December 18, 2014

Saturday Ramblings 4.27.13

RamblerPlease forgive the tardiness of this week’s Ramblings, iMonks. I am on the road, and where I’m staying does not have internet service. Can you imagine that? No internet! The only thing worse than that would be no Saturday Ramblings. This will have to be short, and hopefully sweet. Much thanks to Adam Palmer and Rev. Randy for their contributions. And, as always, the Synonymous Rambler. Now, shall we ramble?

Have you ever really needed to talk with your pastor, but he was unavailable at the moment? Here’s one man’s way of getting his pastor’s attention. Perhaps the pastor was too busy drinking tea?

Charisma wonders why so many televangelists go to jail. Wow. What a loaded question. Why do you think so many televangelists end up in the hoosegow?

Prayer for Boston is a fleeting thing, apparently. And what do you think of this: “Do you want me to DEFINE prayer? A solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship. Prayer is solemn. Not a ‘like’ on facebook.”

Guess who is trying their hand at evangelism? No, really. Guess. Were you right?  And what do you think of their new “Jesus was hip” advertisements?

Ruh-roh, Shaggy. Seems that the Army has it in for the Southern Baptists. I expect very soon there will be uniformed personnel preventing Baptists from entering their churches on Sunday mornings. We always knew Obama had it in for the Baptists. If only we could get back to the strong Baptist faith our Founding Fathers, like Thomas Paine, had. Now we are living in a land where the United States Army is trying to abolish religion. We are … What? You say it was just a software glitch? Oh … never mind …

There’s a new celebrity cult religion—not worshipping celebrities, but celebrities who are worshipping—that involves, uh, weird stuff. But my question to you is: Who or what is Peaches Geldof? And who would name their offspring Peaches? (Or Geldof, for that matter…)

Ok. Now it’s time for the “low hanging fruit” portion of our show. First up, Ed Young, Jr. is going to the dogs. You know, I could not make this up if I tried.

Then there is the new president of the Misogynists Club, Mark Driscoll. I’ll bet he is a real treat at the dinner table.

And finally, this tale makes a natural follow-up to the Flatulent Demons story. Seems there are some things you can’t do if you are a Chassidic Jew. Burritos are not kosher then, huh?

Happy birthday this last week to George Takai; Luther Vandross; Don “Donny Baseball” Mattingly; Eddie Albert; Glen Campbell; Jack Nicholson; Peter Frampton; William Shakespeare; Albert King; Edward R. Murrow; Meadowlark Lemon; and Carol Burnett.

Do you remember watching the Midnight Special? I can remember this particular show. Yes, I am older than dirt. I remember the times when none of us had buttons on our shirts. Enjoy.

[yframe url=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7rFYbMhcG8′]

 

Comments

  1. Marcus Johnson says:

    My response to the Facebook comment on the Pray for Boston page:
    Do you want me to DEFINE prayer?
    Not really, no, but it’s Facebook, so it’s not like we can really stop you.
    A solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship.
    Yup, that defines the kind of communication we should have with God. Just like how I only call my parents when I need money or after I get money to tell them thanks. I believe that defines what a healthy relationship should be with someone who I call “my Father.”
    Prayer is solemn. Not a ‘like’ on Facebook.
    …said the person who joined a Facebook page for “prayer.” I wonder if it is possible for there to be some middle ground between somber, funeral-like prayer, and flippant, oh-that’s-cute prayer. Seems like there should be.

    • Headless Unicorn Guy says:

      I’ve never been that much of a praying man. Most of my prayer these days comes from participation in the Liturgy.

      • Some good thoughts on ‘prayer’ from the late Dr. Alvin Rogness:

        Why Pray?

        All sorts of reasons can be found for the futility of prayer. Why pray to a God who already knows what we need? He loves us, his children the world over, even when we ignore him. Certainly he cannot withhold his blessings until we remind him or press him. There have been times when I have thought that he has told us to ask for all sorts of things, even trivial things, because he wants us to talk to him. After all, it would be strange for members of the family never to communicate at all with their father.

        So I pray. I ask for health for myself and for my dear ones. I have along and assorted
        catalog—safety, security, guidance. On a Sunday morning I join the prayers of the congregation: “defend thy church…give it pastors according to thy Spirit…preserve our nation in righteousness and honor…sanctify our home…comfort all who are in sorrow and need….” I assume that God wants all these values for us long before we ask for them. I also assume that he will not, in some sort of pique, let these blessings lie in his celestial warehouse undelivered unless we ask for them. Yet we pray.

        There are other difficulties. We pray for health, and health ebbs away. We pray for safety,
        and a dear one is struck down in the streets. We pray for the end of war, and wars grind on.

