Tchividjian, Sin, and the Cult of Celebrity

So by now you are probably aware of the news surrounding Tullian Tchividjian. Judging by the fact that the various attempted spellings of his name combined to be the second most numerous Google search term for a time a couple of days ago, a lot of other people are too.

Numerous discussions have already been had of Tchividjian’s soteriology and hamartiology (not to mention his associations), which sometimes appear to be staring wistfully over the border into Antinomianism (and other times go ahead and execute full-blown insurgencies therein). In the wake of the holiness fail of this very prominent proponent of this sort of strain of Reformed theology, it can be tempting to rehash it all again.

Yet I urge resistance to that temptation. The fall into sin of a proponent of a given theology does not necessarily have any connection to the propriety and truth of that theology any more than the fact that Mormons often give off a very shiny, happy, holy veneer while they hawk their gross polytheism.

Rather, let’s look at three other, different angles to this sad saga, all inter-related.


BIG NAMES HANGING WITH BIG NAMES

It’s hardly unique to Tchividjian to be a Big Name, and he is of course hardly the only Big Name to hang out extensively with other Big Names in places and situations in which Big Names get together to hang out.

In current evangelical culture, conferences and book deals abound, making celebrities of people who may or may not originally have sought to be celebrity. If you land one of these book deals and get booked for some conferences, it is still possible to avoid the celebrity limelight, but you have to be intentional about it.

And when your job title is “Pastor”, rather than “Itinerant and Part-Time Sunday Lecturer” (which is a more accurate descriptor of what someone like this actually does), is it not at minimum a measure of disingenuousness NOT to change that title? Why wouldn’t someone do that who is actually a partly-itinerant lecturer? I think I know why. It’s because the title “Pastor” holds a great appeal, and once one has it, one can easily become loathe to let go of it. Open your eyes – this is all around you. People afford more respect when one bears that title. When one is a “Pastor”, one gets the respectful greetings not only in the marketplace but also in the conferences. One gets the best seats, not only on stage but also at the luncheons and prayer breakfasts. That’s why one doesn’t divest oneself of the trappings though the substance is lacking.

This is the reality, really, of someone who has made The Big Time nationally and internationally as well as having an enormous congregation, one tenth of whom you could never hope to know well. But that lack of relationship is made up for in the minds of many due to the fact that they can say or think, “My pastor was on ___ show last week”, “My pastor’s book is selling ___ thousand copies per month and was on the NY Times bestseller list”, “My pastor preached to __ thousand people last week and __ people made decisions for Christ”, or something similar. It becomes an insidious thing, this kingdom that you, The Big Time Pastor, are building.


THE FOOLISHNESS OF MAKING PUBLIC STATEMENTS ABOUT THIS SORT OF THING

And that status can all too easily lead to thinking that you have some sort of responsibility to the general public to communicate details about your sin (especially in your most intimate interpersonal relationship[s]), should you fall into sin in a readily apparent way, that you probably shouldn’t communicate.
Tchividjian provides a sadly outstanding example thereof.

• It is announced he has had a moral failing.
• He says basically – I returned from a trip and found that my wife had been having an affair. (Translation: It’s her fault first.)
• I responded badly.
• I resign.
• Pray for us.

But get this – his wife then contacts the Washington Post and says, quote: “The statement reflected my husband’s opinions but not my own.”

Friends, this statement and its implications terrify me more than all the rest of the sad event put together. Tchividjian went public about his marriage and its troubles without working with the woman who is still supposed to be his wife, his partner, his helpmate/meet, his closest confidante, to not only present a united front but to actually be one! And then she rebuffed him, in public, to a secular news outlet! They are now not partners but rather, at minimum, debate opponents.

This is a very, very grievous turn of events. I believe it reflects Tchividjian’s intention of retaining a protective barrier around what remains of his pastoral reputation. Hey, at least he didn’t strike the first obvious blog against his marriage. That woman God gave me – she’s the one to blame.

This is what a Big Name would do, but it’s not what a Christian should do, and it’s a horrible example to follow. Someone who pretends to be a pastor ought in all things to strive not only to say right things (i.e., to teach well) but also to set the right example, probably the latter more than the former. “Be hearers of the word, not merely doers” and “in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe” says the Bible. “I can’t hear you ‘cause your actions are speaking too loud,” says conventional wisdom.


