Sunday, September 30, 2012

California Bans all Therapy to Change Sexual Expression



California has set yet another interesting trend.

If you're a young person who discovers you have have homosexual tendencies, decide that's not what you want in life and want to seek counseling or therapy to help you towards eliminating those tendencies, you are now breaking the law. And so is anyone who provides that counseling.

Governor Jerry Brown, after heavy lobbying from gay activist groups has just signed a bill outlawing any therapy or counseling for minors that attempts "to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex."

While the law is targeted at mental health professionals, in practice under the new law, SB1172, even a young person seeking counseling from his rabbi, pastor, imam or priest on the matter of trying to give up homosexuality is banned. That is, unless the cleric's response is to dissuade them from wanting to eschew homosexuality, hand them a rainbow sticker and tell them to be proud to be gay!

Needless to say, this isn't the sort of thing Governor Brown and his Democrat cohorts want to bother consulting the voters about.

The supposed rationale behind this law is that there are supposedly thousands of gay teens being forcibly 'repaired' by religious wackos posing as therapists to give up homosexuality, and that it may cause the teens psychological damage.

Needless to say, there are no actual figures on this, but I have no doubt that may have happened in a few cases and that gay rights groups have a couple of poster children this happened to ready and waiting in the wings for the media. But instead of simply allowing the victims to sue the parties responsible and allow a court to decide as prescribed by existing law, the Governor and the California legislature has decided to simply take everyone's choice away, satisfy the gay lobby, and keep those campaign contributions coming in.

One interesting question this raises. The Qu'ran is violently anti-gay, and alone among religious scriptures mandates the death penalty for homosexuals.Is California going to ban the Qu'ran, and legally sanction any imam who preaches or sermonizes on the topic of homosexuality? After all, religious ministry is definitely a form of counseling, and this would simply be a logical extension of this law.

Strange days indeed.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Historic Firsts for President Obama
President Barack Obama has set a number of historic firsts as President of the United States...

  • First President to refuse to release his birth certificate to anyone who wanted to see it
  • First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner
  • First President to have a social security number from a state he's never lived in
  • First President to preside over a cut to the credit rating of the United States Government
  • First President to preside over two cuts to the credit rating of the US government
  • First President to ignore the War Powers Act
  • First President to orchestrate the sale of weapons to Mexican drug cartels
  • First President to be held in Contempt of Court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
  • First President to defy a Federal Judge's court order that he cease implementing the 'Health Care Reform' law
  • First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party
  • First President to spend a trillion real dollars in debt
  • First President to spend a trillion real dollars in debt twice
  • First President to spend a trillion real dollars in debt three times
  • First President to spend a trillion dollars on 'Shovel-Ready Jobs' -- and then later laugh about the fact that there was never any such thing as 'Shovel-Ready Jobs'
  • First President to ignore established bankruptcy laws in order to turn over control of major private corporations to his Union Supporters
  • First President to bypass Congress and implement the DREAM Act through Executive Fiat
  • First President to declare the end to America's ability to put a man into space
  • First President to encourage racial discrimination and intimidation at polling places by ordering that these crimes go unpunished
  • First President to sign a Law by an 'auto-pen' without even bothering to be present
  • First President to threaten private insurance companies that they should not publicly speak out on the reasons for their rate increases (Obamacare)
  • First President to tell a major manufacturing company which state they are allowed to locate a factory to
  • First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an Oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN, etc)
  • First President to withdraw an existing Coal Permit that had been properly issued years ago
  • First President to fire an Inspector General of Ameri-Corps for catching one of the President's friends in a corruption case
  • First President to propose an Executive Order demanding companies disclose their political contributions to bid on government contracts
  • First President to appoint 45 'czars' to replace elected officials in his office.
  • First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two-and-a-half years in office
  • First President to hide his medical, educational, and travel records
  • First President to coddle America's enemies while alienating America's allies (although one could argue that Jimmy Carter did this too)
  • First President to publicly bow to Americas enemies while refusing to salute the US flag
  • First President to go on multiple global apology tours.
  • First President to go on 17 'vacations', including 'date nights' paid for by the taxpayer

East vs West


Friday, September 28, 2012

The Normative Power of Law

The Normative Power of Law and the Emotional Power of Drama

Suppose you accidentally click on a link and wind up seeing the raunchiest, most grotesque pornography imaginable.

