what is Destiny Image doing, putting out this book?

A while ago, I did something crazy, and joined Destiny Image's book review club, or whatever it was at that time. Hey, if I'm going to read NAR junk and put reviews of it on Amazon, it may as well be for free. I've tried to be fair and my reviews, and some have even had a slight positive side to them, but overall...yeah, garbage.

Anyway, DI did change things recently, and now they simply offer e-books for free or on sale on Amazon, and send e-mail notices about them.

So, a few days ago, I got one of the e-mails. There was a bit of an ad for a book they will release soon. What got my attention about this ad was the quote from someone whom I guess had read the book, and liked it. Here's that quote and the person who is credited for it.

"This book may just save Christianity from us Christians"--Frank Schaeffer.

I don't do it much, for reasons of health, but I know that I have opined about Schaeffer a few times here. For example, Schaeffer is the one who gave us such gems as "...BEHOLD REPUBLICANS WILL NOW OWN EVERY CHILD KILLED BY A GUN". Please note, I did not add the all-caps, that was Schaeffer's doing. Or, these paragraphs...

The terror unleashed on Norway - and the terror now unleashed by the Tea Party through Congress as it holds our economy hostage to extremist "economic" theories that want to destroy our ability to function -- is the sort of white, Christian; far right terror America can expect more of.

Call this the ultimate "Tea Party" type "answer" to secularism, modernity, and above all our hated government. Call this the Christian Brotherhood. From far right congress people, to far right gun-toting terror in Norway and here at home, our own Western version of the Taliban is on the rise.

Foreigners, visitors from another planet and Americans living in a bubble of reasonable or educated people might not know this but the reality is that the debt ceiling confrontation is by, for and the result of America's evangelical Christian control of the Republican Party.

 Please note, yes, I have linked to my own articles above. You can find links to the sources for those quotes on that page, but, frankly (pun intended), I have little desire to stomach any more of Frank Schaeffer's hate-filled nonsense then I must, and so will not link to his words any more than I must.

So, Destiny Image is proudly putting a blurb of this man's words in an ad for a giveaway for this book, Undiluted, by someone names Benjamin Corey. Take a good look at the book's cover, and you'll see that there are a few words in praise of the book at the bottom of the page, by one Brian McLaren. Yep, the same man who has pretty much denied every cardinal doctrine of Christianity.

Now, since the book's page has the author's website, I made a quick little visit, and was certainly not surprised by what I saw, given Schaeffer's and McLaren's words of praise. Basically, it's a blog in favor of progressive --ianity (that may be my new word for it, as there is basically no Christ in it at all).

So, in other words, Destiny Image is proudly promoting a book put out by someone on the far left. Yeah, let that sink in.

If you want to find basically any book on bad Charismatic theology, Destiny Image is your source. So, don't (repeat: DON'T) be surprised at Destiny Image and charismania going to the left. This isn't the first time I've seen this in charismatic writers, and why should it be a surprise? Consider that both charismatics and progressives put much more emphasis on hearing a supposed voice of God inside themselves, over what is actually taught in the Bible. Since both get their guidances from the same source, why should a meeting of their minds not happen?

red letter nuts 2

I think I've mention Frank Schaeffer a few times before. Sadly, he's one of those types who keeps proving that he can go lower and more unbalanced, again and again.

Republicans “Own” Every Child Killed by a Gun and their Weeping Parents

And therein lies the desolation of the Republican Party’s future: They are going to lose many more of their very own through their combination with obstinate extremism and plain stupidity. I mean who wants to defend shooting toddlers as a constitutional right?

Who wants to “own” the pictures of weeping mothers?

The Republican Party does. As if killing themselves with anti-gay marriage homophobia, hatred of Hispanics (masquerading as anti-“illegal” immigrant initiatives) anti-women misogyny (flying under the banner of preventing women from getting contraceptives) and anti-science fundamentalist religion forced into schools wasn’t enough…

… BEHOLD REPUBLICANS WILL NOW OWN EVERY CHILD KILLED BY A GUN.

This is the new Republican Party “winning” platform? Good luck with that!

So, if you try to defend a Constitutional right, then, of course, you are responsible for every abuse of that right.