WHERE IS THE LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY?

And all of that is connected to what appears to be a lack of local connectedness. Sure, the man can tweet pictures of his spacious and well-appointed office in his church building, showing that he’s physically present there at least sometimes.
And yet when trouble really crashed down on him, what do we see?

“My family and I are members at Coral Ridge Presbyterian church where the senior pastor is Tullian Tchividjian. We have many elders. A few weeks ago, the elders told the church that Pastor Tullian was going to take a sabbatical for some time in order to tend to family issues. They assured the church that this wasn’t a matter of disqualification, and they’d keep us updated. Today was that update. Apparently, Paul Tripp flew down to counsel Tullian and his wife, and Paul walked away from it finding no reason to disqualify Pastor Tullian from the preaching ministry. However, a few days later, Tullian resigned, disclosing that he had in fact had an extramarital relationship.” (Source)

I know Tripp is well-respected and all, probably a wise man. I thought he had useful things to add in a DVD series on marriage to which he contributed that I once watched, and I’ve read some of his writings. Well and good. What is he doing “flying down” to counsel with Tchividjian in the midst of this crisis? Where are the rest of the elders? Where are Tchividjian’s local friends and brothers in the faith? To whom could he pour out his heart who really knew him? Is this why he fell into that inappropriate relationship with the female friend – because he didn’t have any male friends?

Questions abound, few of them with any promising answers.

Beware fame and the praise of men. If someone in your church has it, especially your pastor, if you love him you will warn him and hold him accountable, even perhaps turning him back from a path that seems good to man but whose end is death.

“Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.”
—John 12:42-43

Pulpit & Pen blog - Why Lifeway Sells Contraband

Why is it that the big shots of the Southern Baptist Convention don’t bat an eye when clear and obvious evidence is presented to them that their publishing arm sells heresy such as JoelO and TD Jakes and Joyce Meyer? Don’t they know that these people who are presented as teachers to the evanjellyfish world are poisonous snakes and false teachers who will lead their adherents straight to Hell?

Let me venture a hypothesis on that topic. It’s not because they are ignorant. It’s not because they are fine and godly strategists. It’s not because they know better and have good reasons for what they do; how could they?
It’s because, at the heart, they don’t actually disagree with JoelO and Jakes and Meyer.

These men act the way they do because they aspire to be like Joel Osteen and TD Jakes when they grow up.

What is holding them back? It could be any number of things. The tradition in which they grew up, too far a distance from which they are loathe to wander. The daunting task of raising up a new posse of sycophants whom they might lose if they let too much of their true selves be known (though in this I might be giving said entourages too much credit). The prudence of not intruding on another man’s turf when there’s plenty of gain ripe for the taking on this side of the fence.

I know what their reasons are not.

• A desire to be faithful to Jesus. How could it be when they not only don’t live out the examples of the apostles and prophets, but they in fact fit quite nicely the role of those who opposed them?
• A zeal for biblical teaching. Which is easier – to hold an unpopular opinion, or to make that opinion known and to live it out consistently in the face of adversity? Yet these men don’t even try, don’t even stick up for the consistent proclamation of the correct propositions to the people for whom they claim they are spiritually responsible.
• Loving pastoral care that the people who look up to them would know Jesus well. If it were, they would show what it means to follow Jesus. They would set an example of self-sacrifice rather than Armani suits, big time travel arrangements and conference appointments, professional photoshoots, gladhanding politicians and big shots, demanding parsonages with a swimming pool when they move from minor league churches to big league ones, and six- or seven-figure salaries. They would refuse titles like “President”, and would certainly object to being called “Mr. President” 400 times during the course of the day. They would take very seriously the fact that their “flocks” are putting them up on a pedestal and would act and speak in such a way as to disintegrate that pedestal.
• A care that equality of all men, poor and wealthy, under the lordship of Christ be the order of the day. See above.

They have no principled reason to push back against JoelO. That’s why they don’t do it except when it makes them look good (and even then, only sometimes). That’s why what they teach half the time sounds a lot like Joel and treats the Bible in the same slipshod, loose, and obtuse way. That’s why they live like him and construct massive church campuses and buildings like he does, minus the most ostentatious outbursts (like charging admission for “Nights of Hope”) that would offend too many of their target audience. They’re just as careful for their image as Joel is.

