Posted by Steve on the 20th of June, 2008 at 8:42 am under Uncategorized.    This post has 4 comments.

On June 17, 2008, blogger Ada Calhoun ranted about the evil pharmacists who refused to hand off weapons of individual destruction to customers who presented nothing more than a physician’s prescription. The bile generated against people of conscience was startling. I find it impossible to become thoroughly jaded, no matter how much I see. I STILL expect people to be accessible by way of reason, and if not reason, at least self-interest. But the tolerant stage of this leftist revolution may be the shortest on earth. No pretense to tolerance exists any longer. “If they won’t follow MY prescription for the way things should be, let them starve!”

The small-mindedness prompted this reply from me. Don’t tell me. I know. Futile. Utterly futile.

=======================================================================

 This “controversy” depends upon people being ignorant enough to fail to make critical distinctions. The thinking skills revealed in the article and some comments suggests the writers are the product of government-sponsored education. The first distinction to bear in mind is the difference between a governmental service and free-market business. Even the radical ACLU generally targets governmental displays or activities which, to them, imply a governmental endorsement of a particular religion (presuming the display or activity will result in harm to those who do not share the implied faith position). It does not lash out against businessmen who put Christmas displays on their private property. Some of you seem to think that all space in America belongs to the government and not to the people. That is the sentiment of an ignoramus indeed, one you can be certain logs lots of TV time to soft-boil the brain.

The other problem is failure to discern, or even consider, exactly why these pharmacists follow the brave course they’ve taken. This may be hard for some of you to imagine, living, as you do, with the burden of freedom and responsibility inherent in the American system. If you think Angelina Jolie should be the US Ambassador to the UN, you probably won’t appreciate the civilizational obligation to think before opening your yap. Instead of knee-jerking into, “What! Somebody won’t give somebody what they want! Death to them!” consider WHY they take the position they do. Believe it or not, you do not need to share their opinion to respect theirs. That should come as good news, assuming your devotion to tolerance is something more than a complete sham.

Four generations ago, American policy, confirmed by a Supreme Court decision, had it that it was perfectly fine to enslave Black people because, the “reasoning” went, Black people were not FULLY human persons, entitled to the same protections given to all others. One generation ago, Hitler, with the support of the people of the nation of Germany, “reasoned” that killing Jews was a service, not a sin, again because of their being, by definition, excluded from claim to the protections which guarded all other “persons.”

The pharmacists refusing to dispense sincerely believe the same thing is happening again, with unborn persons having been grievously denied the rights we recognize as appropriately accorded to ALL other human beings: the right not to be slaughtered, murdered, torn apart, or burned to death. The “reasoning” which suggests that, because unborn babies are small, or because they are dependent, does not, in these pharmacists’ eyes, justify removing them from the “human being” category. You may disagree with their logic, but you’d do well to at least pretend to acknowledge it before displaying your ignorance so perfectly by treating these people as enemies of the republic.

The truth is, they are aligning themselves with those who insisted, “Slavery may be legal, but it isn’t right.” They are the rare German voice, like Bonheoffer’s, decrying the wholesale slaughter of an entire population. They are among the many Americans who do not believe that legality is the same thing  as legitimacy. It may have been lawful according to the Third Reich to mercilessly destroy Jewish life. It was NOT legitimate.

Now imagine for a moment that the pharmacists are wrong. Unborn human beings, let us say, are not really HUMAN. Perhaps they are chickens. We can ignore the photographic evidence which so strongly suggests that unborn human babies are, hmm, unborn human babies—just small. We can also ignore the pure science which holds that the entity before abortificants were administered, that these entities displayed the qualities we look for when searching for LIFE. We can ignore the science which testifies that the introduction of certain devices or products changed the status of the previously living entities to dead entities. Yes, we can insist that these pharmacists for life are just freakish brutes who don’t understand the greatness of all leftist slogans, preferring to come to their decisions by careful thought and consideration of fact. We may hate them for insisting that their jobs are places where their high regard for all human life MUST be lived out, perhaps there more than anyplace else. We may be so offended by their notion that ethics belong in pharmaceutical work, and their belief that any ethic which allows human life to be treated the same way as lab-rat death is sub-human and manifestly unethical—these convictions may so deeply offend us that we’d wish for them all to be fired or compelled to lose their businesses tomorrow. But are they such that we truly find them completely intolerable, period? No discussion, no room for understanding? Just, “Death to Pharmacists for Life”? If that is the case, consistency requires you to utter maledictions on all those everywhere who have believed that injustice and evil require us to pray for more courage, not for more slogans.

If I, however, had ever been opposed to contraception or abortion, I’m forced to wonder if it might not be better for our human race if the intolerantistas who equate bravery and compassion with evil—who regard pharmacists who are concerned for ALL their patients, including very tiny ones who may be hiding for a time inside other customers— as the enemies of freedom… Yes, I do believe I ought to change my mind and begin to encourage these intolerantistas to use every available means of birth control. How much more do I need to read to convince me that self-elected abortions might indeed be the hand of their own deity, whom they call Natural Selection, busy at work in our own generation insuring future life for the earth by eliminating these “entities” who love death?

Posted by Steve on the 29th of May, 2008 at 5:06 pm under Uncategorized.    This post has 13 comments.

Yesterday my Roman Catholic friends celebrated the supposed Crowning of Mary as Queen of Heaven. Having just heard the entire service, I’m made once again to wonder just why it is that Romanists deny that they pray to Mary, why they deny that they hold Mary to be the functional equivalent of a Fourth member of the Godhead. We might well ask, if the world rumor about Rome being ready to officially rank Mary as a member of the Quadrinity—if they were to do that, what changes would be necessary to Romish faith and practice? I answer that question: none.

However, the denial continues as does the worship and adoration rendered to that blessed (but abused by her friends) woman. In what seemed a perfunctory effort to bring some earthly balance to the way Mary is thought of by the faithful, the priest, a man dear to me, quoted assorted Scripture texts which he apparently hoped might support various Marian dogmas. They didn’t.

His emphasis, however, encouraged more diligent imitation of Mary’s virtues, a safer application than a call to yet more exalted devotion. In all the priest’s Bible-summoning, however, the Scriptures he didn’t cite left bigger holes unfilled than Munchkins do.

The priest said that Mary’s assumption to heaven is known to be fact by the symbolic teaching of the Book of Revelation, particularly in its 12th chapter where “the woman” is spoken of. He said we must remember that the symbolism in that chapter applies both to Mary and to the entire church, for both are “clothed with the sun.” But while we read of a loud voice from heaven declaring, “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of His Christ”, we find no mention of any woman let alone “the” woman, being assumed up to heaven, and not a word that could be construed as reporting a coronation. Revelation 12 is where they find Mary being crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth? How anyone could conclude that such occurred in this chapter is indeed a mystery. The woman flees into the desert under God’s watchful care for 3.5 years. She is given eagle’s wings to help her escape from the dragon, but she flies out to the wilderness, not up to heaven. She is the object of special divine care, rescued from drowning when the torrent spewed by the dragon threatened to engulf her. At that time the earth “opened its mouth” and swallowed the pursuing river. The earth again, not the heavens. There simply is no mention or allusion to her—or anyone else—being lifted to heaven. If anything may be safely concluded it is that the woman, whoever she is, remained altogether on earth, because the dragon—who had explicitly been cast down to earth—went off to make war against her, even “the rest of her offspring” who obey God’s commands—obey on earth.

The priest spoke of Jesus as “Mary’s only begotten Son.” I had never heard that before and was rather startled by it. Could it be that their interest in perpetuating her maidenhood into eternity may have been bolstered by a desire to attribute to her a relational descriptive everywhere else reserved for God the Father, thus making her seem ever more divine? I don’t know. But I do know that we heard nothing of Mary’s assumption in any passage cited. We heard, rather, Romanists’ presumptions, and wept. The pretense of offering Scriptural support was dropped finally when it was admitted that the May crowning of Mary as Queen of Heaven is a tradition of long standing in the church and therefore ought to be continued. As if every sin attaining to the boast of great age ought for that reason be perpetuated.

