Can I ask a question?

Why in the name of all that's chocolate -- WHY are we trusting the same folks who can't keep the streets clear during a spring snow storm to improve our healthcare system?

Psalm 146:3

"Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation."

I can't get the verse out of my head this morning. And I keep asking myself why did anyone trust a man who is still a member of a party that no longer even pays lip service to the Clinton abortion mantra - "Safe, Legal and rare". Make no mistake, this is about abortion and only abortion - it always has been. If it weren't, the legislation would have passed 6 months ago. The Hyde amendment language is dead - this president will never sign an Executive Order with any language that even remotely resembles Hyde nor will it be attached to the next HHS appropriations bill. And our elected princes have just put another paving brick in the road to fulfillment of Obama's campaign promise to pass FOCA. (bit by murderous bit).

And I am not rejoicing that this may mean the Republican party will take back a majority of one or both house of Congress this fall. All that would mean is that the ship may sink a little bit more slowly.

Holy Scripture tells us there is no law against the Fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control). But I wonder if we are seeing the dawn of the day when these things will be against the law? Not insofar as they reside in us, but as they show themselves in actions. Will one of us be arrested for speaking to a friend thinking about killing the babe growing inside her? Will someone like Lila Rose, exposing the lies of the abortion industry, be arrested for interfering with the rights of women? Which of our children will be sent for remedial education for refusing to participate in sex education activities? Which free clinic run by Christians will be the first to be closed down for not providing abortions or information on where to obtain one.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Then, another saying goes, fool me three times, I must be a Republican. Republican, Democrat or other - shame on all of us for ever having put our trust in political princes.

Walking with a broken toe . . .

Mrs. James has a second blog post up in response to the discussion on her blog and elsewhere. Pity is, she still (rather deliberately, it seems) misses the point. While she pays lip service to the need for precautions, "to keep our relationships on the up and up" she avoids any further word on the subject, quickly going on to the deeper issues. In typical religious feminist fashion, certain things are admitted but when it gets down to defining what they mean by it, every precaution is dismissed as being part of a laundry list (read: pharisaical) or part of a wish men have to place all the blame on women (read: misogyny) lest the men lose their precious positions of power (and isn't it funny that the religious feminists who are after one thing and one thing only accuse the other side of being too power-hungry?). You will see the same sort of admission/evasion rhetorical ploy when the issue of sex differences comes up.

What was interesting about this second post was Mrs. James' illustration about the difficulty of walking with an injured toe. It's an analogy I've used rather frequently, having broken at least four toes in my lifetime (I'm a bare-footed klutz, you see). She is absolutely right about the body needing all parts in working order, fulfilling their function.


However, (once more with feeling) Mrs. James rather spectacularly misses the point. All bits of the body have their function and you wouldn't get very far by walking on your hands nor do you see many people drinking through their noses. Hands are not for walking nor are noses made to easily and effectively take in fluids.

So why, will some one please tell me, do religious feminists insist on applying their mascara by holding the wand in their toes?

If I'd known, I would have offered him a teddy bear . . .

Vickie Gene is no longer alone.

The Episcopal Church has confirmed a second bishop publicly involved in a same-sex relationship. Vickie Gene is quoted as gushing, "Suddenly, and gratefully, I don't feel so alone."

According to the Telegraph, the Grand Mufti of Canterbury is, ahem, concerned, "Dr Rowan Williams warned Episcopal Church leaders that they risk breaking "our bonds of mutual affection" if they ordain the openly gay reverend as an assistant bishop." But then that was just when her election became a possibility Now that it has been confirmed, he seems strangely silent. Perhaps he needs another couple of days to mull his response?

Never mind, it doesn't seem to matter much as the TEC is dying on its putrid vine - or at least it appeared to be in the years following Vickie Gene's elevation to his alone-ness. TEC seems to be reluctant to release the latest figures.

ht: Jim Kushiner

Missing it by a mile

I've been pondering this problem of men and women and have become convinced that Mrs. James and her correspondents simply don't "get it". Here is a snippet from an anonymous respondent on her blog:

Why is it that so much odd sex occurs within a religious context where the desired behavior is vigorously condemned (I'm thinking of Ted Haggard and others like him)? I think the problem needs a therapeutic and psychological solution. Perhaps we all need to understand ourselves and our needs and drives better.

