defend himself from these slanders.

Here's a bit from Manifesto on how the government was "taking away" our country and turning it over to Liberals, codenamed by Dad as "this total humanistic way of thinking":

"The law, and especially the courts, is the vehicle to force this total humanistic way of thinking upon the entire population..."

I recommend to you Francis Schaeffer's book "A Christian Manifesto". Frankie gives no page number or reference for this quote, but fortunate "A Christian Manifesto" is not a large book, and it has an index, which helped in finding this particular quote. Here is a bit of context for it, found on page 49.

The law, and especially the courts, is the vehicle to force this total humanistic way of thinking upon the entire population. This is what has happened. The abortion law is a perfect example. The Supreme Court abortion ruling invalidated abortion laws in all fifty states, even though it seems clear that in 1973 the majority of Americans were against abortion. It did not matter. The Supreme Court arbitrarily ruled that abortion was legal, and overnight they overthrew the state laws and forced onto American thinking not only that abortion was legal, but that it was ethical. They, as an elite, thus forced their will on the majority, even though their ruling was arbitrary both legally and medically. Thus law and the courts became the vehicle for forcing a totally secular concept on the population.

In other parts of the book, Francis Schaeffer deals with how abortion is the product of secular, humanistic thinking. I'll not go into it here. But considering what he is saying in the paragraph quoted above, what is he saying that is so wrong? The Supreme Courth ruling was arbitrary, that has been freely admitted. It took a matter that should have been left to the states, and made it a federal matter. It was a horrible law, and that's not even considering the millions of children whose murders were given legal sanction through the ruling.

And this:

"Simply put, the Declaration of Independence states that the people, if they find that their basic rights are being systematically attacked by the state, have a duty to try and change that government, and if they cannot do so, to abolish it."

Well, at least Frankie has quoted a whole paragraph this time, though I think the context would again be helpful. From pages 127-128

The Declaration of Independence contains many elements of the Reformation thinking of Knox and Rutherford and should be considered carefully when discussing resistence. It speaks directly tot he responsibility of citizens concerning oppressive civil government.

After recognizing man's God-given absolute rights, the Declaration goes on to declare that whenever civil government becomes destructive to these rights, "it is the right of the people to alter and abolish it, and institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." The Founding Fathers, in the spirit of Lex Rex, cautioned in the Declaration of Independence that established governments should not be altered or abolished for "light and transient causes." But when there is a "long train of abuses and usurpations" designed to produce an oppressive, authoritarian state, "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government..."

Simply put, the Declaration of Independence states that the people, if they find that their basic rights are being systematically attacked by the state, have a duty to try and change that government, and if they cannot do so, to abolish it.

So, what did Francis Schaeffer write that is incorrect? Those words are in the Declaration of Independence, as is the concept.

Then this:

"There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate. . . . A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion. . . . It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates its authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation."

This one may take an even longer excerpt. From pages 117-120

There comes a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate. The Christian is not to take the law into his own hands and become a law unto himself. But when all avenues to flight and protest have closed, force in the defensive posture is appropriate. This was the situation of the American Revolution. The colonists used force in defending themselves. Great Britain, because of its policy toward the colonies, was seen as a foreign power invading America. The colonists defended their homeland. As such, the American Revolution was a conservative counter-revolution. The colonists saw the British as the revolutionaries trying to overthrow the legitimate colonial governments.

A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state and hidden his Jewish neighbors from the German SS Troops. The government had abrogated its authority, and it had no right to make any demands.

This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States--the issue of aboriton. Whiat is involved is the whole issue of the value of human life. A recent report indicaes that for every three live births, one child is aborted. Christians must come to the children's defense, and Christians must come to the defense of human life as such.

This defense should be carried out on at least four fronts:

First, we should aggressively support a human life bill or a constitutional amendment protecting unborn children.

Second, we must enter the courts seeking to overturn the Supreme Courts abortion decision.

Third, legal and politcal action should be taken against hospital and abortion clinics that perform abortions.

Fourth, the State must be made to feel the presence of the Christian community.

And from pages 131-132.