Other Scripture was “dragged in,” such as the prophecy of the sword piercing her soul, which, we were correctly assured, was fulfilled as she witnessed the crucifixion. But an earthly piercing is not a heavenly crowning. At homily’s end, the proposition about Mary’s crowning remained as unsupported as when the homily had begun.

But the end didn’t come before we were exhorted to see Mary as a model worthy of imitation in her virtues, special mention being made of her devotion to prayer. While we see no harm in encouraging imitation of anyone’s virtues we do not see how the specific instance cited—Mary’s being among the 120 who were filled with the Spirit at the Jerusalem Pentecost—sets her apart from the pack in any way. There is absolutely nothing attributed to Mary in that passage that did not pertain equally or more to the other 119.

There was, on the other hand, a great deal attributed to the Apostles, and especially Peter, that is not predicated of Mary. Of this nothing was said. We do not count silence as a case-clincher, but we do wonder at Luke’s omission, his failure to report anything about her after the crucifixion which would be remotely suggestive of eminence, let alone preeminence. If anything, we are made to believe that her unspeakably honorable role in God’s unfolding plan had pretty much been played, and she was on her way, escorted rather swiftly by Luke’s narrative, to the relative obscurity she doubtless coveted. We ought to be careful not to stain Mary with the ugly lust for ostentation which her self-appointed devotees attribute her. If any crown were offered to Mary in heaven, doubtless she would have refused it and cast it at her Savior’s feet.

No Mary-loving service would be complete, of course, without reference to her alleged intercessory superpowers as revealed in the incident at the wedding in Cana (John 2) wherein Mary made Jesus aware of the shortage of vino at the marriage celebration. “They have no more wine.” (There is something almost comically disproportionate about this simple sentence resulting in trillions of “Hail Mary, pray for us sinners” utterances. The priest mentioned her instruction to the servants present, “Do whatever He tells you,” deliberately, it seemed, trying to convey the impression that she was Jesus’ manager and/or agent. But curiously absent from the priest’s citations were the words our Lord used in response to her initial observation: “Woman, why do you involve Me? My time has not yet come.” That this was a rebuke of sorts cannot be disputed. It reveals Mary (again) to be precisely that sort of run-of-the-mill, bumbling, endearing disciple that we find Peter and the other apostles to have been throughout the pre-Pentecost narratives. These are just NORMAL people. There is no Queen of Heaven here, no Manager of Intercessions, no “Bring your worries to me” woman. We see instead a woman trying to figure out just who Jesus is and wondering intensely when He was going to make it known.

Interestingly—not surprisingly—absent from the priest’s list of passages were texts like this from Mark 3: In this scene, a crowd gathered deep around Jesus had assumed that a special privilege would belong to Jesus’ mother, in tow with Jesus’ siblings from Mary, all waiting outside to see Him. If any favor is ever accorded to anyone by a dignitary, it is AT LEAST helping them avoid those long lines where commoners must wait and wait for audience with the celebrity. If there is a Level One Favor for favored souls, it would certainly be a back-stage pass. But Mary couldn’t/didn’t merit even that! No moving her to the head of the line. From whence does the notion of His eagerness to crown her Queen of Heaven arise? Not from any divine text in our possession! When told that Jesus’ blood family was waiting outside to see Him, our Lord said, “Make way for the Queen of Heaven!” Oh. Sorry. No. He didn’t say that. He said, “Who are my mother and my brothers? Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

That would mean, minimally, that there is lots of competition for the Queen’s crown. But more plainly, it means that the “tradition” invented and perpetuated by Rome is not merely one added to Scripture (which is the breathings of God). It is a tradition added AGAINST Scripture, and therefore ought to be tossed out, not continued.

The last element of the service was the singing of a Latin hymn to their reigning monarch: “Save us, Mary,” they chanted over and again. “Save us.” Amen, but not to Mary. Rather, “Lord Jesus, save them from laying any more bricks in their well-intentioned road to perdition. Grant them eyes able to distinguish between a mother chosen by You to guarantee His humanity, and a goddess manufactured by themselves to partake of your divinity. Grant them a desire to see You honored, above all. Amen.”

Posted by Steve on the 22nd of May, 2008 at 12:28 pm under Uncategorized.    This post has one comment.

An enthusiastic friend of mine sent out a letter with the following in it:

The Chosen
Most are invited, but only some are picked out of the crowd. Is it our free will or God’s election? God calls everyone and gives them the power to respond—but to be chosen, we must respond to the call, using the power God gave us to take on the character of Christ.

Read it again— “to be chosen we must respond.” What then does it mean to be chosen? Oh goodness, me! Here is an example of that which induces in us spontaneous praise to God, not only for His sovereign salvation, but also for the Canons of Dordt and wonderful Westminster. The Confessions are very helpful on this topic. My friend, unfortunately, is not. Pray we can help our peers see some of the beauty which remains hidden from them. A great deal of the attractiveness of God’s Gospel is inevitably out of sight when schemes dictate that becoming chosen is up to you! As the great rabbis said: Oy Vey!

pastor steve

Posted by Steve on the 22nd of May, 2008 at 12:19 pm under Uncategorized.    This post has 4 comments.

God punishes improper responses to His Word by binding His enemies to false beliefs and false explanations of things.

I am not sure what you mean by that… (view full text of question in comments section - Interlude II - Credo)

 

Speaking of knowing: Do I know your name? If not, level the field for me a bit, won’t you?

You had asked me about the relation of ethics and epistemology. I think it is fine if we limit our discussion to this—it is wide enough to have fun in, without ranging off into Natural Law’s existence.

I’m sorry I failed to cite the verses supporting my statements. I had assumed you would connect those circuits yourself, but I see that I should not have assumed. I’m sorry. This should help:

In 2 Thessalonians, you will find the passage I paraphrased. Speaking of certain people who “received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved,” the Holy Spirit says,

Because they refused to love the truth, “God shall send them strong delusion so that they will believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth.” (2:10-11) This really is the Gold Passage on the subject, don’t you think? I suspect you formulated your response to my post as if I was just theologically rambling rather than relying on Scripture. So what we should do from here, after I get your name, is to get your take on the Thessalonians passage. How does this impact your view on the question under discussion? And please do note, emphasizing again the original concern of setting ethics and epistemology in right relation in our thinking, note verse 12. There we learn why it is that these folks were given over to believe a lie, that is, why they refused to love the truth. It was because they “had pleasure in unrighteousness.” The truth didn’t thrill them. Wickedness did. So God said to them, as He did to Israel in the quail episode, “O, is that what you want? Okay. I’ll give it to you. Here! Now choke on it.”

Here we come face to face with a God unimpressed with protestations about “free will.” On another occasion I would like to try to show you why the very notion of “free will” is riotously funny, but I don’t see that it needs to touch our discussion at this stage. My assertions treat of ethics and epistemology, not volition. And on any reading of “free will,” the passage in Thessalonians can be reconciled. For Free Willers, these folk abused their free will, using it to pursue wickedness. This gave God the right to cause them to be arrested by their own sin and to be cast into the House of Lies, their house of detention. You’d need to argue for a sort of freedom that is able to break God’s imposed judgments. By that standard, everyone should be able to will themselves not to suffer or die. No one goes THERE. I am assuming again, but I fear I’d insult you to think any other way. You do recognize that if something comes as a sentence of God, He might indeed lift it, especially if there should be repentance. But we cannot say He is under obligation to give the condemned power to escape their condemnation! We don’t see judges handing AK-47s to those found guilty in their courts, telling them they now have even odds of either going to or escaping from the slammer. There is such a thing as JUST punishment. It is to that that I direct your attention. What can you learn about the relation of ethics and epistemology from the fact that God has told us of His sovereign sending of delusions which render people incapacitated (through their own fault) in so far as their being able to recognize or embrace the truth. This is a really serious question, and one that would help us all to get to know the God Who Is more accurately. He’s that frightening. He is.