There are several things I need to say in response to this.

First, it's most obvious that Anonymous has missed the point when he offers a secular solution to a spiritual problem. A psychological solution isn't going to improve a sin problem. It is sin at the core of this, and our belief that we won't be tempted or that it is someone else's problem to prevent or that I don't need to worry about anyone else's weaknesses - in other words our pride that lets us believe we are immune (or that others should be immune) is what leads us into the sin in the first place. No therapeutic understanding needed here, we're just dealing with plain, old-fashioned sin, period.

Second, here is why I contend Mrs. James and her correspondents don't really understand the problem and would rather paint all men with Tertullian's brush. There's nothing odd about the amount of sex or the oddity of the sex occurring in religious circles. There are two reasons for this - Satan doesn't need to attack the world - and- religious settings are very intimate by nature. They touch us deep in our hearts and our souls, leaving us prepared to make connections of Christian community, of treating each other as family -- but when we are not in community, when it's just a man and a woman working side by side, connections of a different sort are just waiting to be made.

In this we have our three-fold enemy (the world, our own flesh, and the devil) wrapped up in one neat little package. The world system conspires to tell us it is good and right and natural for men and women to work together in rather intimate settings without being worried about sexual temptation (unless you both want to, of course). Our own flesh is naturally inclined to lead us into sin if we don't guard our hearts, our minds and our behaviour. Lastly, it wouldn't surprise me if religious figures are a particular target and there is little that is more likely to make a splash on the evening news than a sex scandal. Ted Haggard's fall tarnished every single Evangelical believer in this country.

So don't pretend it doesn't matter that I'm a girl and you're a boy. It does. It matters a great deal.

My heart sings for them!

Brothers, Sing on!

Read it and weep with joy for the bright spots in our dark world. Rejoice for the men who are about the business of making boys into men of virtue. For it is only men who can do so -- and only when men do so will the tsunami of religious feminism be reversed.


Read it.

Mistaking boundaries for chains . . .

Carolyn Custis James has a new post up, The Devil's Gateway . In it, she writes,

I was a speaker at a gathering of pastors who were interested in doing a better job of utilizing women's gifts. The first question asked during the open forum afterwards stunned me, "If we work with women, won't we be tempted?"

What followed was not a candid discussion about the heart and where is the real problem when there is a moral failure (as in as what goes on behind closed doors when a man is alone with his computer), but a laundry list of precautions to safeguard oneself from moral hazards when working or dealing with women.

Women find this kind of thinking offensive, and rightly so.

It's funny that the religious feminists, who so often complain about being taken as a class and not valued as individuals, assume all women think like them. The problem here is not that some women might find such thinking offensive, but that more men can't be bothered with it for fear of offending the easily offended religious feminist.

I responded to Mrs. James on her blog so will not say much more here other than to note something Mr. Chesterton wrote just over a century ago:

The first two facts which a healthy boy or girl feels about sex are these: first that it is beautiful and then that it is dangerous.

When they mistake proper boundaries for chains, religious feminists deny our differences. They aren't "Egalitarians" at all, even thought they prefer to style themselves as such. In fact, they are Indifferentists.

And therein lies the danger.

The Hand that rocks the cradle . . .

I've been wondering whatever happened to the old expression. It seems to me it is long past time to start using it again. Please ponder the quotes below, which I offer without further comment, and what they mean for the value and dignity of women's unique contributions to life, to the Church and the world:

Our relationship with Jesus changes everything! That is the true meaning of baptism. Our significance and influence is not defined by our earthly parents but through our relationship to God from whom we receive our ultimate inheritance. And our sisters and brothers receive the same inheritance and gifts from God’s Spirit. These gifts never come in pink or blue, yellow, black, or white. Through the power of the Cross, expressed in Christian baptism, we no longer ascribe value, dignity, and worth according to social status, ethnicity, gender, or class. Hallelujah.