        I dare not put limits on God. What he may do or be able to do in the wake of my prayers, I
        leave to him. A friend of mine, more cautious than I, said, “Prayer does not change things; it changes you.” Of course it changes me. I am in God’s presence when I pray, and am therefore exposed to him and to the powers that surge from him. But I must disagree with my friend. I believe that in some mysterious way prayer also changes things—maybe the chemistry of the body, the hearts of people I pray for, the turn of events, even the shape of history. How this can be, I cannot know. But God has invited me to pray; in fact ordered me to pray. He has assured me that I can dial him direct, and the line will never be busy. The more we pray, the more likely it is that we will spend more time thanking him than requesting favors from him.

        • Marcus Johnson says:

          Is this just a long way of saying that prayer is not a means to get things from God, but to get closer to God, and that, sometimes, we get things from God, but it might be non sequitur, because the point of prayer is relationship building, not stuff-getting?

          Actually, that was a lot of commas…

  2. I don’t understand the “original hipster” ad. How was Jesus the original hipster? What does that even mean? What aspect of hipster-ness did Jesus embody or live out?

    Usually these ads make me groan, but I’m not even sure what it is I would be groaning at in this case.

    Church advertisements are usually pretty pointless anyways. It’s not like anyone hasn’t heard of Jesus at this point, you know? The only thing they can really do is build a church’s brand…and personally, “building a church’s brand” is a phrase that makes me throw up in my mouth a little.

    • Marcus Johnson says:

      Usually these ads make me groan, but I’m not even sure what it is I would be groaning at in this case.

      Could it be that you are groaning because this strategy is not intended to present the gospel, as it is intended to sell and market the church. This is a marketing technique, with Jesus as the ultimate celebrity endorsement.

      That being the case, I have a few suggestions for how we can take this just a little further:

      1. The Church should pray for Jesus to return in bodily form, so we can do a proper photo shoot. Make Him wear Birkenstocks. Get Him some shades. Show Him drinking a Pepsi.

      2. Do like Mark Driscoll, and re-invent Jesus as the Brawny paper towel guy, complete with chest hair and a low tolerance for “weak” men and “uppity” women. Do a preview of the Second Coming as the halftime show for the Super Bowl (unlike Beyonce, when the demo is over, shut off all the power to the stadium, so chaos may reign).

      Take these as mere suggestions. In any event, if Catholic evangelism teams come to my house, I will be more than happy to chat with them, if they don’t mind that I will refuse to wear pants for our conversation (it’s only fair; I have the same rule for the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the pizza delivery guy).

      • Hahahahaha…wow. Marcus wins the Interwebz today.

      • Maybe it’s because it’s the diocese of Brooklyn, so a New York ad agency is going to be trying to be cool and hip and down with the groove, hep cats – but that ad does make me groan. You can see why we Catholics are so bad at evangelisation, can’t you? And that going door-to-door thing isn’t new, it’s what groups like the Legion of Mary used to do, so there’s no need to re-invent the wheel. But at least it’s nice to see it brought back.

        Now, if you want native South American tea-drinking pastors of religion, I can recommend one to you – though I have no idea if mate is hallucinogenic or not :-)

        Regaring Peaches Geldof and the OTO – first, that story comes from “The Daily Mail”, an English newspaper which never saw a hysterical ‘shock, horror’ headline it didn’t like. Second, yes, the OTO is associated with Crowleyism, but by modern standards he’s rather tame (although he was very sex’n’drugs and would have been rock’n’roll had it been around in his time). It’s more “Western Esoteric Tradition” and less “Satanic Sex Cult” and I very much doubt that the celebrities mentioned are going any deeper into it than the fashionable flirtation with alternative spiritualities that flourished in the late 1890s which is where it arose.

        Secondly, as to who Peaches Geldof is or where her name comes from – she’s one of the daughters of Bob Geldof (of Live Aid fame) and the late Paula Yates. Geldof is a Belgian name, because Bob’s grandfather was a Belgian immigrant to Ireland. Her sisters have the same kind of showbiz names. Though regarding scandalous celebrity behaviour, the most amazing thing may be that she’s married to the father of her two children :-)

      • Headless Unicorn Guy says:

        This is a marketing technique, with Jesus as the ultimate celebrity endorsement.

        Follow-the-CELEBRITY Endorsement.
        Right up there with the Kardashians and Peaches Geldorf…

    • That original hipster ad is just plain strange.

      I am always amazed at the number of people who truly think the church will grow if we can just convince people that going to church is cool. Thus, the silly programs, silly ads, and the just plain silliness. People aren’t avoiding church because they don’t know it exists. They are avoiding it because they don’t see the point.

      • Headless Unicorn Guy says:

        And what happens when something else comes along that’s Hipper and Cooler?

        (see link re Peaches Geldof…)

  3. Headless Unicorn Guy says:

    There’s a new celebrity cult religion—not worshipping celebrities, but celebrities who are worshipping—that involves, uh, weird stuff.