Yours and His,

pastor steve

Posted by Steve on the 20th of May, 2008 at 3:01 pm under Uncategorized.    This post has 6 comments.
“And to the immoral and wicked, each day brings into clearer relief the relationship between ethics and epistemology.”

Interesting remark. Can you expound on how epistemology and ethics are related? I have followed your stuff before and I don’t remember this emphasis. What do you mean by epistemology? Are you speaking in the Van Til vein? Or epistemology generally?

Thank you for your good question(s). I am tempted to spend the rest of this day answering you; I’m not sure if that would be immoral (wink). Let us briefly, then, dance a cha-cha in the Field of Knowledge. 1, 2, 3.

1. The Enlightenment project sought to trump God in the Knowledge Wars from the outset of the enterprise by relieving Him of any responsibility or relationship to or with our knowing of a thing or things. It actually wasn’t a great leap from our declaration of independence to our barring God from the discussions altogether. Since He had been excluded as a matter of METHOD, the method obviously presupposed autonomy and adequacy. God’s Lordship moves from Sovereign to Trusted Adviser to Hired Consultant to Who-Asked-for-Your-Opinion? The religion of Humanism has brilliantly engineered the seating arrangements for those in their theater, making it appear as if their thinking alone is uncontaminated by religious prejudice. Along with this fantasy comes its concomitant:

“Since we got here without His help (har har hardy har har), we do not need His help now, although, if He wants to agree with us and wish us well, we’ll let Him have a seat—somewhere; perhaps even a seat of honor—so long as He behaves. What we most certainly will not do is share our glory with another. No. This is OUR story, not His. All the evil that ever happened came about because people pretended to speak for this “God” who, by definition, cannot be wrong. To this fairytale belief must be attributed every past and present evil, including mass murder, sexual dysfunction, and insufficient parking spaces in Brooklyn. We’re not going to surrender all our gains by pretending we need Him now. That would be a step backward and worse.”


The Word once confessed to be the light in which we see light has become equated with darkness and ignorance. The light in Enlightenment was distinguished from the darkness which was from the beginning identified with the Word of God and traditions derived therefrom.

Witness the small “e” definition of enlightened: rational, tolerant and well-informed. What a set-up! That’s like an accused thief telling the court that every item found in his possession after the robbery-every item with the victim’s name etched on it-bears in itself the obvious evidence of rightfully belonging to the thief. “Of course it’s mine, your honor. The very fact that it says “from the library of Steve Schlissel” suggests that this egomaniac was jealous of my growing collection and sought to have it regarded as his by a mere engraving of his name. Not only does this prove all these etched items were mine all along, but it also makes the plaintiff guilty of vandalism for defacing my property.” Everything that can be considered as true “evidence” must pass a prior test of being regarded as vindicating the defendant. In order to be regarded as true knowledge, one needs to have begun the acquisition autonomously .

The Enlightenment project is the human-racial continuation of taking from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and by that method, bypassing (we imagine) reliance upon God. (I’m wondering if we haven’t answered your essential question, by the way, simply by recalling here the NAME of the forbidden tree—KNOWING right and wrong, good and evil; in other words, the epistemology of ethics.) The underlying assumption is either a) God is not there so there’s no use waiting for instruction from Him; b) God is there but He has a serious ego problem and regards us as competitors, thus making communications from Him suspect—something like the Patriots coach telling the Giants what their next play ought to be; c) He is there and He means well, but He’s a bumbling communicator and simply unable to help us sort things out—His Word, variously interpreted from Day One (Six?), proves its inadequacy by that very variety. If it were REALLY God’s Word, it would pass all the tests that I’ve conjured beforehand, for, before looking or listening, I’ve firmly decided what qualities God’s Word OUGHT to have if it is indeed to be received as God’s Word. One of those qualities is convincing. If it is to be reckoned as coming from God it must have such power, pertinence and clarity as would make “misunderstanding” impossible.

All of that is merely an updated version of “The woman Thou gavest me…” It is humanity’s ace-long-out-of-the-hole. If there is a problem here, the matter of to whom responsibility can be traced, is obvious. No matter what: it’s God’s fault. The disparities which exist between His Word and our being, thoughts, and activities are only explicable on the basis of His imperfections (or His ignorance or His immorality, etc.).

Since we ARE created by the one true God, we insist that the very notion of our knowing anything independently of our Creator is manifest rubbish. Yet the devil aimed just here when seeking to remove our first parents from their created estate (i.e., in unbroken covenant with God). “Upon what basis shall you assign any particular to the category of ‘Good’ or the category of ‘Evil’?” (Perhaps we should note that, when ontology is added to this discussion—as it must be at some point—we have completed the headings of the principal areas of philosophical concern: Being, Knowing, Right Living.)

As you can see, the question from the beginning has been, “Whose knowledge is true, adequate and comprehensive enough to make Law?” If we speculate about knowledge as if it were distinct from, or unrelated to, Law, we would be engaging in the definitive act of futility: abstracting. God’s knowledge, for us, is no merely theoretical thing, but as intimately related to the what and ought of all, as the Holy Spirit is to the Father and the Son. These may be distinguished. They may NOT be separated.

God demonstrates His right to be the sole Lawmaker by creating the universe. This gives Him a distinct advantage over all competitors’ claims to equal adequacy. You will no doubt recall how this was the focus of God’s rebuke to Job and Co. “Did you make the world? Why then do you talk as if you did?” Until we create ex nihilo, we are doing nothing except playing catch-up (even though, ironically, playing catch-up puts us further and further away from God). The only proper response to the Word of God is to shut the mouth, bow the knee, open the ear. Even kids in the Bible know that. Little Sammy said it all: “Speak, Lord. Your servant is listening.”

Okay, quickly. Number 2 in our discussion about the unbreakable bond between knowledge and ethics would concern the skepticism and cynicism that has engulfed us. The greater our claims to infallible, autonomous knowledge, the deeper the skepticism that characterizes the daily lives of ordinary people. At the beginning of the 20th century, Western Civilization did not believe (as Hebrews 11 describes it). At the beginning of the 21st century, we disbelieve. An interesting byproduct of our disbelief has been the tyranny of the experts. This glorious human race that knows so much by itself that it doesn’t have need of a god, this same race daily becomes more insecure about anything and everything it thinks it knows. Just as God is boxed out of the legal, educational, and entertainment spheres, so also is knowledge gained by generational experience considered worthless.

There are few areas untouched by this pathetic slavery to experts, but one standout area that has provided the most compelling proof that moderns don’t know their tuchases from their elbows is child-rearing, particularly pedagogy. It’s enough to know that it worked for a thousand years to disqualify it for continued use. The tried and true is, for that reason, regarded as false. If a method successfully prepared literate and thoughtful citizens since 1776, it is sure to be scrapped in favor of the novel, the inane, or the insane. When it comes to modern school policies, from the rejection of phonics to the subjective “rightness” of wrong answers in mathematics, parents who follow the “experts” can count on just one thing: that their children will be ignorant and morally degenerate when they complete the requisite 12 years of preparing for four more years of drunken parties and STD’s.