It’s strange to me that their self-interest doesn’t extend to being very careful to remove the competition that JoelO offers to their own little kingdoms within the control that they have, but then again, perhaps Satan has learned a lesson or two in the 2000 years since Jesus said “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?” (Matthew 12:25-26). And of course, only a fool would accuse Satan of steadfast consistency.

I know that you, dear reader, probably think the preceding rant is too harsh. I urge you not to be like the listeners who heard the Messiah’s lips utter what they did in John 6 or Matthew 20 or 23, or what that Messiah inspired Jeremiah, for example, to preach from the gates of the Temple into which these men’s spiritual forebears had denied him access. Why is this “convention” taking place in such a sumptuous setting? Why the evidence of wealth all around? Why the travel expense? And then why the talk about “we can fund an increase of missions through sacrificial giving!” and suchlike, as if their very event and presence didn’t militate directly against such a thing! It is all upside down, as if the very lifestyle and salary of the fat cat saying it didn’t render it all so absurd!

When all other options are exhausted, what else are we left with? However improbable it may seem, take a really close look at what’s going on. Watch the live stream. Think about the way that the actions taken, the money spent, the priorities upheld, reflect the precise opposite of what is proclaimed on stage, the way these men talk to each other and preen before the cameras. Think about how Jesus and His apostles dressed, what they experienced, in what way their godliness was proven. Think about how these men’s so-called godliness has been allegedly proven by, again, the precise opposite of how it was in the men whom we are supposed to see as the foundational examples of our faith.

By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward. By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen…and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground. And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

(Hebrews 11:24-27, 35-40)

You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kings without us; and indeed, I wish that you had become kings so that we also might reign with you. For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now. I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children.

(1 Corinthians 4:8-14)

Meanwhile, also in Boston

More than a hundred other people were murdered by well-paid hitmen.

No arrests so far.

Carrie Prejean is an embarrassment, not a hero

Carrie Prejean has done apparently one halfway-good thing in her far too long stint in the limelight - she truthfully (and sort of correctly) answered a question in a beauty contest put to her by a moronic airhead who asked a question to which he didn't know the answer.

Apart from that, she's been one embarrassment after another, mostly to herself and also to the evanjellyfish community who has foolishly embraced her. I suppose I shouldn't be amazed at the depths to which American evanjellyfish will stoop to get their ears tickled. The ironic thing is that said tickling often comes at the hands of someone who knows exactly what to say to hit the right nerve. Given Prejean's evident intellectual limitations, I doubt she has been the calculating sort, maneuvering and finagling her way into evanjellyfish hearts everywhere; rather, she seems like a victim of this terribly sub-biblical thinking who has probably been manipulated by some clever agents into extending her public presence far, far beyond where she should have gone.
In this case, it should be obvious that saying "in my country, in my family I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman" will get one into the good graces of the evanjellyfish community. Thing is, that community has a hard time letting go. The examples are numerous - The Shack, Billy Graham, Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, Phillips Craig and Dean, TD Jakes, Ted Haggard, Jaci Velasquez, POD, Amy Grant...I could go on, and I have in the past. As long as someone uses the word "Jesus" in conversation and expresses commonly decent moral sensibilities, they've got the secret evanjellyfish handshake down pat, and you don't get kicked out.

So, ever since she did that one thing, she's been persecuted shamelessly by the left, and shame on them for their easily-documented and highly visible idiocy and moral blindness. Backlash against Hilton for his stupid question, to which he clearly only wanted one answer? Right, sure.
Prejean has since dang near made a whole career out of people talking bad about her on national media. I don't necessarily blame her for that as much as I blame the American consumer of media, both on the left and on the right in the evanjellyfish community, and to the latter I ask: Why keep taking her in? Why keep giving her a platform? Why invite her to speak at your conferences? Why react favorably when surveyed (as her publisher no doubt did before commissioning her book) as to whether you'd buy a book about her?

Where has she given any evidence of a biblical worldview besides saying "I believe marriage is heterosexual"? Is saying "in my country, in my family, I believe" an appropriate preface to expressing a biblical statement, that homosexuals and homosexual activity are under the judgment of God, that homosexuals are commanded to repent of all their sin, including homosexuality, and be saved by the only Savior, Jesus Christ? Nowhere that I've seen (though I admittedly don't follow Prejean's life very closely).