-- the closing lines of "The Full Meaning", posted 3/12/10 on CBE's The Scroll by "Guest"


Friends, let us engage principles of logic and common sense, being confident that God is the author of all truth! Scripture and logic tell us that women and men are equally created in God’s image and share equal responsibility for using their gifts in service to Christ. May we, as Christian men and women engage our minds fully in loving and serving Jesus! Hallelujah!

-- the closing lines to, "All Truth is God's Truth" posted 3/3/10 on CBE's The Scroll by Mimi Haddad

When the time has come, nothing which is man-made will subsist. One day, all human accomplishments will be reduced to a pile of ashes. But every single child to whom a woman has given birth will live forever, for he has been given an immortal soul made to God's image and likeness.

-- Alice von Hildebrand in the Privilege of Being a Woman

Genius!

Since it's St. Patrick's Day - or almost - every grocery store in the country seems to have green cabbage on sale at obscenely low prices. I practiced a little bit of self-restraint and satisfied myself with one green globe of the seasonal treat.

Then Stuart had to go and say something about sauerkraut and mushroom soup. Well, I just couldn't do that to perfectly good, green, fresh cabbage. But I did recall a jar of dried mushrooms I had in the pantry. So they went to soaking while the cabbage was cooking in broth. They look and smell very nice, though I have no idea what varieties are contained therein.

Then the stroke of genius hit me. Those lovely mushrooms deserved something a bit better than chicken broth and cabbage, my normal simple soup. Out came the Flavor Bible. Garlic, Coriander Seed, Tarragon and Bay Leaf -- ooooh, hmmmm.

Can't wait until it's done simmering.

And I bought 8 boxes this year!

It's time to give up the Girls Scout Cookies. Brownies are hot, with PP's help

Is Obama taking his cue from Amnesty International?

With the recent brouhaha over Amnesty International going soft on the Taliban's PR Man , it should not surprise us to learn the Obama administration has, thus far, failed to appoint anyone to the post of Ambassador-at-large for International Religious Freedom. This, in spite of repeated pleas from the religious liberty advocacy groups such as Open Doors and the Southern Baptist leader, Richard Land.

Does anyone believe Obama's change-agency was intended to include the least regarded among us?

In related news, I'm willing to bet you haven't heard about this:

The Moroccan government is expelling Christian missionaries

Patrilineal! and Patrilocal! and Patriarchal!, Oh My!

I keep hearing that snippet from Wizard of Oz running through my head, Lions! and Tigers! and Bears! Oh My!

Now I think that's enough exclamation points for one day, don't you? But really, to read the religious feminists, you'd think those terms were derogatory instead of praiseworthy and biblical. Daniel Block explains why they are the latter:

". . . patriocentrism reflects the normative biblical disposition toward the role of the head of the household in Israel . . ." See that? It's normative for the family to radiate out from the father. The family members are the spokes, he the axle around which the family revolves. The descent is reckoned in a patrilineal manner from the father's line, it is patrilocal or of the husband's household, and it is patriarchal, father-governed. "

Let's see what more Block has to say on this:

"Accordingly, we do a disservice to the biblical record if we are preoccupied with the power of the [patri] wielded [the word means patri or father, I don't have the software to type it correctly]. In healthy and functional households the male head was neither despot nor dictator. On the contrary, since the family members were perceived as extension of the progenitor's own life, the head's own interests depended upon the well-being of the household. Rather than evoking images of "ruler" or "boss", the term [patri] expressed confidence, trust and security. This emphasis on the responsibilities associated with the overall tenor of the Old Testament, which views leadership in general to be a privilege granted to an individual in order to serve the interests of those who are led."