What do you do?

You probably close the link and perhaps bark at whoever linked you to it.

But do you attempt to have the site shut down?

In all likelihood you do not. And that doesn't mean you approve of the pornography, or even tolerate it.

You don't attempt to have the site shut down, or stir up a rage, because you know it will be futile. The law has spoken on this point; and where the letter of the law hasn't spoken, the actions of thousands of LEO's and politicians have. There will be virtually no action taken against pornography, ever.

So you don't attempt to get the site shut down because the letter of the law, and the actions of those enforcing it, have informed you that it is a situation you'll just have to live with.

The law has become normative. You may not agree with it (or, of course, you might). But you have internalized the teaching of the law, just as a student internalizes the real rules of his school, what he can get away with, what he can't.

The law has taught you what you will have to accept, what you will have to work around, what you will have to teach yourself to ignore and come to peace with.

The law is normative. It establishes our norms.

The law is currently establishing a new norm. Some -- liberals, chiefly, are quick to line up to embrace the new norm.

The new norm is that certain religions -- oh, why be coy with the plural? One religion -- shall have the protection and sanctification of state power.

One religion, and one religion only.

Piss Christ is being shown in New York City again. There are few calls for the exhibit to be banned, and none for the artist to be arrested -- or vigorously investigated to find if there are any breaches in his past to be arrested for.

Because we know the law and the action of government in executing the law would not be responsive. Not even a little bit.

The law is normative. We have learned there is no point protesting Piss Christ, or any thousand "slanders" against the Prophet of Christianity. We have learned that we will just have to live with it, and, if such things offend us, learn to control our tempers, and learn to avoid certain things that might otherwise give us pleasure, like museums.

What norms are the laws currently teaching the most extreme and intolerant members of Islam?

That they must respect other people's rights to engage in free speech? That they must accept that their religion, like any other, is subject to critique, disrespect, and even hate?

No. They are learning that threatening violence, or actually engaging in violence, is not futile at all, but rather achieves the precise goals they seek (a de facto prohibition against Islam or Mohammad, and no other religion).

The law is normative. This is what it is teaching. This is the lesson it is currently filling minds with.

Violence works. Intolerance -- at least intolerance with a brown face -- is justified and even noble.

And Islamic values are superior to American ones. After all, when the two come into conflict, which values win out?

Why would an Islamic immigrant choose American values over Salafist ones when the American government itself (and lesser governments within America) proclaim that Salafism is superior to Americanism?

The law is normative. It teaches. It compels. It forbids. And its compulsions and prohibitions become internalized.

The law in America is championing Salafism.

If our goal is encourage a more moderate, pluralistic, freedom-oriented brand of Islam, why would our government champion Salafism? Why would it emasculate the more moderate style of Islam, and create a Conquering Hero out of Salafism?

The law is normative. The law creates certain expectations of behavior, and rewards those within the law, and punishes those without it.

What expectations of behavior is the law currently creating? That we should all respect each other's rights to express our beliefs, or that we should engage in violent behavior to suppress others' rights, knowing if we destroy enough property, or kill enough human beings, the American government will begin championing our beliefs, making them part of the official legal code of the nation?

A fire dies without oxygen. It is the expectation of government action -- of "winning" a government sanction or concession-- that drives these protests and these riots. And this jihad.

Drama is the anticipation of action. It has been so since before the Greeks. Drama is not the action; drama is the question of whether the action will be taken, and what consequences it will have.

As Hitchcock observed, a bomb's detonation isn't drama; that's just spectacle. The drama comes with wondering if the bomb will be detected before it explodes.

Human beings are driven by drama. Millions watched that stupid car chase today because they didn't know how it would turn out. Millions watched a boring static helicopter shot of a not-terribly-fast-moving car for hours, because they didn't know how it would turn out.

Drama feeds the emotions.

When Rush Limbaugh made a joke about Sandra Fluke being a "slut," the story was kept alive for weeks.

How? Dude called a 30-year-old activist a "slut" for humorous effect. How does that turn into a three week storyine?

Drama. The quip itself cannot sustain interest, but the invented, contrived jumped up drama around it can.