Further, let's not forget in which context her big "Here I stand" moment took place - in a beauty pageant, a soft porn meat market, where one wins because one has a hot bod and can strut about sensually in front of dozens of cameras. That's bad enough. But nnnnoooo, she couldn't stop there.
-She openly encourages other girls to expose their bodies and sexuality to endless ogling in future pageants. It's a noble calling, you know.
-Breast augmentation surgery. Sigh.
-Pornographic photos, taken before the pageant. Double sigh.
-A pornographic video, sent to a boyfriend. Dear God, does it never end?
"That was a mistake of youth, sent to my boyfriend with whom I was in love" she says of the vid. It was 5 years ago! When you were 17! You're only 22!!!! Youth? How about "Yes, I did that, and it was a horrible sin against my Lord Jesus Christ and against my future husband, not to mention the boyfriend to whom I sent it. I didn't love him at all; my sending him that vid brought him DOWN, not up. I led him into terrible impurity, and for that I am also deeply sorry"?
But at least she said it was a mistake!
Oh yes, thank God she did. All the young girls watching her can now know that:
1) you can make a sex vid for your boyfriend
2) whom you "love"
3) at the age of 17
4) and then apologise and make it all better, 5 years later when someone else finds out about it and makes it public, and still go on to sell books to "Christians" and no one will care.
Great example for my little girl.

Finally, she has the audacity to "write" a book about her life so far. To nearly-quote the Abbé Faria from The Count of Monte Cristo - your life, young woman, has been too short to contain anything of significance. I don't know why I'm surprised that her shame threshold is a long, long way off.

The central problem with her wide acceptance among evanjellyfish is that not once has she ever even expressed a basic understanding or history of her own interaction with the Law and the Gospel. Not once that I've seen or heard has she ever recounted her struggle with her guilt under the Law of God, being crushed and shattered under the weight of its impossible demands, or crying out to God to save her from her guilt under His Law. Jesus as only Savior? Jesus as Lord? Repentance? Trusting in Christ alone, being thankful for His forgiveness, purchased on the Cross? Nowhere to be found. Rather, she was raised that way. This is one of the most common evanjellyfish idolatries - this is how my parents raised me, and my parents are kind, good people.
No, your parents are not kind, good people, and neither are you. You are a filthy sinner, rebellious, an enemy of God, and you're either forgiven and saved in spite of yourself or you're not. If you are, one would rightly expect you'd talk about it occasionally, especially when you have the spotlight (unwisely) shone directly on you. As it is, I see no reason to think Prejean has any idea what it means to know and follow Jesus. Just like the majority of American evangelicals.

Here's hoping she does everyone a favor, and soon - retreat out of the limelight, permanently. Find a godly man (for someone as hot as you, that shouldn't be a problem), marry him BEFORE having sex with him, have children and lead a godly, quiet life. And change your last name when you get married.

The Atheist Experience's disjointed thinking about abortion propaganda

By now you may have heard of James von Brunn, the racist fanatic and Holocaust denier who snapped and shot up the Holocaust Memorial in Washington DC, killing one guard. I'm certain that most atheists around the country and in the UK (if they heard about this in the UK; it hasn't lasted nearly as long in the news cycle as the recent gratifying death of a certain baby-murderer, big surprise) are horrified at how evil and nasty this act was and how evil and nasty this man was . Interestingly, it turns out von Brunn hated something besides Jews. Christianity and the Bible.

Reminds me something the Atheist Experience recently said with respect to the role propaganda played in Tiller the Killer's murder. Ask yourself if you've ever heard some seriously strident, vicious, and hateful propaganda has been directed recently, from high-profile atheists like Hitchens, Harris, and Dick Dawk, at Christianity. No doubt various of my atheist readers, who were quick to call 'hypocrisy', will join me in condemning the Atheist Experience's hypocrisy here.

Everyone has a breaking point. I don’t care who you are. You have one. Seriously, let’s say you sincerely believed your neighbor was mass murdering children in his home. You call the cops, frantic, and explain to them that he’s torturing and killing young children—you’re absolutely sure of it! But the dispatcher just says, “Yeah--that's totally his right. We really don’t come out for things like baby killings." You keep calling back. Surely they didn’t understand you the first fifty times you called? But the response is always the same. And here you are, on the phone, wasting time, while the monster next door is killing more and more innocent children! What do you do?!