    The OTO? Occult society from 100 years ago? Magick with a K? Creepy Crowley rides again?

    Somebody cue up Ozzy Ozborne’s “Mister Crowley”…

    But my question to you is: Who or what is Peaches Geldof?

    A *CELEBRITY*, what else? Famous entirely for Being Famous. Now with Mighty Magickal Powers.

    And as for being a Crowleyite, well, the Law of Thelema — “DO WHAT THOU WILT!” — and Total Sexual Indulgence are always going to be popular. I think we’re seeing a 21st Century equivalent of the 18th Century Hellfire Clubs for bored young Aristocrats.

    And all I can close with is this appropriate quote:

    “I thought I had a most morbid imagination, as good as any man’s. But it appears I have not.”
    — Aliester Crowley, commenting on the occult antics of Jack Parsons and L Ron Hubbard

  4. Regarding “celebrity cult religion”: to paraphrase sociologist Peter Berger, we live in a culture of extraordinary ‘credulity, where people are capable of believing anything. And I might add, especially celebrities. Crowley was a shameless self-promoter and huckster, inventing a religion/spirituality as he went along and putting himself at the center (infamously anointing himself the Great Beast 666, no doubt to provoke the ire of censorious Christians), and it’s fitting that his religion should attract the same sort of adherents as Scientology, which after all is a religion invented by a science-fiction writer.

    Peaches Geldof is apparently Saint Bob Geldof’s daughter; Geldof was first known as the front-man of the 1970’s New Wave Irish rock band Boomtown Rats (check out their one hit single “I Don’t Like Mondays,” a cute song about a homicidal adolescent girl who makes her siblings “stay at home” on Monday morning instead of going to school) who subsequently became internationally known for organizing Live Aid, the charity organization, and was dubbed Saint Bob for his efforts and political activism. He has also been nominated for the Nobel Peach…I mean, Peace Prize.

    • Headless Unicorn Guy says:

      Crowley was a shameless self-promoter and huckster, inventing a religion/spirituality as he went along and putting himself at the center (infamously anointing himself the Great Beast 666, no doubt to provoke the ire of censorious Christians), and it’s fitting that his religion should attract the same sort of adherents as Scientology, which after all is a religion invented by a science-fiction writer.

      Crowley has also appeared in various works of fiction under various names, usually as a Bad Guy.

      And there is a Scientology connection. One of Crowley’s followers was Jack Parsons, a (literal) rocket scientist at JPL in Pasadena during the Forties. His apprentice in the Occult was one L Ron Hubbard, who later went on to found Scientology. Unauthorized biographies of Hubbard make the claim that Hubbard remained a Crowley fanboy, Elron’s official portraits show him posing in similar pose to Crowley’s official portraits, and the “Scientology Cross” resembles one of Crowley’s in style.

      • At least Crowley Did The Research when he was putting his society together – the writings may be turgid in places, but he did really study the various traditions and put together a coherent (if self-aggrandising) philosophy, unlike his American imitators and rivals who slapped together trendy sex’n’drugs cults to attract the wealthy, famous and gullible and demanded nothing more of them than paying out large sums for ‘initiation’ (I’m thinking of Anton LaVey who was a very canny businessman when it came to ‘Satanism’).

        Though my favourite Crowley anecdote – which I’m sure I told on here before – is about the fall-out from the power struggle within the Order of the Golden Dawn. Crowley tried to stage a coup to take over leadership, and made impressive pronouncements (and veiled threats) about his mighty occult powers and what would befall those who tried to prevent him from claiming the leadership and occupancy of the London offices.

        W.B. Yeats (yes, the Irish poet) was secretary of the group at the time and opposed to Crowley. Crowley declared magical (or I suppose I should spell it ‘magickal’) but Yeats won by the simple expedient of – changing the locks (and calling the cops on him when he turned up and tried to get in) :-)

        Crowley later got revenge by writing a fantasy magic novel called “Moon Child” in which an Anglo-Irish would-be poet called “Gates” comes to a very sticky end when challenging the Authorial Self-Insert stand-in for Crowley in a similar occult society tussle.

        • Yes, Yeats was quite enamored with the occult; he was especially impressed with the spookiness of a visit he once paid to the home of C.G. Jung, who besides being the renowned inventor and practitioner of depth psychology, more than dabbled in channeling cthonic spirits and practiced a kind of psychological alchemy.

          Many eminent European intellectuals and artists associated with the Order of Golden Dawn during that era; magic was in vogue among the literati, and now it’s trickled down to the masses. The secrets of the occult have gone viral on the internet, and the teachings formerly handed down in esoteric rites from master to student are spread indiscriminately like so much pollen, for a nominal fee.

        • Headless Unicorn Guy says:

          At least Crowley Did The Research … unlike his American imitators and rivals who slapped together trendy sex’n’drugs cults to attract the wealthy, famous and gullible and demanded nothing more of them than paying out large sums for ‘initiation’ (I’m thinking of Anton LaVey who was a very canny businessman when it came to ‘Satanism’).