Will Rush apologize? That's a two day story. Now we can anticipate whether he will Stay Strong or Buckle Under Pressure. Drama -- the anticipation of action.

Two days later -- will the people who will never accept his apology accept his apology? Drama -- wondering whether this apology will be deemed adequate by people whose livelihoods depend on their deeming it inadequate.

A week after that -- will sponsors drop his show? Will it drive him off the air? Drama -- will he win or lose? Will MMFA win or lose?

And thus a three-second sentence, without any consequence whatsoever, becomes a storyline for a month.

Drama. Unscripted morality plays for the politically invested.

Now, why has this YouTube video remained a story? Why do people continue to demonstrate over it?

Drama -- will they win? Will they prevail in getting the United States to impose blasphemy laws? To arrest and prosecute the blasphemer?

It's that drama that sustains their passions.

If they knew the answer -- if they knew from the first moment the answer would be "No" -- there would be no drama.

They would realize their actions were futile, and therefore silly, and therefore unmanly, as serious men do not indulge in childish tantrums that accomplish nothing.

But what if there is a genuine hope that their actions could shape US policy, US free speech law, and US law enforcement action?

What if the Administration gave them just enough encouragement to let them know: If you keep this up long enough, we just might wind up tailoring the Constitution to protect your religion?

Drama. It feeds the passions. It creates interest. It invests what would otherwise be a childish (or thuggish) bit of acting up with heroic purpose.

And that's what Obama has done: He has poured the gasoline of heroic purpose onto the flames of anger.

He has invested the demonstrators with stature and nobility.

He could have just said "No." He could have made it plain that in no universe would a US president ever betray the Constitution in order to appease a mob.

Instead, he told them just the opposite: Maybe we will.

And, in fact: We now have.

Will this lead to fewer demonstrations, and less violence, or towards more?

When you reward a behavior, you get more of it.

That seems a well-settled point.

The law is now rewarding those who would break it.

The law is normative.

It teaches.

It's teaching people that terrorism is justified.

It is teaching people that the future must not belong to those who slander The Prophet of Islam.

And it is teaching, finally, that 9/11 was, like any other spasm of violence against those who do not bow to Islam, a justifiable expression of dissatisfaction with United States policy and American values.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Obama's Admin Hypocrisy and Religious Expression


“The Obama administration’s hypocrisy and utter lack of respect for the religious beliefs of Americans has reached an all-time high”

Yes to You

Saturday, September 15, 2012

‘Sin is Sin’ T-shirt Stirs Debate

September 13, 2012 11:59 pm

A Concordia student has gone public about her plans for a t-shirt campaign during National Coming Out Week to counter what she views as the majority student body attitude towards homosexuality.

This issue exploded a few weeks ago when Facebook notes and blog posts written by senior Rebecca Julius went viral. She published her conservative views about homosexuality and plans to wear a T-shirt with the phrase “Sin is Sin” (parodying the “Love is Love” T-shirts worn by many supporters of LGBTQ rights) during National Coming Out Week (Oct. 7 – 13) .

Julius said she never intended for her comments to get this much publicity.

“It has definitely gotten a lot more attention than I anticipated,” Julius said. She said that for her, this is “not so much a political issue,” but rather more of a matter of needing to fulfill a personal conviction.

“I believe that the Bible is the holy, inerrant word of God,” Julius said. “Being that this is a Christian campus, [open support of homosexual lifestyle] is wrong.”

Julius, whose essay “Be a Witness for Truth” appeared on the conservative blog “Exposing the ELCA,” made the following statement about her opposition to Concordia’s acceptance of homosexuality on that blog:

“Too often today, Christians [who] oppose homosexuality and same-sex marriage are too scared to stand up and be a witness for truth, and simply stand back and stay silent…I’m tired of waiting for someone to ask me my opinion before being able to voice my opposition. I don’t want to be mistaken for a supporter just because I am in an environment where the majority supports this sin. So this year, when my ELCA college puts on its pride week [National Coming Out Week] – covering the campus in rainbow flags, putting on presentations and telling stories celebrating one’s ‘coming out,’ and giving no acknowledgement to the truth of my God’s true Word, I want to do more than refuse to participate. I don’t want to hate, I want to make a stand. It is something I feel that God has put on my heart…”

Student Government Association president Meg Henrickson disagrees that Christian colleges should not support LGBTQ lifestyles.