If this was actually happening, and you knew it, and nobody was stopping this killer, at what point—if out of nothing more than pure altruism (if there is such a thing?)—would you finally say, "I don't care if I die for this or go to prison for the rest of my life—someone has to do the right thing and stop this monstrous freak!"

Groups like the 4 new atheist Horsemen, who make a point of publicly labeling Christians as child abusers and slaves of a murderous, horrible God. And maybe it’s just me—but if someone actually is going around abusing children and enslaving others to commit deeds I think are bad—I don’t think I would be “shocked” that someone stepped up and killed that person. So, why would atheists express “shock,” if they know this Christians are child abusers? Are they “shocked” that by labeling such a person a “child abuser,” that someone might think he should be stopped by any means necessary? I mean, would it shock you if you believed what they believe? What, exactly, do they think happens when you whip up masses of (often already emotionally driven) people with something like that?

We’re all supposed to play along, I guess, that they never expected anything like this to happen as a result of merely calling someone something so benign and harmless as “a child abuser and genocidal maniac”? Who would have thought people would be all “up in arms,” literally, and excited over something like that? Apparently not the Atheist Experience. But I think most other people could have seen it coming light years away. And I can’t really bring myself to play along that atheists like these would be “shocked.”

I have a saying when someone asks me to believe obvious garbage. I say, “Either you’re stupid—or you think I am.” And like most people, I don’t appreciate it when someone, or in this case some blog, communicates to me like I’m an idiot. It doesn’t upset me, but I find it hard to play along. No, atheists and especially Atheist Experience and Dick Dawk, you’re not shocked. Please stop pretending, and have your victory celebration unapologetically.

I guess that would result in some really crappy P.R. But, still, how refreshing to see some noble honesty for once?

“Mass child abuse." There's the trigger. Pun not intended, but wholly (unholy?) appropriate in this case.

Most people agree with rule of law. If they didn’t we’d have far more chaos than we do. But I don’t think there is anyone who does not understand that at some point, we would all be willing to defy the law in order to do something we consider morally necessary.

Yes, it’s cliche’, but I’m going to use an example from Nazi Germany until a better example comes along—which will, hopefully, be never. But, if I lived in Nazi Germany—I hope I would not turn someone in if I knew they were a hiding Jew. I hope I would, like I hope many of you would, end up breaking the law, and maybe even dying, myself, or potentially killing someone, to protect others from people I view as utterly wrong and dangerous. So, it's no “shock” to me, and probably not to you, either, that if you whip up huge numbers of fundamentalist-thinking people with things like "genocidal God-worshiping child abusers" you're going to get not a few individuals (I'm surprised they don’t get more) who go ape and fly completely off the rails in the worst way.

I don't think the Atheist Experience crosses a line against free speech—such as someone who might say, "Somebody needs to put a bullet in these Christians. Can I interest you in further details?" would be doing; but, when they try to divorce themselves from a natural—and, let’s be honest here, pretty predictable—consequence of their influence—that's where I want to cry "hypocrite." Not “foul.” Not “lock you up for what you said.” But “Don’t talk to me like I’m stupid—that did not shock you.” In fact, if it shocked any one of you, you don’t get out enough.

This isn’t a video game about killing Christians. This isn’t a music CD about killing Christians. This is a group of real human beings calling other real human beings “child abusers”, and a group of real human beings calling a real God "genocidal egomaniac" and then saying they can’t believe that simply being consistently and publicly labeled as a “child abuser” would make someone want to kill you. I mean, he was just a child abuser - nothing to get all worked up about and start shooting people.

Really? Can’t imagine how an agenda of working nonstop to convince (many already deluded) people that these Christians are child abusers, could result in someone getting hurt?

Are you stupid, or do you think I am?

What’s sad, though, is that if they were really shocked—then this man killed for some mysterious agenda. “Shocked” means you don’t really think what he was doing was something a person might kill another person over. And that means you don’t believe Christians are mass child abusers, because who wouldn’t expect a mass child abuser might be, himself, killed by someone one day? So, what is going on over at the Atheist Experience, where they aren’t at all responding like they believed they are mass child abusers? What if they had some other, ulterior motive—and these Christians end up as collateral damage for some superficial propaganda blitz? That would really be hosed up, wouldn’t it?