(How should we rank our collective response to AIDS when evaluating the quality of particular evidences which illustrate and prove the inextricable bond between ethics and epistemology? It must be near the top, no? We KNOW, beyond a doubt, we KNOW the answer available to EVERYONE, which, if accepted and adopted, would provide a virtual guarantee that you would NOT get AIDS. [We are aware of the statistically miniscule likelihood of accidental contagion, but even that small group would be made smaller by the large-scale doing of deeds in keeping with repentance.] Yet, because the solution involves self-control and moral living, it is rejected out-of-hand. We have made the decision that we must NEVER instruct our youth that there are inescapable consequences attached to certain behaviors and choices. We have nationally accepted the fact that the truth is of no value in combating the so-called “plague of the 21st century.” Sufferers in the Great Plague that decimated Europe would have regarded it as nothing less than a complete miracle-by marrying as virgins and then remaining faithful to your respective spouse, you will successfully escape “the plague.” Yet moderns regard that price as insufferably high. It is rejected before it is proposed.)

Any alien peeking into the homes of today’s Yuppy parents would think that no preceding generation had ever had children, so entire is their reliance on new methods of child-rearing. Spanking? Abuse. Forbidden socially, soon by law. Yelling? Out. Displeasure? Debatable. That this radical fear of punishing is cause-effect connected to the guilty consciences of this generation of parents is not discussed. It is simply assumed that effective discipline is equivalent to barbaric discipline. These moms and pops are enlightened! What’s enlightening is to hear the names the three and four-year-olds call their parents in public spaces whenever the little wretches hear that most hated of all words (”No”).

3) A third area you might want to consider in assessing the relationship of knowledge and morality is that which is suggested by God’s bringing of judgment upon willful sinners to “believe the lie.” As an exercise, why don’t you write a brief essay drawing out some implications? God punishes improper responses to His Word by binding His enemies to false beliefs and false explanations of things. What does that imply about what we “know”—if anything? Please do write a piece, short or long, then send it along to me as an encouragement by which I can know that my reply justified the time put into it. Or else I’ll feel guilty. Let’s figure stuff out together. Waddayasay?

Thanks again,

pastor steve

Posted by Steve on the 16th of May, 2008 at 4:15 pm under Uncategorized.    This post has 3 comments.

There are limits to everything.

Aren’t there? Well, there used to be. Or so it seemed. But I can’t tell if there are any still in place. And, I wonder, if there are limits, what they might be?

Every sunrise brings new reasons to believe Leonard Cohen was in an inspired, prophetic estate when he wrote his magnus opus, The Future. Looking at the prospects of Western and world civilization, the Canadian Jewish poet/alt-cocker-rocker wrote:

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions;

Won’t be nothing

Nothing you can measure anymore

The blizzard, the blizzard of the world

Has crossed the threshold and it has overturned

The order of the soul

One could say Cohen’s is an expansion and application of Dostoyevsky’s great truism: “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted.” Whence limits in an unregulated world of total possibility?—where phantasmal global warming and ill-coursed meteors are the only potential spoilers permitted consideration. Speak not of judgment to come! But Mankind’s real worry ought to be about “moral warming,” the state of affairs that replaces the bishop’s chair when the pleasure of our corporate “Amen-ing” of each of God’s Words has gone missing with Him.

And His absence was very much by man’s design. For the LORD God was given an eviction notice 150, even 200 years ago. He was informed that any reality He seeks to invade must be limited to men’s closets. The Public Spaces-by which was meant every sphere of life except the realm where personal opinions or private delusions grow, so long as these are judged to have no affect on one’s neighbors—all activity in the Public Spaces would henceforth and forever be regulated by man’s own sense of fairness and the common good. The Public Square would be under the strict regulatory powers of man qua Man. Any legislation perceived to have its origin in the mind of God, is, for that very reason, deemed unfit to become public policy. All discussions must begin and end with statistics gleaned from instruments subject entirely to man’s control. “Thus saith the Lord,” is thereby made equivalent to, “Thus saith the exiled monarch,” the one we tried to do away with entirely when He appeared to be within our reach two thousand years ago. We remember it well. We number the years of the Common Era from that noble effort to make Barabbas king. Well, it might be so that we couldn’t keep that Jesus dead, but at least we can keep Him off His throne (we think).

Moral warming becomes inevitable when God is declared not to exist. Because such a declaration is too provocative as long as cathedrals stand, a more polite way of saying the same thing was sought. The winner was, “God may or may not exist, but the wheels of government, time, life and Microsoft cannot be expected to sit idly by while that existence is debated.” Thus God was granted provisional existence, so long as He did not interfere with progress. He was permitted to mind His business as long as that posed no restraints on us in the conduct of ours. And everything we thought, said or did was our business, not His.

When such a state of affairs is believed to actually be, moral absolutes are gutted. The sharp gives way to the round, the sure to the perhaps, condemnation to approbation. Anything goes. Cole Porter didn’t tell the half of it. We have come to the place where the solid, deep and stable truths, which provide both framework and shape, support and hope, for life—the kind of life lived by Creatures—these truths are liquidated. In the meantime, the fluorocarbons of evolutionism and egalitarianism deplete the ozone of our consciences. People in the proverb business will be offering many revocalizations of Dostoyevsky’s truth in the coming days, as that proposition born of a seer’s contemplation is incarnated. When it is beheld by all, then it will be described as a result of observation, not speculation. Then it will be assessed in the light of the “is” as opposed to the likely, or the could-be. Poets and artists will wrap the phenomenon with descriptions as mothers wrap their babies with clothes before venturing out on a chilly day.

Nevertheless, to the gleg, each day brings vast amounts of instruction. That’s why I periodically cancel my subscription to the New York Times. Information overload. File cabinets stuffed. Take your data elsewhere.

You know, of course, that the data I refer to is not the pleasant 17% of The Times’ text which delights, informs, broadens, engages, enhances and/or enlightens. The overload occurs with the 83% which appears as self-conscious political propaganda, the so-called “news” that is, in fact and effect, a guidebook directing disparate anti-American and anti-Christian troops where they should apply the next wave of pressure if they are to effectively destroy yet another limit.

And to the immoral and wicked, each day brings into clearer relief the relationship between ethics and epistemology. Wanna talk some more about this? Prove it.

Posted by Steve on the 18th of March, 2008 at 10:05 am under Uncategorized.    This post has one comment.

Do you recall a court decision wherein MOMENTS OF SILENCE were struck down as unconstitutional? “Don’t try to kid us,” the Court said. “Your silent moments IMPLY prayer. Prayer is a religious activity. Religious activities [they WRONGLY ASSUME] may not be sanctioned or supported by the State (fed, state or local governments). Schools, especially, may not create a climate of pressure whereby religion, through ritual, verbal or non-verbal, is imposed on the six poor atheist students in Nebraska.”

Some of you heard me lament a couple weeks ago how difficult it is to convey to people who think they are “secular” that they are in fact quite religious. They think they are absent that which makes for “religious observance.” It is difficult for people to grasp that it is not ever a question of whether religion, but only and always which religion.

Well, thanks to the principle of accelerating epistemological self-consciousness, the enemies are making the lesson clearer, all by their itty bitty selves. As they begin to luxuriate in the space given them by their victories (enjoy it while you can!), God’s foes find liturgy irresistible and, like the buds of March preceding the full leaf and flower, so these nascent religious exercises (described below) are come to warn us that the religious void in the Public Square, being an impossibility to sustain–even in appearance–the filling of the void is now begun, and that in earnest.

Their goal was never to eradicate religion from the Public Square– just Christianity. Having succeeded with Goal #1, it is time to begin implementing the balance of the program: the new religion, full-tilt, belief demanded, heretics hunted—Egalitarianism unto death. Evolution is the force-fed, State-sponsored answer to origins and ontology, while answers to “How should we then live?” are sought in our innate (and inane) sense of fairness! You thought religion was void where prohibited by law, didn’t you? Remember: It is NEVER a question of WHETHER, but only a question of WHICH. Homosexualism, my friends, IS our rival religion. Believe it. It’s true.

-Pastor Steve

Homosexual Day of Silence - Is Your Child’s School on the list?

Dear __________,

Because of the action of concerned parents, hundreds of schools have removed their school as a listed participant in the pro-homosexual “Day of Silence.” You can join the fight for your children too!

On, Friday, April 25, several thousand schools across the nation will be observing “Day of Silence (DOS).” DOS is a nationwide push to promote the homosexual lifestyle in public schools.

When AFA alerted parents of this public school classroom disruption by homosexual student activists, many took action immediately! If you haven’t gotten involved, it’s critical that you do so today!

A simple phone call or letter to school administrators, telling them your child will not attend school the day it observes DOS, may be enough to cause some participating schools to change their plans. Sample letter here.

Please listen to a 60-second radio ad warning parents about Day of Silence, then forward this email to your local Christian or conservative radio station. Ask them to broadcast it as a Public Service Announcement (PSA)! MP3 file or WAV file

Click here for Frequently Asked Questions about the Day of Silence.

In the past week alone, over 200 schools have announced they are dropping plans to participate. Please, get involved for the sake or your children, and all children, today!

Take Action!

What should parents do? Check with your local school principal to see if your child’s school will be participating in DOS. If the school is participating, notify other parents about DOS and ask them to join in keeping their children out of school on that day.

Here is a partial list of schools which are expected to participate in DOS: If your school is listed, call your local school and ascertain whether they officially or passively allow students to observe “Day of Silence.” If your school is listed, please double-check with your local school to see if the school is actually sponsoring DOS. Sometimes the “participation” turns out to be a handful of kids who are saying they have a homosexual club and are observing this protest day, but without school endorsement. We sincerely hope your school, if listed, is not actually an official sponsor. If it is not, we will take them off the list, if a school official asks us to do so. Please e-mail your correction to webmaster@missionamerica.com.

Some tips:

  1. Be sure of the date that DOS is planned for your school. (The national date is April 25, but some schools observe DOS on a different date.)
  2. Inform the school of your intention to keep your child home on that date and explain why. Click here for a sample letter.
  3. Explain to your children why you’re taking a stand: Homosexual behavior is not an innate identity; it is a sinful, unnatural and destructive behavior. No school should advance a physically, emotionally, and spiritually destructive sexual lifestyle to students.
  4. Schools do not have to tolerate students remaining silent in class. Schools can adopt policies that require parental consent for students to attend any club, including those premised on sexual orientation or gender identity. Click here for more information from Attorney Mat Staver with Liberty Counsel who provides free information to parents, students, and schools regarding their rights associated with noncompliance on the Day of Silence.

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman American Family Association

Brilliance, Perception, Lenses, and the Christian Reformed Church:

Lessons in Moral Epistemology for Philosophers

We had been lamenting Andy Kuyvenhoven’s triumph over truth when he had converted a victory of communication in the cause of righteousness into just another lost cause…

I don’t know how to catch up explaining to my children and my students all they need to know if they are to keep at least one foot in the real world. They are daily assaulted by falsities (falsies? that’s a Holden Caulfield flashback!), half-truths, and actual-truths-made-vicious by having been set in false contexts. What set me on this tangent was the need I felt to explain how vitally important is the role of Mediator in all of life. That role is made more critical when the Mediator simultaneously serves as Instructor to the masses and the Sole Definer & Conveyor of what may/ought-to-be taken as fact or reality.

Chicago—the group, not the city—sang, “Color My World.” We live in a world where virtually all residents, Christians included, have given to non-Christians the responsibility to color God’s world for us. Each morning we pick up the paper, and each night we invite talking heads to tell us, what are the borders, contours, colors, shapes, and events of the world, along with any and all implications and meaning which might be found therein. This awesome responsibility is entrusted to an unelected group known collectively as Media, but who we’d better start thinking of and calling Mediators. Standing between a world of people-viewers and a world of people-in-events, the Mediators inform all as to what is, what happened and what it all means. (Is what they DON’T report on beginning to become significant to you?) What is real? What is history? What meaning is there? You can only put together words from letters known to be available. If every “story,” which we take as God-decreed and signified (in some way or another), is presented as having both existence and meaning apart from any mention of God, how long before the world of events is seen as having wholly independent existence, a wide domain perfectly explicable without any god. The most that could be said for a deity in the setting created by autonomous Mediators would be that he’s a deus ex machina which some people rely upon for closure. Do practitioners of Americanity ever consider that there’s a difference between a deity who may or may not exist and a God who is the indispensable presupposition of all intelligible predication? Not if their methods of gathering “news” is to be counted as evidence.

Though Scripture quite significantly tells us that God has appointed just one Mediator between God and man, Christians have come to believe that Christ’s mediation, if it is appropriate in any sphere, is best left confined to just one: the “religious.” The rest of life, despite being in equal need of Christ’s mediation, we demand be mediated to us by pleasant looking people who smile a lot. Though they be ever fronting for products, corporations, special interests and private agendas, we allow an occasional hollow claim to neutrality to serve as proof that they are. They are, in fact, as neutral as Pharaoh when confronted with the claims of Jehovah: “Who is the Lord that I should obey Him?” (You’ll find out.) In a world created by God, who put His signature everywhere, and branded all things as the work of His hands—in a world created by the God who is revealed in man more fully and magnificently (twisted and distorted as man might be by sin), a world where the suppression of the knowledge of God is an arduous, wearying but deemed necessary task, neutrality is a pure impossibility. Everywhere confronted by God, relying on Him for all, we pretend that His claims are open matters in no need of swift resolution. It is clever, when Henry steals Fred’s house and car and sleeps with Fred’s wife, to demand that Fred prove to you, Henry, his prior claim to that which you’ve stumbled upon and usurped, but it’s a ploy destined to become just one more indictment on the day you are called to give account. The point of all this is, simply to say, the people we’ll hire to tell us what is real are people who have either sworn to Henry’s lies or promised Henry never to mention Fred’s true claims.

The importance of the roles played in our societies by these Mediators of reality is difficult to calculate. Perhaps it can be apprehended when we consider that, of all the things which happen in a given day in the created universe, the whittling down of them all to a few which are to be regarded as “newsworthy” inescapably involves discrimination, if not plain censorship. Why, for example, does persecution of Muslims after 911 count as news when the slaughter of Christians by Muslims across a vast swathe of Africa does not? Aside from culling, the designating of some events only as “newsworthy” involves the imposition of judgments concerning relative value (which in turn require a belief, always unstated, in some sort of Absolute value). You couldn’t report everything if you wanted to. Once you limit your content to that which could be conveyed/digested in a “reasonable” amount of time, a huge amount of sifting has already taken place. And we are permitted neither to know nor to view the standard employed in sifting.

It’s rather frightening to think of how naïve Christians continue to be regarding these simple, accessible truths. They “simply” trust that the news being reported IS REAL NEWS, worthy of noting, discussing, being commenting upon—and that it is in fact news without and apart from an agenda functioning as a FILTER, keeping certain KINDS of stories out while insuring that stories of another type, which serve the agenda, get in. The mass media are very, very aware that the infallible way to advance any given agenda is simply to ignore the venerable opposition. Who appointed Al Sharpton as a spokesman from Negroes of the Northeast? Certainly not Negroes of the Northeast. But the time in front of the camera taken up by the Allege-a-rev necessarily means that Thomas Sowell has NOT been sought out nor presented as that voice. When feminism was making its desperately important first moves—as a renewed and invigorated, reality-manipulating force—it was a commonplace to have a story presented as a news item with which women should be concerned. I remember how the major “outlets,” (really censoring stations) routinely called upon a spokesman for the National Organization for Women to provide “the women’s reaction” to such and such a piece. No one was granted the opportunity to vote for the candidate who would be selected as the presumed “legitimate” representative of the newly identified and ever-manipulated power group. This was a power reserved for the media-elite alone.

Thus my daily infuriation, as a topic would be artificially dragged to the fore only so it would serve as a catalyst demanding, in turn, the ushering in of an expert to provide comment or opinion. Not a handful of people, watching the news like lambs led to truth’s slaughter, allowed themselves to question why N.O.W., an organization of 50,000 ugly bra-burners, was put front and center in every American living room to rub in the latest toxin through the brain pores of silly, uncritical humans, while Concerned Women of America, comprised of upwards of two million women, was treated as if it did not exist. But even when CWA spokeswomen were ushered in, networks acted as if they were the soul of fairness by giving CWA views equal time with N.O.W. views (a practice long since abandoned; now the N.O.W. views are the only recognized women’s views). Curiously, the same principles never govern coverage of people like Ron Paul. Does his lawful presence and perseverance in a race mean that his views should be given equal time with those of opposing Republicrats? Ha! CWA, an organization far more likely, if membership numbers in a free society suggest anything, to represent views reflective of the those held by American women, is, AT BEST, treated as though its 40-to-1 membership advantage is of no relevance when the Mediators are selecting a “spokesman” for women.

Because this bias toward a particular agenda is performed cleanly, out of sight, off camera, before the news ever airs; because it is passive, integrated beforehand, treated as if a presupposition, Americans watching “the news” are actually submitting their brains for reprogramming. The ONLY way to watch the news in America, or in totalitarian nations worldwide, is with firm disbelief. But because we have a God-given instinct to connect with those addressing us, to begin relationships with trust rather than cynicism, to graciously grant a presumption in favor of a person’s integrity—because we are programmed to presume that well-spoken people who sound sincere ARE sincere, because we ESPECIALLY regard good looking people as good folk, the manipulation of determining who may be a spokesman for whom becomes just one more tactic in a sea of tactics designed to convey impressions as if these were truth itself. Indeed, truth itself—and the consequence which ought to be bound up with truth alone, viz., epistemological certainty—are, in our culture, judged by the style in which the content was delivered rather than by any objective or verifiable data supporting it. By donning the most elegant attire, by being given prominent places at the information banquets, falsehoods come finally to be accepted as unchallengeable, “Everybody knows that” truths. In reality, nobody even knows what hit them. And OJ Simpson was innocent.

I digress along the path of the above not because I want to persuade my fellow-Christians to shut off TV news, period—even though they should—but rather because I would like my fellow believers, especially parents, to understand that MEDIATORS COUNT—big time. Mediators are those who stand between history, reality and truth, on the one hand, and those who want to know what happened, what will happen, and why. I will resist the temptation to offer a fuller exposé of what the news, by itself, alone, can succeed in doing to the critical faculties of our young people, and blurt instead that perception is what now functions in place of “truth.”

This deserves a pause. People of principle generally seek to take actions in accord with what they know to be true. They try not to be governed by whim, fashion, trend or other baser motives.”Good people” generally seek to act in accordance with what they believe are deep and strong and well-grounded convictions. But when PERCEPTION (the flip side of appearance) replaces TRUTH as the standard for what may be collectively regarded as REAL, the huckster’s job has become infinitely easier. The people can be moved to action more easily, for all they required as a predicate was an impression, a perception.

Alvin Plantinga, Epistemologist Extraordinaire, was taken on his own turf. Andy Kuyvenhoven, without any difficulty, simply by lifting a clause from its context in my speech, and featuring the clause as if it were the whole speech, led those sheep who are moved to action by impression rather than truth, he led them where he wanted them to go. The spin was in. Alvin’s utter brilliance and rigorous training were no match for a huckster, because Alvin had not yet seen that his implicit trust in Mediators had paved the way for a reduction in the standard for warranted belief. If that’s what happens to the best and brightest, what chance do Charlie and Margaret Spinhoven, the Everymen of the CRC, have?

When the standard for regarding something as real falls to mere perception, the satisfying of the craving for truth among the meat-eaters becomes painfully difficult. People who require truth before they act are left on the sideline twiddling their thumbs. The absence of truth means people with the higher standard will not act at all, for they act only when they act upon known truth. Those who have been taught that action is justified on the basis of perception will act when that standard is satisfied. In this way, the “news” turns out to be recruitment programming. Each day, hundreds of millions of Americans pick up the morning paper, and/or come home to turn on the idiot box, asking of the Mediators: “What happened today?” They are then (especially in the evening) treated to technologically sumptuous multimedia manipulation. It is not much of a contest: despite having heard about huge integrity “lapses” by media (organizations and individuals), Americans, helped by the handsome Mediators, recall only the lapses of “religious” or political leaders.

Let me tell you the bottom line. Watching TV news is participating in anti-Christian catechism. Discussing “the news” around the water cooler or on the subway, or over the cubicle, Americans are participating in catechism reinforcement exercises. They leave unasked any question not already in their catechism. The fact that Mediators do not—and arguably cannot—present alternative interpretive schemes as providing more satisfactory answers or conclusions, does not prevent practitioners of Americanity from “believing” that they’ve come away with the truth.

It gets worse—really. Because people are what God—and many Christians—say they are, and they are NOT what secularist evolutionary humanists say they are, the rituals which secularists scorn as vestiges of superstition, are actually inescapable instincts woven into man’s being. Everyone indoctrinates their offspring into their religion, even if it’s a syncretistic patchwork. All people participate in rituals, and all people require those under their authority to participate in rituals—RELIGIOUS RITUALS—which reinforce and bring into relief the us/them power inherent in the religion’s distinctive views. Watching the nightly news and reading the morning NY Times are attendance at catechism, where the whole nation is drilled in the wisdom of the world, and taught to apply the faith, first by becoming sufficiently suspicious of all religions which deviate from the one taught by the major stations.

(What are the odds that, given the innumerable events occurring on any given day around THE WORLD, that three massively funded network news teams, operating independently, would choose the SAME lead story, the same #2 and #3 stories—in fact, what are the odds that all three would carry the same stories in the same position relative to the broadcast schedule, and with the same spin, not simply on one incredible day of coincidence, but every day, 5-7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, year after year? Who has so little grey matter that they could fail to see in these exercises what amounts to inquisitorial control of the interpretation of reality?! Do you think America’s devotion to these anti-Christian catechetical rituals might have something to do with why CHRISTIANS are so trusting toward those blood-sworn to destroy them, so submissive to those dedicated to warring against them and their professed God every step of the way? Do you think it is only in Public Schools that such RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION takes place? EVERYTHING is religious. In a God-created world there could not possibly be any area of neutrality.)

Please understand—I am not speaking by way of metaphor when I refer to commercial television and its news programs as Mediators of an anti-Christian religion. I mean it “literally,” or at least, without a need to grasp for an accounting of any aspect or dimension of what occurs in these rituals (process or content) beyond or beside what occurs in the most rigorous Christian catechetical instruction leading to confirmation. It is Worldview Training, 100%. The water coolers are where on-the-spot-quizzes are given to make sure everyone has been attending catechism. Job interviews, and an increasingly greater portion of on-the-job-training sessions, are devoted to assuring that everyone in the system has adopted to heart the religion of the system—adopted in their hearts the Doctrinal Confessions of Baal and Ashtoreth, learned by rote the Catechism of Unbelief, and sworn themselves to the maintenance of the anti-Antithesis, offering as incense pinches to Caesar expressions of scorn for the Confession of the Churches, starting with its obnoxious notion that there is such a God who chooses and determines things, or who is laughably believed capable of ruling or overruling in the affairs of men. They are tested for remnants of faith in a God who speaks reliable truth, a God who thinks He is right AND that all who oppose Him are WRONG, by definition. When a surviving heretic is discovered, when the insufferable remnants of vestigial Christianity are detected, the body politic immediately goes into self-preservation mode. This requires, above all else, immediate expulsion of the heretic, or, minimally, isolation of the heretic by shunning and deprivation of privilege. In some cases (where the appearance of tolerance and a readiness to forgive are thought to be called for), a subjection to extra brainwashing sessions is permitted as the sanction. By these sessions the Priests of Baal make one more attempt to save the heretic’s soul. After all, if anyone should be found wandering from the path, he who rescues his brother and brings him back to the faith openly confessed, covers a multitude of sins.