          Yeah. Anton La Vey. A “name to conjure with” during his heyday in the Seventies and Eighties. Former carny who found his big-scoring con among the Rich & Famous. Believed utterly by two groups of people — the Peaches Geldofs and Tom Cruises of his day, AND Born-Again Bible-Believing Evangelical Christians who peed their pants and started Spiritual Warfare frenzy at the mention of his Mighty Magickal Powers. (You would not believe the fear that just the mention of LaVey’s name invoked among the Fundagelicals I encountered during those days.)

          In Cornerstone’s book-length expose of Mike Warnke and The Satanic Panic, they include an interview with Anton LaVey in an appendix. What comes across is an aging man (LaVey) who wanted to be Remembered for Something.

          Crowley later got revenge by writing a fantasy magic novel called “Moon Child” in which an Anglo-Irish would-be poet called “Gates” comes to a very sticky end when challenging the Authorial Self-Insert stand-in for Crowley in a similar occult society tussle.

          Revenge-fantasy fic with Author Self-Insert; I’ve seen that so many times from Dante’s Inferno to Left Behind Volume Whatever to BAD fanfics.

          You remember (PLUG!) that fanfic I assisted on, My Little Balladeer (AKA Wellman’s “Silver John”/My Little Pony crossover, AKA “Ponies vs Crowley/Magic vs Magick(TM)”)? Well, the guy who did most of the writing described the real Crowley as “a con man, probably with actual skill in hypnotism and persuasion”. And not being able to tell how much of him was for real and how much of him was self-hype.

          • Yeah, a lot of what Crowley did was in reaction to his upbringing as a member of the Plymouth Brethren (if I recall correctly, the very strict branch called the Particular Brethren) so it was a combination of getting back at the strict morals of his childhood and the general occult craze at the end of the 19th/start of the 20th century.

            He was part-conman and part-self persuaded that some of it was true, and like I said, at least he did make a study of the esoteric traditions he claimed descent from, unlike modern populist New Age stuff which is fluffy marshmallow when it comes to being founded on anything like a definite point of view.

          • Is it as good as “Cupcakes”? I’ll check it out!

          • Headless Unicorn Guy says:

            Yeah, a lot of what Crowley did was in reaction to his upbringing as a member of the Plymouth Brethren (if I recall correctly, the very strict branch called the Particular Brethren) so it was a combination of getting back at the strict morals of his childhood and the general occult craze at the end of the 19th/start of the 20th century.

            Crowley was raised STRICT Plymouth Brethren? The same Plymouth Brethren who gave us the Secret Rapture and all the End Time Prophecy Checklists ever since?

            Well, when a strict preacher’s kid flakes out, he goes one of two ways: Marilyn Manson (total rebellion) or Fred Phelps (double down and twice as strict). Looks like Creepy Crowley went the Marilyn Manson route and then some — what can you say about a guy whose stated goal in life was to become “the Wickedest Man in the World”?

            Is it as good as “Cupcakes”? I’ll check it out!

            The fact you know of “Cupcakes” waves some big red alarm flags in my face. (To non-Bronies, “Cupcakes” is an Infamous My Little Pony Torture/Snuff fanfic. It has a dedicated page on TV Tropes, and is THE Infamous Sick-o Fanfic of the fandom.)

            Regarding My Little Balladeer, just go to FIMFiction.net and enter the title in the search bar atop the FIMFic webpage. It should be first in the search results.

          • Thanks! Come now, “Cupcakes” wasn’t so bad. The slasher / serial killer theme was all in good parodic fun. No rapey stuff, like in “Sweetapple Massacre.”

          • Headless Unicorn Guy says:

            Gerald, you’re scaring me more and more with your knowledge of the dark side of Brony fanfics.

            (Why not go “Rainbow Factory” and make it three-for-three?)

          • There are three “Celebrian”- level fics in Bronydom? Now you’re scaring me :-)

            “Celebrian” is, as Headless puts it, “THE Infamous Sicko Fanfic” of “Lord of the Rings” fandom and this is definitely, uncompromisingly, by no means an endorsement of it. Don’t rush out to find and read it!

          • Headless Unicorn Guy says:

            There are three “Celebrian”- level fics in Bronydom? Now you’re scaring me :-)

            Three I know of. Fortunately, you won’t find them on Wikipedia, but you can look them up on TV Tropes.

    • Headless Unicorn Guy says:

      Peaches Geldof is apparently Saint Bob Geldof’s daughter; Geldof was first known as the front-man of the 1970?s New Wave Irish rock band Boomtown Rats…

      So Peaches is a CELEBRITY(TM) in the same way as the Kardashians — inheritance from a Celebirty Daddy. (In the Kardashians’ case, Daddy was one of OJ’s defense lawyers, so he — and his daughters — are CELEBRITIES(TM).”)