But—other than their inexplicable, “shocked” reaction—why would anyone think the Atheist Experience wouldn't be sincere about their claims that Christians are committing mass child abuse, unhindered within our own borders?

Well, here’s my theory: If these atheists truly believed what they say they are convinced of, then child abuse in Christian homes is probably the largest, mass child abuse ring in history. I’m going to assert that these atheists would all be shooting Christians. And, I would hope that if I really, truly, sincerely believed there were millions of mass child abusers on the loose and nobody was stopping them—that just maybe I would courageously do the same thing—if I really believed it. Of course, if I just wanted to emotionally manipulate a huge bunch of people, and I didn’t really believe or care about what I was saying, then I’d be doing exactly what the Atheist Experience does—taking my time in courts, standing on corners with signs, taking people’s money, telling them who to vote for, and watching them hang on my every recommendation as I play on their fear and hate.

The fact that groups like the Atheist Experience stop short of reaching the, not only logical, but obvious conclusion of what needs to be done if their claims are believed—and human children are being abused in droves—demonstrates to me, or to anyone, a lack of genuine belief in their own propaganda. I think, like most religious views, they "believe" it in some weird way on some odd, superficial level where it hits emotional response (and, I mean, come on, how easy is that?), but doesn’t ever sink down into thought centers, where it would normally ruminate and ferment into a more cohesive and fully formed “idea”—with actual implications and repercussions and consequences. But they obviously don't believe it on that sort of level—on the sort of level where any real, proportional “action” would necessarily follow—as I would expect action to follow if any real, thinking human being believed unhindered mass child abuse was happening unabated?!

Where is the courage of conviction here?

Where is any conviction here?

What the hell do these people honestly believe?

More thoughts on Tiller the killer

Another few thoughts I'm thinking about the abortion of Tiller the abortician. From this article, worshipers at Reformation Lutheran were horrified at the abortion taking place in their own church's foyer. One wonders if they'd be similarly horrified if someone were to eat a chicken dinner in the foyer - the problem is that it took place in the wrong venue, right? I mean, you're *supposed* to eat chicken dinners in the fellowship hall, near the kitchen. Not the foyer! Similarly, you're *supposed* to perform abortions at the abortuary, where it's out of sight from normal everyday well-groomed, well-dressed churchgoing folk. Not in the foyer! So, bring an abortion out of its assigned geographic locality, the people of Reformation Lutheran get all upset. Duly noted. They should probably make that really clear on their website, though I didn't see anything about strict policies of segregation of activity to specific and denoted rooms in the building. Presumably they'll get on that first thing after the funeral.

The article states:
Church members said anti-abortion protesters have shown up outside the church on Sundays regularly.
"They've been out here for quite a few years. We've just become accustomed to it. Just like an everyday thing, you just looked over and see them and say, 'Yup they're back again."'

And this church never did anything about it, did they? How their consciences must be seared by now! To have a career baby-murderer in your congregation, a member in apparently good standing, an usher who is typically accompanied by a frakking bodyguard...You smile at him, "Hey George" while mixing Sweet 'n' Low into your coffee cup Sunday morning, thinking (or not) that a mere 24 hours later he'll be using chemical weapons against the smallest, weakest, and most invisible, marginalised, and voiceless members of our society. You ask what it means when the Bible mentions "their consciences seared with a hot iron"? Exhibit A: Reformation Lutheran of Wichita.


The article continues:
He added: "We had no idea that someone would come into our church and do such a bad thing like that — inside of a church."

Apparently Reformation Lutheran includes as an unwritten part of its paltry belief statement the superstitious view, like on the TV show "Highlander", that a church is 'holy ground' or something by virtue of the building's carrying the word "church" in its title, on the placard somewhere.
Revelation 3:1 To the angel of the church in Sardis write:
He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars, says this: "I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. 2 Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God. 3 So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. Therefore if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you."