“I think Rebecca and I would differ on what it means to be a Christian college,” Henrickson said.

However, Henrickson is not apprehensive about having people who share Julius’ views on campus, and said that if anything, she’s “excited” about the conversations Julius’ T-shirts will start.

“I think [SGA’s] responsibility is to facilitate discussion,” Henrickson said. “SGA doesn’t want to be a conversation-stopper.”

But while Henrickson is excited about starting conversation, Julius remains disappointed about Concordia’s and the ELCA’s inclusivity on this issue.

“It’s saddening to me that a church that says they stand for God’s truth is so socially and politically motivated,” Julius said. “I think that the ELCA selectively chooses the parts of the Bible that they want to listen to and believe.”

But Concordia campus pastor Tim Megorden said Julius’ platform is equally selective when it comes to scripture.

“People have used scripture in T-shirt form to say exactly what they want it to say,” Megorden said. “So for her to assume that her T-shirt is truthful and that someone else’s T-shirt is sinful is really unfair, I think.”

Megorden also resisted Julius’ idea that having a “socially-motivated” relationship with God was necessarily bad, stressing the importance of God’s call to be in relationship with others, to see God in others, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself.

“When we are in relationship, when we are in family, truth is always not as clear as we would like, but God’s challenge is to always put relationship first,” Megorden said.

Megorden said his relationships with LGBTQ individuals inform his relationship with God, and vice-versa.

“To hear someone condemn my friends is really hurtful to me,” Megorden said. “Rebecca is my neighbor, but [LGBTQ individuals] are my neighbors too.”

Megorden emphasized that love is most important in Christian life, and that it’s not up to humankind to define love.

“I disagree with Rebecca that she is the only one who knows what love is,” he said.

“My answer to that,” Julius counters, “is that if the Bible says that something is a sin, then it’s a sin.”

In contrast to Julius’ biblical literalism, however, Megordan also stressed the complexity and ambiguity of truth, even in the Bible.

“It’s really arrogant for us to think that either one of our stories is bigger than God’s story,” Megordan said. “God is infinitely complex.”

Megorden said that this complexity is mirrored in scripture.

“I’ve preached on the same Christmas text or the same Easter text for thirty-plus years, and every time I read that text I discover something new,” he said.

Despite his firm opposition to Julius’ views, however, Megorden stressed the importance of dialogue and of “creating safe places for our disagreements”.

“I think that she represents a conservative, biblical-literalist point-of-view that is held by some people in the ELCA, but is not representative of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in 2012,” Megorden said. “But is there room for that perspective in our church? Yes.”

Concordia President Dr. William Craft agreed that the school should be a place of inclusivity and open debate.

“Concordia College affirms the dignity and worth of all its students…and the entire campus community, straight or [LGBTQ],” Craft said. “We affirm that this is and should be a place where every student who is accepted here, every faculty and staff [member] who works here, should be safe, should be uplifted and supported, and should be able to think his or her way through big and difficult questions.”

Craft said that this included Julius and others who agree with her.

“This should be a place where people can raise and explore these questions with mutual respect,” Craft said.

Citing the recent visit to the Concordia campus by interfaith leader Eboo Patel, Craft maintained the importance of finding commonalities across differences.

“There are times when colleagues and community members and friends need to say, ‘I’ll see you on the other side of the picket line on this one,” Craft said. But, he said, we must continue to ask the question: “What are the ways in which our convictions overlap?”

For her part, Julius said that she opposes anything that compromises her faith, and is thus skeptical of such statements.

“There’s no compromising God’s Word for me, and that’s it,” Julius said.

“Jesus himself said that he didn’t come here always to love on people,” she continued, quoting Matthew 10: 34-36. “He said he came to bring a sword, to pit brother against brother.”

However, Julius said that her comments are not intended to be hateful or judgmental or even to change the minds of her fellow students on this controversial issue.

“My objective is not to judge or to hold myself up on a pedestal, but to just display the Bible verses on my T-shirt,” Julius said. “I’m not out to judge anyone. I’m a sinner too.”

Julius said she feels that Concordia is “incredibly liberal” and sees her views as being very much in the minority. But she feels her views deserve to be represented and heard.