      • She’s also the daughter of the late Paula Yates who was a TV presenter here, who died from an accidental overdose after the man she left her husband (Bob Geldof) for, Michael Hutchence of INXS, died in an auto- asphyxiation accident. Both tragically young. Peaches found her mother dead, so I’m inclined to cut her some slack. Likewise Bob – what did he do about the very young daughter his adulterous wife had with her lover? He took her home to her 3 sisters & brought her up as his own, as her parents were both dead. There’s a familiar grace in that. All 4 sisters do however have ridiculous names – Fifi Trixibelle, Peaches Honeyblossom, Pixie, & their half sister Heavenly Hiraani Tiger Lily….full on celebrity nonsense.

  5. Headless Unicorn Guy says:

    Then there is the new president of the Misogynists Club, Mark Driscoll.

    New?

    • Marcus Johnson says:

      More like “re-elected.”

    • I read the article on Driscoll. He seemed to treat both sexes fairly. Proverbs does talk about a nagging wife in terms of constantly dripping water (Prov. 27:15) and says it is better to live in a desert (21:19) or in the corner of your attic ( 21:9, 25:24) than with a contentious woman

      He took men equally to task for their failures and avoiding responsibility and urged them to love their wives.

      When I fail at loving my wife, providing for my family, or being a good father, then I am in violation of Eph 5 and other pertinent Scriptures. Any good preacher will call me to account, and rightly so. Why is it ‘Misogynist’ when Driscoll applies the same Scriptures to wives who are disrespecting their husbands? Or do women get a pass on following these Scriptures because ‘we know better nowadays.’

      Jeff, are we to the point where we call people names when we disagree with them? I am not a big fan of Driscoll’s, but if you are going to publicly charge a preacher of the Gospel with such a sin, I suggest you be ready to back it up, or be guilty of breaking the 8th Commandment. ( bearing false witness against your neighbor.)

      • I agree Patrick. And unrelated- good for the Catholics. A little non-pushy meet and greet door to door can work well.

      • Patrick, I saw a video of Mark Driscoll’s speech (sermon?) on the Ephesians 5 verses. One of my biggest complaints with Driscoll is that he leaves out verses that should not be left out. For example, in the video he makes a big deal about wives submitting to their husbands but omits “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the church.” He also began his lesson at Eph 5:22, and NOT at verse 21, which says, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (That’s the NIV, which has “submit” in the command form—the ESV translates it “submitting” but it’s still “to one another out of reverence for Christ”.)

        In a men’s video series called “Stepping Up: A Call to Courageous Manhood” Driscoll says that men are God’s image and glory—apparently getting this from 1Corinthians 11—but failing to refer also to Genesis 1, where God creates man(kind) in his own image, male and female he created them. And Driscoll fails to point out too that the 1Cor 11 verses are talking about hair styles, and whether or not to wear hats.

        The video from Driscoll’s recent speech (sermon? lesson?) can be found here:
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/mark-driscoll-nagging-wives-torture-megachurch_n_3157069.html

        • Also, Proverbs says a lot of things that we can all cherry-pick from. But in the video, when Driscoll cherry-picks verses, he is downright demeaning to women, and not very loving as Christ loves the Church—which should be a lesson from Ephesians 5, the very chapter from which Driscoll is preaching.

          Proverbs has a few things to say about us men and our behavior too, and Driscoll omits those verses. To me, Driscoll keeps on demonstrating that he’s a bully.

        • I think it is just his style. No one complained about him being a bully when he told the young single men in his church that they would not take the city for Christ ” with their pants around their ankles, a bottle of lotion in one hand, and you know what in the other.” After the seminar or sermon he handed out two stones to each guy, symbolizing getting their balls back.

          ( You can read this here, I believe:http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Reformission-Rev-Leadership-Innovation/dp/0310270162/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1367106972&sr=8-15&keywords=mark+driscoll+books

          We are awash in feminist ideology and I think often overly sensitive in these areas. Men can be preached at, criticized from the pulpit and blamed for the condition of the world, but heaven help the preacher that calls women to account for their sins from the pulpit. He will ALWAYS at the least be called on to make sure the message is balanced, meaning that they have to preach the law at men in the same breath too. (This criticism never surfaces when pastors call men to account.) Most often he will be pilloried by the women, and those men who are afraid of their wife’s wrath.

          Talk about a wife’s duty to submit to her husband’s leadership (Eph 5) and you get a million voices ‘reminding’ you of the Husband’s responsibility too. ( Or denying that the Scriptures even teach that.) Talk about a man’s duty to love his wife and sacrifice for her well being, and you get a hearty ‘Yea and Amen! with no ‘well meaning caution’ about being ‘balanced.’