But our society, we are told, is NOT religious, has no national catechism, no tests of faith. Uh-huh. And Jackie Gleason is the man in the moon. The religion competing with the Judaeo-Christian faith in the Public Square is a lying, ruthless, carnal beast, filled with insatiable covetousness and envy, lusts run amok, and a set of commandments, rigorously enforced, including a requirement not only to turn the face away from the Christian God, but to turn away from any of His apparent children. They are taught to run away, not only from Christians, but from any other dangerous heretic who believes in such a thing as knowable truth, a single God, a knowable history, or any message which implies that man needs to make any material changes, especially changes which might require suppression or management of those instincts which man has singled out as his compensation for suffering in this vale of tears the true God created.

Of course, by shutting out God and His representatives, the designs and goals of the Humanists are brought into obvious relief. What emerges is a message in which we hear them putting us on notice, warning us of the vicious intolerance that awaits any who even secretly harbor heresies in their hearts. Made patent, too, is their insistence that one god only be acknowledged, praised or worshipped in the Public Square. And the ONLY requirement needing to be fulfilled by any candidate for acknowledged deity is this: that He not bear or lay claim to the Name: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Thus has America, sanctified as an offering to God by our fathers who came here expressly to serve Him, become a place devoted to the eradication of Jehovah worship. While the roots accounting for this dramatic change go back to the Garden of Eden, the forms used for soldier recruitment and the means employed for their training have resulted in a phenomenal acceleration of victories accumulated by the devil. If there is a form more pernicious than the regarding of Mediators as a neutral concern, I don’t know how we might find an accounting for the thoroughness of this change of religion we have witnessed in our generation. We allowed any spokesman, regardless of consideration of their credentials, free access to our children, in schools all day and at home for the balance of hours of life.

We have entered the terminal stage. That is when the means of indoctrination have become invisible, for all are thought to be simply normal parts of the landscape. “Why, that’s not indoctrination! That’s education!” Or, “That’s not indoctrination! That’s entertainment.” Yes. It is. Screwtape and Wormwood are rolling in the aisles.

Posted by Steve on the 5th of February, 2008 at 5:32 am under Uncategorized.    This post has 4 comments.

Are Curves and Straight Lines Interchangeable?

Brilliance, Perception, Lenses, and the Christian Reformed Church



Having come across an article I found to be a true treat, intellectually, I asked Craig, the Go-To-Man at Messiah’s, if he would mind calling Alvin Plantinga to get permission for us to post it on the Net, or perhaps reprint it. While Dr. Plantinga graciously granted permission, for his part (there are other parties who must also grant permission), he brought back unpleasant memories of days in the Christian Reformed Church. It was the late eighties when the spin doctors luxuriated in their power, not only in national and international media, but also in small editorial positions, like that enjoyed by Andy Kuyvenhoven as editor of the Banner, the denominational magazine of the CRC.

Andy was as charming a Dutchman as you were likely to meet; I always found him winsome in person, quick, clever, able to do repartee with most Jews of my acquaintance (a serious compliment). I recall talking with him once outside Calvin College auditorium about feminism or some such. He said, “Communism, Plagiarism, the only -ism we should be concerned with preserving is Calvinism.” I think it can be explained by his having spent too many freezing nights working the oil fields in Alberta, but his deadpan left me lost as to whether he was serious or about to wink. It’s probably that which keeps him in a pleasant file cabinet in my mind, despite the fact that his editorship often infuriated me (and many others).

Andy was of that school of journalism that thinks editors are missionaries, but their mission is to stir. This could be a welcome blessing, or just as easily a disposition Satan would very much like to recruit in his service. To challenge the mostly Dutch immigrant churches of the CRC to think seriously about the meaning of their American past and future, his most infamous cover was a pair of wooden shoes–on fire. That was a pretty hostile swipe at a mere cultural expression. Was he serious, or was he going over the top so that the point could be made without daring to take him seriously? God knows, and Andy knew. I didn’t.

Anyway, as I was saying, he loved to stir the pot and get everyone riled and talking. He was the Banner editor during most of my 15 minutes. It was 1987 and I had just delivered a very well received speech to Concerned Members of the CRC, gathered in a large convention in South Holland, IL. During that speech, I sought to make a point using an illustration. Suppose there is a wayward child, always daring God and parents to discipline him, if for no other reason than to protect the child from himself. The child so frequently provoked disciplinary instincts that at last the parent could not envision continuing the struggle. I compared that child to the CRC’s bureaucrats who were determined to take her down a latitudinarian and death-tempting trail. Envisioning the point where the parent (in this case, the weary conservatives in the CRC) just gives up, I had them saying, “Go ahead. Go ahead. Have your whores at the seminary, your evolutionists at Calvin College. I don’t care anymore. Just leave me alone.”

I’d have to listen to that speech to tell you exactly how, but I can tell you that it sure seemed clear to me that I was talking about executives and teachers at the seminary (and college and at 2850 Kalamazoo Avenue Headquarters) who dared to defy the confessional integrity of Calvin Sem (and other agencies) in a full, frontal assault on the treasured convictions of the money-base in the CRC, flagrantly revising the confessional understanding of Creation—and Scripture’s testimony to the same, as well as the Bible’s general character as a conveyor of God’s will, Word and wonders. This they were doing without benefit of discussion or synodical vote. Rather, they introduced their poison surreptitiously, by means of mere political positioning, and that done dishonestly. They would flatly deny to inquiring supporters that any such changes or revisions had ever been discussed, let alone promulgated, and these denials were issued while they were getting themselves and their cronies into place. After securing those power positions–from which they could not be easily moved– they would suddenly, freely and aggressively confess their agenda, always implying that they undertook the entire subterfuge “for love of our denomination.” I despised them then, and I cannot but despise them now. They were marked by an utter lack of integrity–or brains. I had trouble deciding which accounting would be less offensive, but I was sure it was one or the other: they are too stupid to understand how the devil is using them, or they were being quite deliberate in their plan to seize control of the denominational infrastructure.

Since I always knew what I meant when I mentioned the “whores at the seminary,” I confess to being more than a little shocked when the Banner covered the Concerned Members assembly by declaring in a headline that Schlissel had called all “female seminarians” whores! WHAT!? Where did they get that from? Not content to allow Andy Spinhoven have the last lying word, I called the seminary president and told him of the false report. I asked for the names of every female seminarian so that I might send a personal, handwritten explanation of the truth, along with a humble apology for any grief they may have suffered properly attributable to me. Of course, since I said no such thing, that apology should have come from Andy. Ha!

So why is all this whirring around my brain just now? Because when Craig asked Alvin if we could use his great essay, Dr. Plantinga said he was inclined to allow it “even though Schlissel had called his daughters whores.” There are several instructive lessons in this occurrence. The one that interests me the most is how even an epistemologist could be so unaware of the flimsy basis of what he thought he knew. “But,” you’ll say, “it was simply because he operated on the news he had received.”

Perhaps. But I don’t think so. I think it can be traced to Plantinga’s own feminist inclinations and a choice he made, on some level or other, to remember the events the way he did. Now whether or not that is the accounting for his misperception, I still find it fascinating how even the most aware and brilliant people on the planet, even devout, brilliant Christians, can be so sadly mistaken about realities in front of their noses. When epistemologists can’t sort out what they know from what they think they know, we’d do well to consider the power of the delusion that is at work in feminism. God willing, I’ll give more details in the next turn of the wheel.

steve schlissel

essiah’s

Brooklyn

Posted by Steve on the 27th of November, 2007 at 10:59 am under Uncategorized.    This post has one comment.

We were saying that a student of mine, intending to be humble, said he would be satisfied if he preached only as well as Balaam’s donkey. I had reacted to that by remarking that, were he to attain unto the level of quality found in the donkey’s only recorded epistle, he’d rank in the 95 percentile when measured against typical purveyors of Americanity. We observed, first, what that ass refused to waste time with–she didn’t say, “First, buddy, we must find out if you’re saved.” When you think about it, not even the angel took that approach. There is a lesson in there for all would-be preachers: stick to the text!

We’ll leave the negative example already supplied–how that she-donkey did not waste time or energy seeking to determine the “regenerate stats” of the one to whom she spake. Rather, she simply said what she had to say. I’d count it a near-Nirvana experience if I could go hear a preacher confine himself to saying what he has to say, instead of getting bogged down in the matter of the personal salvation of his hearers.

Before someone asks, “You mean you don’t think that’s important?,” let me assure you that I do. But it is not as important as doing what you are called to do! And that is? Preaching the whole counsel God: seeking to build His people up, tear His enemies down and withal to glorify His name. Far too many pulpiteers today are stuck in the Second Great Awakening. There have been other periods of profit for Christ’s Church, you know, and there’s always so much we, and all God’s people, need to learn–today! God did not call you to make a career out of questioning the genuineness of His friends’ friendship, unless there is clear warrant and a providential requirement to do so. Just remember that a king who thought he had reason to question Abraham’s friendship with God ended up begging Abe to plead with God for mercy upon the king and his whole household.

As I said, we’ll let the donkey’s wisdom speak for itself on the negative side–what she did not say. But on the plus side, this potential poster-girl for women in office warms this preacher’s soul when he considers 1) how perfectly pertinent she was, 2) how she feared not to appeal to personal and/or shared experience to make her point, and 3), how manifestly genuine she was–putting all her emotional resources into the speaking task. And there is even a fourth characteristic which puts her example in the high-bar range for asspiring preachers: as pertinent, personal and emotional as her appeal was, it was delivered not with arrogance but with pained humility.

This is world-class preaching, and we’ll pick up on these points, perhaps to unpack them some, soon. But in the meantime, you’ve just got to re-read Numbers 22:21-41 to see how plain God makes the answer to the question: which was the prophet and which the jackass. Savor verse 29. It’s priceless…

jizz party, ebony foot fetish, spanking dad, desperate housewives photos, hairy gay man, women with sex toys, lesbian asshole lickers, religious fetish, sylvia comic, italian horn tattoo, bbw group sex, monster cock movies, natural amateur, cartoon gang bang, moms with big tits, leather bitch, black on blonde sex, clip cum free group oral rimjob share, nude wife pics, oregon teen missing in brazil, sexy males, getting your belly button pierced, free sex dvd, moms fuck, horny military, nuestra familia prison gang, make a female orgasm, free hentai full length movies, black hairy pussy, big ass boobs, how to rim an asshole, free hustler, jab incest, panda zoo, .hack//sign hentai, dripping hairy pussy, teen lesbian reality porn, next door nikki video, naughty pinay celebs, free asian shemale galleries, lt1 swap silverado, , asian street hookers, girl pornstars, celebrity hardcore, her ear pierced, clit open, cum squirting cocks, dali, blonde vagina penetration movie clips, free sex in the shower, bdsm info, sexy little bo peep, linsey dawn mckenzie shaved, asain scat, young mature, male butt domination, big fat bitch, schoolgirl fucking, bdsm jpg, fuck asian, free vaginal pic thumb nails, face off movie, wwf girls in thongs, rev tech tran, taylor rain fisting, scooby doo cartoon porn, upskirt stories, reality porn video galleries, mom spanking, hot asian studs, cum filled coeds, young nude art, thumb nail gallery teen, pornstar classic, swallow cum from glass, acrobatic flight training, naked shower, big tits smoking pics, a list of derogatory terms for bisexuals, flaming skull tattoo, teen lingerie pics, mature titty fucking, teen titans toons, free nude beach nude, slut creampie, nurse fucked, lez coed, erson cams, midget dating, karups ethnic, oicts of naked celebreties, shirtless male hunks, videl xxx, lindsay lohan boob, forced vital capacity definition, amateur home vids, , arab hardcore, tai chi uniforms, free hentai porn videos, extreme online video, hairy indian girls, anabolic gangbang girl, pierced slut, couple fucking in office, ebony facesitting, sexy lingerie online shopping, beach paparazzi pics, milf saskia, silicone dildo, party tits, spanking cartoon, is it normal for female dogs to hump your leg, outdoor survival kit supplies, comssion fit silicone hose, gay men with big dicks, busty brunette blowjob, the great big enormous turnip, first lesbian experience, fisting bottle, extreme fisting sex, vintage upskirt, latin girls wanting, adult art, bdsm sex slave, naked sex, homade sex toys, office suck, gay teen porn, exotic hot ethnic glamour, tough chicks, sexy bikini pics, asshole card game, zoo magazine cover, , free real cheerleader upskirt, indian butt, long boobs, homemade sex toy, girl swallow sperm, guaranteed loans for military personel, trans hardcore free picks, asain gangbang, brazil beastiality, fat ass big tits melons, blonde lesbians fucking, , blonde shaved, final fantasy 7 tifa nude, incest zip files, fusion coed soccer, fucked in the mouth, smoking pot nude, swollen pussy, hairy teen girls, lady sonia cfnm, nurse sex video, nude male penis, hentai legs, milf phone sex, hairy old pussy, diaper bags for dads, stupid asshole, fine ass bitches, blowjob queens, tiny single women, chinese acrobatic, ebonized speculum, we live together gallery, parents of gay children, , private party djs, bare foot face trample, forced hair cut story, double penetration experiences, candid party girls, blonde nude cheerleaders, huge cock handjob, sucking dads cock, diaper scat, men butt, thick fat cocks, free adult pics, naked indian teens, public nip slip, teen tiny, cameo intimate lingerie, sex boobs, raunchy redheads pussy and ass, free asian pussy tgp, gator boots, , , nude disney characters, gay orgasm, gay monster cock, punk porn, family mutual masturbation, incest mom son stories, full body orgasms, tickling ticklish feet toes tied, white wife black stud, debt to equity swap, cum faced, aussie milf's in nylons, lockerroom cam, threesome ffm stories, extreme porn, gay dad grandpa, fake celeb movies, dual layer dvd burning software, vintage midget car bodies, middle age celebrety, brunettes having sex, jenna haze hardcore, free cum facials, nude handjob, ebony fiesta, girls exposing in public, chicks sucking dick, small penis cfnm, penis, swallow cumshot, female amputees, deputy dick, ciara naked, sexy british secretary, celebreties speak for education, naked skinny teens, cuckold cartoons, how can i catch my dad masturbating, women sucking dicks, patricia heaton boobs, lesbians cumming, schoolgirl wear, , older fat women sex videos, amateur chicks, bitch bus, black teen feet, male porn studs, bbw perky tits, tiny sex skinny videos, free anal, nylon leg sex, reality sites girls nude, free xxx cams, spanking positions, skinny girl blowjob, extreme toons, dildo speculum, busty slut, dog nail quik bleeding, desperate housewives spoiler, suck fest, free yu gi oh hentai, teen redheads, throat infection, ass fuck ffm, pictures, free big tit brunettes, used industrial sewing machine, 31 weeks pregnant, nude japanese schoolgirls, closeups of shaved vulva, gay batman robin cartoons, fantasy art warrior women, ebony tranny sex trailers, bdsm sex, extreme close up, chubby amature, virgin mary tattoo, sylvia saint hardcore pic, anus penetration, ffm in