I suppose Frank Schaeffer, who obviously loves his right to free speech, is going to "own" every time someone abuses that right? Or those who believer in freedom of religion (again, like Schaeffer), he's going to own it when some cult is formed, then they kill themselves when the next comet appears in the sky?

Or...wait for it...maybe Schaeffer, being obvious on the left in regards to politics, will "own" the millions who have been killed in abortion?

Nah. That would require him to be an adult and show responsibility. He'd rather get on blogs like the linked to above, rant like a hormone-imbalanced teenager, and make irresponsible accusations without any foundation in reality.

Fat chance. The Republicans seem incapable of keeping up with the times. They just passed up a hell-sent chance to moderate their opinions. They passed it up, just as Romney passed up his chance to win women back by not publicly blasting Rush Limbaugh when he called a young woman a “whore” for standing up for her reproductive rights re contraception.

Ah, yes, the whole Sandra Fluke thing. Now, how was she in any way denied the right to get contraception? She wasn't. She simply whined that no one else would pay for it for her.

The Republicans have aligned themselves with billionaires against the rest of us. Now they are about to embrace the defending the murder of children and trivializing it with talk of “cap pistols.” That’s the moral equivalant of the talk about rape that derailed the fools running in the last election cycle.

Oh, please. We all know that people like you, Mr. Schaeffer, were the ones who intentionally took their words out-of-context, just like you have in this article of yours, to play politics with them.

Republicans will have to get even more used to losing. And those losses will no doubt give some aging white males even more paranoid fact-free “reasons” to cling to their guns and thereby to facilitate the killers of children. This is the price of right wing delusional freedom. It is a kind of “freedom” that looks more like madness with every child being buried this week.

The only madness is in your inane ranting, Mr. Schaeffer. There have been similar tragedies stopped because there were armed people around who were able to use their weapons to stop the criminals trying to harm others.

We do not surrender our rights simply because there are those who abuse them. We do not surrender our freedom of speech, simply because there are people like Schaeffer who abuse it with screeds like this. The cure is not less freedom, but more.
.

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.

let the propoganda begin

It doesn't take long, does it? When a nut shot a woman who is in the US Congress a few months ago, voices of sympathy were followed closely by those who were more than willing to use the event for their own political ends.

And after what happened in Norway just a few days ago, those same voices are not long in trying to use that event for their own ends.

Norway's 9/11

The early reports are disturbing. They violate the familiar us-them dichotomies we (think we) know how to live with - christian/muslim, democratic/marxist, us/them, sane/crazy.

Umm...really? You mean, I can't say that the man in Norway was a nut? That, by his actions, he has made himself on of "them", as in those who think that killing innocent people is the way to get his way?

The fact is, we know very little yet about this incident, and this man.

But speaking of nuts, take a quick gander of this.

Christian Jihad? Why We Should Worry About Right-Wing Terror Attacks Like Norway's in the US

My family was part of the far right/violent right's rise in the 1970s and 80s when we helped create the "pro-life" movement come into existence that in the end spawned the killers of abortion providers. These killers were literally doing what we'd called for.

Funny, I don't recall this man's father, Francis Schaeffer, ever telling people to kill abortion providers. Perhaps someone can show me where he ever said that?

The terror unleashed on Norway - and the terror now unleashed by the Tea Party through Congress as it holds our economy hostage to extremist "economic" theories that want to destroy our ability to function -- is the sort of white, Christian; far right terror America can expect more of.

Call this the ultimate "Tea Party" type "answer" to secularism, modernity, and above all our hated government. Call this the Christian Brotherhood. From far right congress people, to far right gun-toting terror in Norway and here at home, our own Western version of the Taliban is on the rise.

Foreigners, visitors from another planet and Americans living in a bubble of reasonable or educated people might not know this but the reality is that the debt ceiling confrontation is by, for and the result of America's evangelical Christian control of the Republican Party.

Yeah, he isn't trying to play on people's fears at all, is he? Not to mention that his claims seem rather harsher than the reality.

There are two responses, I think, that would be wise here.

1. Sympathy and compassion for the people of Norway, particularly those who were either victims of the attacks and survived, or were family and friends to those who were, but also for the people in the nation as a whole, because all were to some degree victims.

2. A bit of restraint in regards to the blame game (hear that, Mr. Schaeffer). We know very little about this guy, and far too much speculation is running around, which is fueling hate speech like Schaeffer's.