          It gets old after awhile and I think its an example of where the culture has infected the Church

          • Patrick, I guarantee you that if I had known about the message you mention here, I would have pushed back on Driscoll’s offensive lecture to men. We have also taken on Doug Wilson for his “Esau” theology of masculinity. Actually I think Driscoll bullies men much more than he does women, because it has long been his mission to reach young men. I tried to encourage our readers to keep this in mind in the post Driscoll, Masculinity, and the Missional Church, in which I said:

            It may be a “chicken and egg” thing, but I wonder which came first for Mark Driscoll—his passion to reach men, especially young men (the hardest demographic to incorporate into a church family), or his strong complementarian theology. However it went down, he has consistently offered a potent blend of patriarchal teaching and practical confrontation of men to come to Christ and practice a robust faith.

            Frankly, the guy still creeps me out, and I don’t think he is promoting Jesus as much as he is a moral agenda that is law-based and reinforced by leadership methods that look way too close to abuse. Even a clock can be right twice a day. I find little reason to recommend him.

          • Chaplain Mike, and Patrick,

            A few months ago internetmonk (I think it was you, Mike) put up some links to sites about spiritual abuse. One of them was Blog on the Way, by Jeri Massi. You can find it here:
            http://jeriwho.net/lillypad2/

            She deals mostly with abuse within independent fundamental baptist (IFB) churches, and has some harsh things to say. I bought her book, Schizophrenic Christianity: How Christian Fundamentalism Attracts and Protects Sociopaths, Abusive Pastors, and Child Molesters and I find her writing more like Michael Spencer than anything else.

            I’m not saying that Driscoll falls into this category (yet) but I see a pattern of bullying there, and a lack of accountability, and if it were in my church I would call it out as abuse.

          • I don’t think he is promoting Jesus as much as he is a moral agenda that is law-based and reinforced by leadership methods that look way too close to abuse.

            Which, at the end of the day, is the logical end of Calvinist sanctification: Puritanism, with a few “untouchables” at the helm setting the agenda for micromanaging their sheep. 3rd use of the law to the extreme. Calvin did it. The Puritans did it. Celebrity neo-Reformed are doing it today. Some things will never change.

          • Headless Unicorn Guy says:

            We are awash in feminist ideology and I think often overly sensitive in these areas.

            And pushing back at female-supremacist ideology with male-supremacist ideology is any better?

            Communism begets Objectivism.

            As for Driscoll himself, the guy sounds incredibly obsessed with sex — his versions of Song of Songs and Esther, his “Pornovisions” (“I SEE THINGS…”), sexual fantasies breaking through into a “Biblically”-endorsed form. Never mind that an autocratic CELEBRITY megachurch pastor cannot show any weakness and has to self-medicate and self-treat his own problems, especially when same megachurch pastor/dictator has bragged of “throwing them under the bus”. I think this guy’s going to crack up and go down in a spectactular scandal at some point in the future.

      • First women were told to put out to their husbands or they will go find someone who will. Now women are being told to quit “nagging” (which will be interpreted as the slightest complaint) or their husbands will walk out the door. That is not all Driscoll’s fault, but he is not demonstrating discernment in how his words will be received. Just sound mean, tough and macho to keep his followers happy.

        As we have taught our kids from day-one: the tone or manner in which you say something conveys more meaning than what you say.

        Also, two extreme statements directed in opposite directions do not result in balanced teaching. That’s not even a paradox.

      • Brianthedad says:

        I do think his charge of men today being little more than grown kids rings true. Many of them strut about, hanging on to adolescent behavior, the hyper-aggression, the obsession with sex…. Oh wait…

        • Headless Unicorn Guy says:

          The Mickey Mouse T-shirts, the kewpie-doll fauxhawks, the puka-shell necklaces…

      • Marcus Johnson says:

        Perhaps “misogynist,” as a term, is not comprehensive enough to describe Driscoll; the term tend to be interpreted as meaning “bullying toward women.” Driscoll’s teachings are underscored by a need to affirm a hyper-masculine, male dominant ideology. Under that definition lies misogyny and, under that definition, we find an affirmation of this very immature, insecure sense of masculinity, one which conceives of Jesus as though he is the Brawny paper towel guy. It is a creation of gender roles that has no place in the church, and was created to make men feel good about being immature, nothing more.

  6. Sir Bob is also adoptive dad to Heavenly Hiranii Tiger Lily, orphaned daughter of singer Michael Hutchence. Peaches is a boring name in comparison!

  7. cermak_rd says:

    I think it’s nice that Ed is hosting dog adoptions at his church. Dogs make great companions for people, and there are, unfortunately, a lot of unwanted dogs out there that could use homes. By hosting dog adoptions, the church is letting people know that shelters exist and are a great source for a new best friend. How is hosting dog adoptions not about doing a mitzvah for both the animals placed and the humans who now have animal friends?