In short, the biblical emphasis is on responsibility rather than privilege. Now, now, I can see the religious feminists getting ready to claim that is what they've been saying all along. But no, that is what they have been so very carefully not saying. They will focus on correcting the over-presumption of power, while also denying the biblical affirmation of patri in every other sense as well. What they will deny, with reference to Block's list is the special obligation of the patri:

• modeling fidelity to Yahweh
• leading the family in the national festivals
• instructing the family in the Traditions
• managing the land
• providing for basic needs
• defending the household against threats
• representing the household in the civil assemblies
• individual well-being and harmony of the whole
• implementing decisions regarding vengeance and redemption

An Egalitarian (Religious Feminist) is not someone who affirms the equality of male and female persons, for all Christians do that. An Egalitarian is someone who denies the primacy of the male in created relationships such as marriage by asserting that equality and hierarchy cannot exist at the same time in any relationship.

see: Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel (pp. 40-48) by Daniel Block in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World, Ken Campbell, ed.

She is NOT a feminist! (or is she?)

Over at the CBE blog they're still discussing "truth" and it's looking more and more like they've been taking their cues from John Searle rather than the good Doctor Tom . This morning finds one of their number pondering:

Maybe someone can answer this for me…. why are egals always referred to as “feminists” by hierarchicalists? I am an egal, I do not consider myself a feminist. Having worked for many years in social services, it was always a bone of contention with my fellow workers. They would say, how can you be doing what you are doing if you are not a feminist. (obviously, they paint with the same broad brush). My answer was and is always, I am an equalist – I believe all should be treated as equals deserving dignity and respect.

And she links to a site including this:

Spiritual Abuse: Includes misuse of Scripture and Biblical teachings to justify abuse; tells her that women are less than or not as important as men, or that God does not care or that she is not a good Christian; says she is abused because she is not submissive enough (based on his definition of submission, not God's), or that the Bible justifies abusive treatment; interferes with her ability to worship God and/or her relationship with the Lord. With children, it is also using Scripture or Biblical teachings to degrade, punish or justify cruel or excessive discipline.

Which makes it clear to even a blind beggar that only men can commit abuse, at least in certain forms.

And she wonders why an "equalist" would be (more properly) called a feminist? I am tempted to appropriate here Fr. Bill's appropriation of a famous Wolfism:

Flummery!

It's Springtime in the Rockies!

I left the house this morning wearing sandals, skirt and light top. Why not? It was warm and sunny. By the time I left the library, it was blowing big flakes of snow all over the place. This evening, when I ran out on a quick errand, it was wet, a mixture of snow and rain so I donned jeans and a light sweater.

But I still had on sandals.

As I said, it is springtime in the Rockies.

Sew the wind, reap the whirlwind

China's War on Women

The Economist reports on China's murder of 100 million baby girls -- and the number is rising.

It's scary. Be sure to read the entire story and pay particular attention to the distinction between murder and abortion in the second paragraph. That's even scarier.

This has what our world's embrace of abortion "rights" in an Egalitarian culture has wrought.

ht: Jim Kushiner

. . .and now Salman Rushdie weighs in

Salman Rushdie has released a statement in the ongoing controversy over Gita Sahgal's suspension from Amnesty International.

The Times article which started the controversy is here.

Ms. Sahgal's response is here.

Amnesty's response is here.

And the story continues here.

To which I can only add, it's all just one more big reason I am glad I have never supported Amnesty International.

Logic AND a sense of humour?

What will they think of next?

First, the Egalitarians have discovered logic. Of course it's a sort of logic that Mr. Chesterton would have called morbid. Never mind that it's the sort of logic that denies the paradoxes at the heart of Christianity, but logic it is and it's all theirs.

Now, in the words of one respondent over at a certain blog, "I am not responding to [John] for several reasons. Have you ever heard of pearls before swine?" Now that's genuinely funny. The religious feminist, calling the Church swine? It's gotta be funny or I was right in this post.

Laugh or cry, folks.

And pray lots.

JFK Was Wrong

Abp Chaput speaks at Houston Baptist University

Almost 50 years after JFK's historic speech distancing himself from his faith, another Catholic speaks in the same city to a different group of Baptists.

The text is also available here:

Archden