This church is a dead church, having a name like it's alive, and lookie here - Jesus has indeed come to them like a thief, in judgment on one of its members. Mercifully, I'd say - this time around He only enacted judgment on the main evildoer, an individual in the midst of the enabling group, rather than on the evildoer AND the enabling group as He's done many times before. No doubt He is giving them time to repent, and I pray that they will. But where did this guy get the idea that violence is any better or worse inside a building that calls itself a church? I might agree with that in MY church, yeah, b/c of the environs and people that, there, give glory to Jesus and take what He says very seriously. Clearly this church does not do that, however, so we have to ask whence comes this sentiment? How does this guy know that violence is wrong? Why should anyone honor his building and gathering with the title "church"?


In a Facebook thread discussing this incident, an acquaintance of mine said this more or less:
It is sickening to imagine that God would allow a man to be shot by a crazed vigilante who could just as easily have decided to direct his hate toward an ethnic minority or gays.

A couple of things:
1) Note the implicit seared conscience, again.
One is BORN as a member of a certain ethnicity.
One CHOOSES to engage in homosexual behavior.
One CHOOSES to murder babies.
It is certainly understandable that some people might find the existence of a serial baby-murderer in their city intolerable to the point that they might pick up arms to take care, themselves, of what the gov't wouldn't. I invite you to get off your high horse and consider the similarity of this action to, say, the firebombing of a legitimately legal KKK headquarters building, a group of brothers ganging up to beat the daylights out of the drug dealer who raped their younger sister, concerned citizens slashing tires in the dead of night outside a known crack house, etc. None of these actions are, strictly speaking, legal, nor are they necessarily ethical. But one can certainly see how the sentiments leading to the actions arose and accord to the perpetrators a measure of sympathy: "I wouldn't've done it like that, but I definitely see where he was coming from."

2) I encourage you to read the book of Habakkuk, among other places such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Judges, the list goes on and on. Habakkuk has long been a favorite of mine, even when I was an atheist, as it contains complaints from a human perspective against God on the subject of theodicy. (When I was an atheist, I only liked the complaints from Habakkuk, not God's answers, but anyway.) It follows this pattern:
Habakkuk: God, evil all around. Won't You act?
God: Be patient, it's coming. In fact, when it comes it's going to be horrifying, way worse than you could have imagined. What's more, I'm going to use the evil, hated, idolatrous Babylonians to enact My judgment on Judah.
Habakkuk: Another brief complaint.
God: Repeat.
Habakkuk: Ah. Let me take this moment to compose a psalm of heartfelt praise.

The pattern follows in this most recent example. It was not right for this gunman to abort this late-term fœtus named George Tiller, any more than it was right for Tiller to abort so many thousands of fœtuses before. Thus, this gunman is an evildoer whom God used to enact judgment on another evildoer. Sound familiar?
Let us pray that God will have mercy on our nation for allowing this travesty and evil of baby-murder to enjoy legal protection as it does today. Perhaps we will escape the fate of Judah, perhaps not. Lord, have mercy.

Here lies an unwanted late-term fœtus, rest in peace (or something)

DATELINE: Wichita, KS

A slightly unusual set of circumstances surrounded one of today's late-term abortions, one of dozens or even hundreds practiced around the nation on a daily basis. Chaos ensued inside a local church, Reformation Lutheran (motto: "Unraveling the Reformation every Sunday so that we can be nicer people"), today when one late-term fœtus aborted another in a slightly less well-controlled environment as that which usually surrounds such terminations, though conditions in this case were certainly comparable in terms of sterility and general professionalism.

"We're all shocked here," said a churchgoer who identified himself as Jimmy. "It was really weird to see this late-term fœtus, who's been a long-time member of our church and who called himself 'Tiller', lying in a pool of blood, since he's usually been the one that reduces, excuse me, progresses other fœtuses towards a non-lifey state. So yeah, it's been an abnormal day, and last week was even worse - we had to kick out of our church a member who we discovered had been kicking his dog from time to time when he was angry. Talk about unacceptable behavior!"

Witnesses reported at least two other significant ways in which this abortion was dissimilar to others performed by Tiller, the aforementioned late-term fœtus, on slightly less-late-term fœtuses in the past. One was described by Mary Smith, who told us, "There was no mention of any shady financial transactions funneled from the federal government, through Planned Parenthood, to the abortician. It seemed like he was working pro bono, which is not unheard of, I understand, especially in poor minority neighborhoods, but it was strange all the same."
Sharimrakar Pamarayitsupatel, another long-time member and teacher of Reformation Lutheran's popular "Sunshine, Veda, and Transcendental Meditation" Sunday School class, mentioned the other: "The late-term fœtus in question seemed to utilise a projectile-emitting implement to perform this procedure, rather than what the other one usually uses, or so I understand, which was a suction implement, a handheld bladed implement, and/or a chemical weapon implement, depending on the situation. So this was a little off the beaten path, shall we say, but it still effectively got the job done, and it certainly seemed to be pretty painless, much less painful than taking a dip in a cocktail of scalding chemical agents, let me tell you."

"It's so weird," said an unnamed passerby whom we interviewed. "They have 'No firearms allowed in building' stickers on their doors and everything, as plain as day."

"Aw, peas!" complained 15-year-old Renée Nauchtupp, when informed of today's abortion. "Now I'm gonna hafta lie about my age and my 24-year-old boyfriend at someone else's cutting parlor. This really sucks, but not as much as it's gonna suck for my baby when I find another one, if you know what I mean."

Police have informed us that they have one significant lead, whom they are pursuing with a warrant for arrest on misdemeanor charges of practicing medical procedures without a license. In the state of Kansas, this can carry a punishment of up to $5000 and 30 days in jail, though most fœtuses convicted of this crime usually end up with approximately 90 hours of community service.

Fœtus Tiller will receive the benefit of a burial in a cemetery most probably, rather than being incinerated in a toxic-waste furnace or deposited in a city waste-disposal dumpster along with yesterday's used coffee cups and McDonald's wrappers. The church congregation is not widely expected to learn much from today's experience.

The Associated Press did not contribute to this story.
This story is dedicated to the memory of George Tiller, whom the Lord mercifully prevented today from murdering any more than the thousands of babies he already has.

Torched

A Japanese temple has just joined Japan to the growing number of countries to see protests and conflict over the passing of the Olympic Torch relay.
I love this. I am very glad to see large number of people refuse to rubberstamp the Olympic Games when the Games' leadership is guilty of blindness, inconsistency, and stupidity by holding their games in China.
A few things about these protests are interesting.

-The biggest protests I've seen were in the UK and France, where secularism is looming large. Probably these protesters were largely left-leaning human-rights advocate types whose value structure is based on secular humanism.
As we've seen over and over and over again around here, an atheistic philosophy like sec humanism can't ground ANY moral judgment. These guys are just a group of like-minded people getting together to beg the question, and they can't tell you WHY oppressing the Dalai Lama and his compadres is bad. It just is, dang it. They have empathy for him, and OF COURSE that means that we all must believe that oppression is bad.

-Which leads them to protest b/c of the actions of an atheistic regime. Infighting in the opposition's camp is almost always fulfilling and fun to watch.

-Which of course leads one to the question - which atheist is right?
(Man, I'd love to see a debate between some leftist Western secular humanist [Peter Singer comes to mind] and a knowledgeable apparatchik from China. Won't happen - China wouldn't allow such exposure, but a guy can dream.)

-And how would we know?

-All I see from the media, US gov't people like Ted Kennedy, and protesters are cries for a cessation of the oppression of Tibet, the exiled Dalai Lama, and Falun Gong.
Are these people simply ignorant of the plight of Chinese Christians (of whom there are at least as many in China as Falun Gong practitioners)? Do they just not care?

-I hope the Christian churches will also join in these protests, and in a boycott of these Games, for precisely that reason. I have no idea if churches have been involved and even less confidence that the MSMedia would cover them if they were.

-Dear God, let China lose lots and lots of rubles on this 'investment'. Amen.

-Finally, I will allow my mind to speculate idly on what's next for China. By firsthand and other accts, I know that the ChiCom gov't has been reducing its oppressive activities toward Christians on the east coast of China, in the big cities, so that about 3 yrs ago one of my church elders was able to rent out a hotel conference auditorium in Beijing for a Christian marriage conference. Just right out in the open.
But one couldn't do that in central China - they would bust it up and send the Westerners home and then make life very difficult for any Chinese that dared try to attend.
Are the ChiComs just playing nice for the cameras? What will they do after the Olympics have moved on? Some Chinese I know say they'll get a lot worse, some are hopeful. Time will tell.