“I’m not expecting a lot of people to change their minds, but I do think my side should be out there and expressed,” Julius said.

“I just want [other people who hold the same view] to know that they’re not alone.”

Julius’ openness with her views has gotten her a lot of attention, both good and bad. Julius said that she has been receiving emails and messages from people who agree with her views and want to give her their support, but also an outpouring of nasty and negative feedback from Concordia students.

“A lot of people are accusing me of being hateful or judgmental,” Julius said. “But I don’t hate anyone on campus. I hope that [those who disagree] will realize that this is motivated by love.”

Concordia’s Straight and Gay Alliance co-presidents, Collin Sullivan and Geneva Nemzek, said they were informed of Julius’ statements by their supporters on campus long before her comments became widely known by the larger Concordia community. Sullivan said that this allowed them time to formulate their own, unpressured response to Julius’ comments. Part of that response was a video posted by Sullivan and Nemzek on YouTube earlier this month. In the video, entitled “A Very SAGA Welcome”, the co-presidents welcome students to a new year of SAGA activities and events, while also discussing opposition to LGBTQ individuals and their allies and also to the negative messages Julius has received for her views.

“SAGA is an organization that stands firmly by the ‘Love is Love’ slogan,” Sullivan says in the video. “Regardless of the hardships we endure, we are continually impressed with the support that we see.”

“That being said,” continues Nemzek, “it is necessary to keep support as constructive and friendly as possible. SAGA strives to promote equality on a campus-wide basis through love and positivity.”

“This requires that we as supportive Cobbers face adversity with a little extra love and care,” Sullivan said. “Fighting hateful words with hateful words only spreads hate, and that’s certainly not what SAGA is about.”

In further response to Julius’ actions, SAGA plans to distribute a second T-shirt during National Coming Out Week tying together religion and homosexuality.

“We have a very solid stance that the two are not mutually exclusive,” Sullivan said.

Contact Sallie Steiner at

Monday, September 10, 2012

The Race and the Not-So-Swift

Missionary work, Universalist-postmodern style.

Like all conservatives, I've been called a Nazi more than once. But only once in my life did I feel like a Nazi.

I had a job as a church secretary in a congregation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, this country's largest Lutheran body. One of the annual duties we all hated was completing the mandatory statistical reports. This was unpleasant partly because it involved going over a lot of records (total membership, number of communion acts, number of baptisms, etc.). But it was also morally noxious.

Because one section of the forms dealt with ethnicity. It required us to go through the entire congregational roll, name by name, and determine to what ethnic group we would assign each member.

Our senior pastor, a splendid old saint (now gone to his reward) without a corpuscle of bigotry in his body, nevertheless saw no problem in applying the old Jim Crow rule to the problem: "One touch of the tar-brush makes you colored." Thus, if someone casually mentioned to him that one of their great-great-grandmothers had been a Cherokee, the pastor would have us mark them down as "Native American." This looked good on the forms, since the ELCA was then -- and remains today -- desperate to be "diverse."

news item from the Christian Post Reporter the other day, concerning diversity efforts in the ELCA. It says that the denomination's constituting convention (1987) adopted the goal "that within ten years of its establishment its membership shall include at least 10 percent people of color and/or primary language other than English."

At that time their minority membership stood at 2 percent. By 1997, when the 10 years had passed, that percentage had skyrocketed to 2.13 percent. By December 2005 they were able to boast a whopping 3 percent membership of pretty-much-anything-except-Germans-or-Scandinavians.

It would be easy (and pleasurable) to simply laugh at the spectacle of pale, towheaded Midwesterners prowling inner city streets, accosting blacks and Hispanics, begging them, "Brother, can you spare a dime's worth of authenticity?" To picture German ministers and Swedish church basement ladies scratching their heads and asking, "What can we do to make our church more welcoming to fans of hip-hop and salsa?"

But the impulse behind this farce is both serious and symptomatic.

The problem of the ELCA, and of all mainline Protestant denominations, is the problem of any large, wealthy, traditional organization that has lost track of its mission. The ELCA is like Phillip Morris, which now calls itself Altria. It was built on a product of which it is now heartily ashamed.

For Altria, of course, the product was tobacco. For the ELCA, it's the Cross of Christ.