What does all this mean in practice to us today. I must say, I really am not sure all that it means to us in practice at this moment. To begin, however, it certainly means this: We have been utterly foolish in our concentration on bits and pieces, and in our complete failure to face the total world view that is rooted in a false view of reality. And we have not understood that this view of reality inevitably brings forth different and wrong and inhuman results in all of life. This is nowhere more certain than in law and government--where law and government are used by this false view of reality as a tool to force this false view and its results on everyone.

It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's Law it abrogates its authority. And out loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation to such a tyrannical usurping of power. I would emphasize at this point that Samuel Rutherford was not wrong, he was right; it was not only in the seventeenth century in Scotland where he was right; in was not only in 1776 where he was right; he is right in our century.

So, again, taking things in their context, what has the father said that the son should be so much against? Would Frankie Schaeffer say that physical force is never appropriate? Should Christians like Corrie Ten Boom have not helped Jewish people escape from the Nazis? If Christians should have resisted the Nazis in their murders of the Jewish people, why then should Christians be accepting of the murders of unborn children in the form of abortion? And if the rulers of a nation command what is against God's law, are Christians meekly to submit? Was Peter wrong to tell the rulers in his day that "We ought to obey God rather than men" when the rulers told him and the Apostles to stop preaching in the name of Jesus?

In other words, Dad's followers were told that (1) force is a legitimate weapon to use against an evil government; (2) America was like Hitler's Germany--because of legal abortion and of the forcing of "Humanism" on the population--and thus intrinsically evil; and (3) whatever would have been the "appropriate response" to stop Hitler was now appropriate to do here in America to stop our government, which Dad had just branded a "counterfeit state."

Frankie's entire hate-filled article is meant to somehow link the recent killings in Norway to the conservatives in the US--those who are against legalized abortion, gay marriage, socialized government funding, and the like. In looking at how Frankie absolutely butchers his father's words, one would think that his father was a flaming madman ready to reign down fire and anarchy and death, like the Norway killer.

Rather, here are Francis Schaeffer's own words, from page 126.

And fourth, we must say that speaking of civil disobedience is frightening because there are many kooky people around. People are always irresponsible in a fallen world. But we live in a special time of irresponsible people, and such people will in their unbalanced way tend to do the very opposite from considering the appropriate means at the appropriate time and place. Anarchy is never appropriate.

Francis Schaeffer was not a frothing-at-the-mouth hate-mongerer, unlike what his son seems to have become. If he advocated the use of force, it was entirely as a last resort, after all other attempts had failed, and there was no alternative, like what happened with the American colonies and what led up to the American Revolution. He certainly did not advocate bombing abortion clinics, political assassinations, or the killing of innocent people as political statements.

Francis Schaeffer had nothing to do with what happened in Norway, and it is to his son's everlasting shame that he would try to insinuate it solely for politcal reasons. Frankie Schaeffer has become one of those kooky people his father wrote about, an irresponsible and unbalanced person. His lies are evident here and now.

one of God's coolest critters!!

Nature's Great Survivors: Water Bears

I first learned about water bears from seeing some toys of them in boxes of Giant Microbes in stores. Reading the bit of information about them which is on the attached card, they seemed like really cool critters--slow little mites which just kinda meander about minding their own business, and which are almost impossible to kill. They can survive in space, in extreme temperatures hot and cold, they can survive dehydration and really extreme radiation.

So, forget zombies!!! We all must prepare for the coming tardigrade invasion!!! They are already amongst us!!! Watch your step!!!


Saturday, August 6, 2011

agreeing with a sojrone again, kinda

The Works of the Flesh and the Debt Ceiling Deal

Apart from the appalling outcome of the debt ceiling deal, the adolescent behavior that was rewarded in the final agreement bodes ill for our future. When children misbehave, parents and teachers need to set limits, not “compromise” with unreasonable demands. Tantrums that result in parents caving get repeated.

When leaders behave badly, what message are they giving to the nation? Moreover, when that bad behavior is not only tolerated but rewarded, what message goes forth?

We have just watched the soul of our nation become a little more corrupted. Who are the prophets who can lead us out of this morass?

The Sojrone who wrote this entry was rather vague about whom she considered the misbehavers, though one must keep in mind that this is Sojo, so we can guess whom they mean. But, yes, I think there is something to be said for this person's claims--bad behavior was rewarded.

For example, this kind of rhetoric is definitely misbehaving.

Sources: Joe Biden likened tea partiers to terrorists

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists.”

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) called it a “Satan sandwich,” and Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) called seemed to enjoy the heat analogy, saying: “the Tea Partiers and the GOP have made their slash and burn lunacy clear, and while I do not love this compromise, my vote is a hose to stop the burning. The arsonists must be stopped.

Biden told Democratic lawmakers that the deal would take away the tea party’s “weapon of mass destruction” — the threat of a default on U.S. debt obligations.

“They have no compunction about blowing up the economy to get what they want,” Doyle told POLITICO after the meeting.

I would agree, that sort of bad behavior should not be rewarded. People who say such things should be most justly voted out of office, especially Biden.

Thursday, August 4, 2011

more lying sojo rhetoric

Alabama Clergy Sue to Stop Anti-Immigrant Law

HB 56, which will go into effect September 1, attacks virtually every aspect of immigrants’ lives. Among many punitive measures, it authorizes police to detain anyone they suspect is undocumented, mandates criminal penalties for those who transport undocumented migrants, and demands that public schools determine the immigration status of all students.

I've thought for a while that the attempts by the left to pretty much equate legal and illegal immigration is intentional, and here is another example.

I've also long thought that I would like to see how these Sojrones would react if we treated their own homes as they want to treat the states--see how they distinguish between people they invite into their own homes and those who sneak in through the windows, between those they invite for dinner and those who sneak in and steal the frig, between those they give money to and those who steal their identity and empty their bank accounts. I have no intention of taking this experiment to reality, though. Unlike liberals, I believe in private property, even the private property of liberals who do not believe in private property for others.

And there is more lying rhetoric in this article.

The law prohibits almost every activity of our St. Vincent de Paul chapters or Catholic Social Services. If it involves an undocumented immigrant, it is illegal to give the disabled person a ride to the doctor; give food or clothing or financial assistance in an emergency; allow them to shop at our thrift stores or to learn English; it is illegal to counsel a mother who has a problem pregnancy, or to help her with baby food or diapers, thus making it far more likely that she will choose abortion…

Now, to be fair and balanced, emphasis mine.

HB-56 FACT SHEET: Combating Illegal Immigration

•Prohibits the transport, concealment, harboring and housing of unauthorized aliens if a person recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is illegally in the U.S. This does not apply to persons acting in the capacity of a child or adult protective service worker, a first responder, an ambulance attendant, or an emergency medical attendant.

I suspected the above rhetoric was mere fear-mongering, and it is. There is nothing in this bill against helping people in emergencies--they aren't going to require fire fighters to make sure a burning home is owned by people here legally or not.

Sojo is shamelessly spreading lies to fit their political agenda. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

another case of conservatives tying to the wrong people?

I would really like to think this event would be a good thing. Really. But I have my doubts.

The Response

For one thing, I've simply become unimpressed with these big gatherings. This isn't the first thing like that's happened in recent years, that's suppose to be some significant event where thing happen. And, usually, it seems things after the event are very much the same as before.

According to the Bible, the answer to a nation in such crisis is to gather in humility and repentance and ask God to intervene. The Response will be a historic gathering of people from across the nation to pray and fast for America.

I'm not sure where "according to the Bible" this answer is located. If they are referring to what Solomon prayed at the Temple's dedication, then we have to keep context in mind. Very likely, Solomon's statement was meant only for Israel.

Plus, when I look at the people leading or supporting the event, many red flags go up in my head. Connections to the International House of Prayer in Kansas City seem to be numerous. IHOP-KC is a part of this apostolic/prophetic movement that is simply fake. Several people on the leadership page are associated with IHOP.

And the co-chairs and endorsers continue the questionable associations. The IHOP head honcho Mike Bickle is there, as is Cindy Jacobs. There is a man who calls himself an Apostle. As well as Ed Young Sr.

There are things about this event that just don't seem right.