    • Yeah, as far as evangelical circus antics go, I think this one’s pretty harmless. I mean, Lutherans and Catholics have services where people can get their pets blessed.

      • Richard Hershberger says:

        I won’t say that no Lutheran church have pet-blessing services, but this isn’t really a characteristic Lutheran thing. The Anglicans seem to go in for it, though. On a related note, a local Methodist church is having a blessing of motorcycles. The stated reason is so that their riders will go under God’s protection. The implication is that unblessed riders are on their own, at least as far as God is concerned.

        • And those of us in cars/trucks are somehow covered automatically? Aside from the vehicle roof?

    • Yes a mitzvah. We need more that is the “church” today. We so need to get bad the roots of the tree

    • I suspect that saying this out loud is going to get me in trouble (and I’m even a dog lover), but I wish the evangelical church could find some way to spend more energy encouraging and directing the love and rescue instinct of its members towards children rather than animals…isn’t the church supposed to help orphans? Does that include children whose parents have basically “checked-out” of the family, leaving them emotionally and spiritually adrift and alone? How about helping the families who have adopted children, with their own special struggles? Heck, friendly dogs in need of rescue could even be involved in the process.

      Compared to adding a dog to a family, dealing with children who’ve not had a great beginning to life is hard. Most people don’t want to deal with any other than their own children. People are reluctant to spend a few hours a week dedicated to an abandoned child, much less restructure their entire lives around taking care of one for decades. Could the church provide useful information and tools to its members on how to effectively help such children in need? How to open one’s lives in love to one in need? How to support those who take on this particular task? And I’m not referring to aiding children in far-away lands, where you send a monthly check for someone else to take care of the children there, I’m talking about the ones within a 10 mile radius of one’s own church. Neither am I referring to starting a brand new ministry specific to that church; but more like informing and teaching the congregation about how to participate in things like Big Brothers, etc — i.e., how to work within the systems as they stand.

      At the last evangelical church I attended, I witnessed the crumbling of a marriage of one its leaders whose family was struggling with the unique difficulties associated with the two boys adopted from a foreign orphanage…the church seemed to have no clue on what to do, and counseling by the pastor proved disastrous. At the same church, they shut down a thriving extreme sports youth ministry that was successful at drawing young boys in the community whose parent/s were substance abusers, where the only attention the boys received from the parent/s was negative and hostile. The dissolution of that ministry was a bad thing all around; one of the motivations for ending it was that the “quality” of the kids hanging around on ministry night was giving the church a bad reputation.

      Any parent knows that children can try one’s patience even in the best of times. Misbehaving, angry, frustrated, possibly abused children are difficult to deal with, much less approach with love. I wish American evangelicalism would get off its ‘Here’s how you improve your own life” track and try one that teaches how to more effectively focus on and help ease the lives of others.

      • Brianthedad says:

        +1 +1 +1! Can we encourage or support or minister to people who are into people adoptions? Puppies are just cuter, easier to discipline, and more acceptable to put into a crate when they are irritating. People adoptions and foster care are hard, and some churches have ministries geared toward supporting adoptive and foster parents and encouraging adoption. If I hear one more person remind me their pet is a ‘rescue’… Argh! I like dogs as much as the next guy, and have owned them, but they are animals! They’ve become idols in our culture.

  8. DRIP…DRIP…DROP…DRIP

    LOL

  9. Leave to Driscoll to capture the essence of the gospel. Love your bride as Christ loved the church – except when…Does Christ not love us when we complain? I guess I need to ask that cautiously.

    I recently heard from a missionary regarding many stories of a loving Jesus coming to Muslims in dreams. Muslims get a loving Jesus, and Christians get a Jesus which looks and sounds like Driscoll. I guess I’m happy for the Muslims, but I guess that means we’re screwed.

  10. Why do so many televangelists go to jail? Obvious answer: they break the law. The next obvious answer; lack of accountability and self-criticism of “God’s annointed”. I suppose the accepted answer is persecution. Christians will argue that evolution couldn’t happen, because things left on their own degrade from order to disorder. But then they turn around and say let leaders alone and trust their conscience and self-governance, and things will get better and better. Sounds…what’s the word…liberal? Whatever happened to sin?

  11. Doggie ADOPTIONS! Phew! I expected something far worse from that Ed Young headline.

    • I suppose it couldn’t be any more Christ-less than the rest of his “ministry.” At least this should do society a bit of good.

  12. Randy Thompson says:

    I am utterly amazed at how many people here not only know who Aleister Crowley is, but actually know something about him.

    Another former member of the Golden Dawn was Charles Williams, the Christian poet and novelist, and friend of C.S. Lewis. No Crowley connection, though.

    • Oh, he’s famous. A lot of us learned about him through Ozzy. But one of my old landlords had all his books in the original editions. “Moon Child” was boring, but I remember liking his book of poetry, “White Stains.” (You can read this on the internet. One poem begins, “A strong man’s love is my delight…”) As for the magick stuff, the idea of it is more interesting than the actual writings.

      Anybody interested in Anton LaVey (ne Howard Stanton Levy) should read the Bay Guardian / Gnosis expose, “Is the Church of Satan going to hell?” I saw it on the internet somewhere…

    • He’s hugely influential in modern mysticism, if you engage with any media that has occult themes his ideas are all over the place even if not named as being his. I think I have a set of the Golden Dawn tarot cards around here somewhere from when I was studying modern occultism (academically). His historical occult ideas I’m not very clear on but they evidently lend themselves to a sort of Kabballa/Gnostic, christian(note small c) mystic mash-up that’s popular in a lot of fiction that uses occultism.

  13. “Crowley’s motto — perpetuated by OTO — was ‘do what thou wilt’. And it is this individualistic approach that has led to a lasting fascination among artists and celebrities”.

    Sounds like Ayn Rand.

    • Randy Thompson says:

      You’re right. It does sound like Ayn Rand.

      This conjures up a weird socio-political mash-up of Tea Party libertarianism, ritual magic, and occultic sex. Yuck.

      • Cf. the Wiccan rede, “An ye harm none, do what thou wilt.” Not sure which came first. Probably Crowley.

        • Robert F says:

          Didn’t St. Augustine say something like “Love, and do what you will”? Sounds eerily similar.

        • Headless Unicorn Guy says:

          As I heard it, Crowley was first, and added the “An ye harm none” for legal liability reasons.

          Most of Wicca comes from Victorian-era “imaginative reconstructions” of pre-Christian Europe, especially regarding Druids or anything related to them. In Victorian times, it was considered legitimate to speculate and “reconstruct” history when there was no actual historical information, especially when that speculation would reinforce Victorian values. As the movie The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence put it, “When Fact and Legend collide, Print the Legend.” And the Victorians did. One of these “imaginative reconstructions” was “the Witch-Cult Hypothesis” speculating on a pre-Christian pagan religion of Western Europe destroyed by the rise of Christianity and its Witch-hunters — sort of a Malleus Malefacarium in reverse.

          Then a Victorian/Edwardian occultist named Gerald Gardner (roughly contemporary with Crowley) put it all together and organized it into present-day Wicca in the 1940s, blending Margaret Murray’s Witch-Cult Hypothesis with Freemasonry, general occultism, and a little bit of Crowley. And claiming its Ancient Ancient Origins.

          • Robert F says:

            So it’s not a case of “Meet the new gods, same as the olde gods…”?

          • Robert F says:

            I know a couple of witches. Their spirituality is a kind of pastiche, put together thing: colorful Tarot cards, divining pendants, crystals and precious stones, raw food diets, intuitive workshops. Most importantly, they buy a lot of product and spend a lot of money of witchy stuff. Good consumers, they are.

          • Crowley may have swiped it from an earlier source; I don’t have a copy of Lewis’ “The Pilgrim’s Regress” to hand, but he has a character who has settled on a ‘progressive’ type of philosophy which doesn’t interfere with his comfortable life, and he calls his home “Thelema”:

            “Thelema: Greek word for “will” in the sense of volition. In the novel “Gargantua” by the French author François Rabelais (c. 1494–1553), Thélème is the abbey of a highly exceptional kind of religious order – in fact, an anti-order in an anti-abbey – led by Frère Jean des Entommeurs; see Gargantua (= Book I in Gargantua et Pantagruel) LII et seq.

            Do what you will: Supreme rule of the monastic life at Thélème: Fay ce que vouldras; see Gargantua LVII.”

            Lewis tracks back Rabelais’ “Fay ce que vouldras” to Augustine’s “Love God and then do what you will”. Looks like Crowley took Rabelais’ abbey of Theleme as inspiration for his own “Thelema” (both the temple he build in Sicily and the religion he constructed) and the “Wiccan Rede” was made out of whole cloth by the Gardnerian tradition using this and other sources.

      • Headless Unicorn Guy says:

        You’re right. It does sound like Ayn Rand.

        This conjures up a weird socio-political mash-up of Tea Party libertarianism, ritual magic, and occultic sex. Yuck.

        I can come up with worse:
        Ayn Rand-slash-Aliester Crowley slashfic. As puppetmasters of the Tea Party.
        Double Yuck.

  14. Driscoll needed a headline and this did the trick.

  15. WenatcheeTheHatchet says:

    Martin, it can sometimes seem as though bad publicity is as good as good publicity for the Driscoll team. Some folks think the bit about Driscoll on women is simply manufactured publicity. Fighting for the Faith has proposed that as a possibility because the actual Driscoll sermon is too pedestrian to be worth pretty much any coverage at all in national press.