I UNDERSTAND THAT OUR READERS aren't all Christians, and proselytizing isn't my purpose here. I'm simply noting the historical fact that the structure of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America was built on a theological framework, a framework expressly centered on the Cross. And that's a problem for any church organization that wants to be accepted by the right people and approved by the right institutions in 21st Century America.

The ELCA, like other "mainline" denominations, is effectively Universalist today. Universalists, after all, get invited to the nice parties and are almost never made fun of in movies. The ELCA still talks about the Cross, for the benefit of the rubes who actually sit in the pews and pay the bills, but the people in the upstairs offices mostly agree that there's really no such place as Hell. This reduces the Cross to a metaphor at best, an artifact which they'll quietly relegate to the attic once the old people have died off (leaving their money behind).

That comfortable theological slide, however, leaves the church with no important job description. If everyone is going to Heaven regardless of faith or moral performance, there's not a lot of reason for anyone not to just sleep in on Sunday mornings.

This is where Diversity comes in. With Heaven guaranteed to all, the church's only motivation becomes whatever difference it thinks it can make in this world. Multiculturalism being the flavor of the generation, they've re-imagined themselves as a dynamic force in its service.

Unfortunately, the ethnic groups whom they've chosen to honor with their invitation don't seem terribly excited about the opportunity. It appears that they haven't, in fact, been praying each night at bedtime, "Oh Lord, please make me more like the Schmidts and the Larsons."

One suspects they smell a con game. One also suspects they're right.

WHAT MAKES THIS NEW CHURCH mission different from the kind carried out in the first 1,800 or so years of Christianity, is that its motives are purely selfish.

Put it this way -- whether or not you accept the doctrines of Christian evangelists and missionaries of the past, it's hard to deny that their activities were altruistic. If you really believe that people are going to Hell for eternity, it's an act of kindness to tell them how to escape it. Thousands of missionaries suffered horribly and died far from home (often very young) to take that message.

But the ELCA, in its outreach to racial minorities, is motivated by no idea of giving these people anything. Instead they want something from them. In their own estimation, they themselves are "White," as is a blank sheet of paper. To be white, they believe, is to be contentless, without meaning or value. "People of color," on the other hand, are perceived to "have something." They are vibrant and alive, purified by suffering. The ELCA wants to appropriate social atonement through them.

The agenda of the ELCA, in other words, is essentially racist.

And, like all racism (even when self-directed), it's stupid.

About the Author: Lars Walker is a librarian and Norwegian translator, and the author of several published fantasy novels, the latest of which is an e-book called Troll Valley.

Sunday, September 9, 2012

Roadkill Churches

By Lee Duigon, July 19, 2012,

I would like to describe America’s mainline Protestant churches as roadkill, only it’s awfully hard to run yourself over with a car. And yet there they lie, smashed flat on the road of history: and they’ve done it to themselves.

Case in point: the recently-concluded 13th Voices of Sophia chin-wag, in which an unspecified number of self-described “passionate feminist/womanist/mujerista justice-lovers”—or, more simply, idiots—got together to pat themselves on the back for their success so far in destroying the churches that ordained them. (I notice some of you scratching your heads over the term “mujerista.” It really isn’t worth the effort.)

They will not be able to destroy Christianity itself. The true Church, Christ’s people, will always trickle through their fingers. The mainline/flatline denominations, the usual suspects—the Presbyterian Church USA, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, big chunks of the United Methodist Church, and a few others—are in the process of turning themselves into some religion other than Christianity. They still call it Christianity, just as truthfully as the Caesars called Rome a republic. But calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.

The Voices of Sophia—“Sophia” is their “Goddess of Wisdom”—insist they’re not trashing the Christian religion, but only “re-imagining” it. So let’s look at some of the things they’ve imagined. We’ll use their own words, as reported in “The Presbyterian Layman,” July 16.

”Dream the vision, share the wisdom dwelling deep within.” Translation: Why bother with the Bible, when you, yourself, already contain all the wisdom that you’ll ever need? This is not so much feminism as it is “me-ism.”

See “how tenaciously some Christians cling to traditional norms and how ecstatically others find release from them.” Whoopee! Throw away those stodgy old “norms,” those Christian standards of faith and morality—and it’s party time!

God is to be “re-imagined by many names: Baker Woman God, Strong Mother God, Warm Father God, She Who Is and Will Be,” yatta-yatta.

Question! If God is whoever or whatever you imagine God to be, then who or what is supreme—God, or your imagination?

We note in passing how stilted, how dull, how predictable are these imaginings. Any 12-year-old who hasn’t done his homework can come up with more creative stuff than this.

”Denouncing the idea that Jesus was a substitutionary surrogate who had to die for our sins in order to satisfy the demands of a patriarchal Father God.” Could someone please explain to me what remains of Christianity if this, the heart and soul and essence of it, is cast away?

And of course no consuming act of apostasy would be complete without this: “a large group of women gathered on a stage and ‘came out’ as lesbians, prompting a standing ovation and cheers from all who celebrated their liberating act of truth-telling.” Hip-hip-hooray. I guess they’ve borrowed their doctrine from Rasputin: “We must sin in order to be saved.” The only adjective that will suffice for this dazzling display of flim-flam is “satanic.”

“The whole world lieth in wickedness,” wrote the Apostle John (I John 5:19). In the flatline churches where “re-imagining” has taken root, seminary-trained mujerista preachers celebrate wickedness, and cultivate it as you would a garden of exquisite flowers. People by the tens of thousands are stampeding out of these churches. A few valiant souls remain in them, fighting a rear-guard action to preserve their denominations’ allegiance to Christ the King. When they finally leave, there will be no one left but heretics and fools.
And it’s all covered by a fig-leaf of what is falsely advertised as “justice.” What is justice, as the flatliners see it? Abortion. Same-sex pseudomarriage. The destruction of Israel. The destruction of economic freedom. Massive government intervention in our lives to combat the imaginary threat of Man-Made Global Warming. (You can still say “man”-made if it’s something bad.) Coercive redistribution of wealth. The abolition of God’s law.
None of this is Christianity. It is a parasite religion which has usurped the name and outward form of Christianity, and poisoned the soul of Christianity in those churches where it reigns. In the name of Jesus Christ it makes war on God’s Word: by which they blaspheme, taking Christ’s name in vain and using it to bear false witness against Himself.

As the Christians flee apostate churches, the flatline denominations will remain as magnets for the misbegotten. As our civilization deteriorates, their membership may stop declining and actually increase. We may even, some unblessed day, inaugurate a president in the name of Baker Woman God.

Please pray for that day never to occur.

© 2012 Lee Duigon - All Rights Reserved

Lee Duigon, a contributing editor with the Chalcedon Foundation, is a former newspaper reporter and editor, small businessman, teacher, and horror novelist. He has been married to his wife, Patricia, for 34 years. See his new fantasy/adventure novels, Bell Mountain and The Cellar Beneath the Cellar, available on

Saturday, September 8, 2012

The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh

The soldiers of the King feared his name

On the southern coast of England
There's a legend people tell
Of days long ago
When the great Scarecrow
Would ride from the jaws of hell
And laugh (Ahahahahaha!)
With a fiendish yell!

With his clothes all torn and tattered
Through the black of night he'd ride
From the marsh to the coast
Like a demon ghost
He'd show his face then hide
And he'd laugh (Yeeheeheehahahaha!)
'Til he'd split his side!

So the King told all his soldiers,
"Hang him high or hang him low!
But never return
'Til the day I learn
He's gone in flames below--
Or you'll hang
With the great Scarecrow!"

Scarecrow! (Scarecrow)
Scarecrow! (Scarecrow)
The soldiers of the King feared his name
Scarecrow! (Scarecrow)
Scarecrow! (Scarecrow)
The country folk all loved him just the same

He would always help the farmer
When there was no gold to bring
He'd find a way
For the poor to pay
The taxes of the King
Ev'ry man would sing

Scarecrow! (Scarecrow)
Scarecrow! (Scarecrow)
The soldiers of the King feared his name
Scarecrow! (Scarecrow)
Scarecrow! (Scarecrow)
The country folk all loved him just the same

by Terry Gilkyson

Saturday, September 1, 2012

Three Home-Made Acoustic Duet Covers

Just A Kiss, Lady Antebellum, cover:

Home, Edward Sharpe and the Magnetics Zeros, cover:

A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow, Mickey and Maude, cover: