Blog on the Lillypad
Saturday, October 30, 2004
 | New Episodes of Secret Radio this week
Three big events occur this week on SECRET RADIO. First, veteran readers will be treated to new episodes on Monday and Tuesday, as the charming and unusual Emily Breethe again enters the story. Then Amy Carmichael and Jim try to work things out. And the week ends with a jolt as the CALVINIST WAR begins in the hallowed halls of Greater Independent Baptist College. |
You can find the Secret Radio blog by clicking here.
You can reasd SECRET RADIO (so far) in narrative order by clicking here for the archive.
Friday, October 29, 2004
A Reader from Lewzeeanna writes
This just in from a new reader. I edited out specific references she made so that she cannot be identified: I've been reading your book [SECRET RADIO] on line and my first reaction is WOW. I went to Hyles Anderson College....It wasn't till my last year that I fell from grace and became an out cast....no one will have anything to do with me. I found out some terrible things were going on among staff members, and voicing my concern set me apart....I've moved on and am married to someone that never heard of fundamental Baptist till he met me....I'm often haunted by the belief that my failure as a Christian [HAC standards] is going to send my children to hell.
This just in from a new reader. I edited out specific references she made so that she cannot be identified: I've been reading your book [SECRET RADIO] on line and my first reaction is WOW. I went to Hyles Anderson College....It wasn't till my last year that I fell from grace and became an out cast....no one will have anything to do with me. I found out some terrible things were going on among staff members, and voicing my concern set me apart....I've moved on and am married to someone that never heard of fundamental Baptist till he met me....I'm often haunted by the belief that my failure as a Christian [HAC standards] is going to send my children to hell.
Sanctification and Being Right with God
Intellectual Defenestration offers comments on Dietrich Bonhoeffer about Christian Community. I'm not as interested in the Christian Community observations as I am in what Bonheoffer accepts as a given for Christian sanctification: " Only God knows the real state of our fellowship, of our sanctification. What may appear weak and trifling to us may be great and glorious to God. Just as the Christian should not be constantly feeling his spiritual pulse, so, too, the Christian community has not been given to us by God for us to be constantly taking its temperature."
ID's blog reminds me of a recent blog about trying to outdo the Pharisees by at least equaling their righteousness. As the writer observed and commended the pretentious righteousness of the Pharisees, I was positively revolted. And then today I received another e-mail from a HAC survivor lamenting the estate of being a "second class Christian".
I dont think there are any e-mails sadder than these. Nor are there any proclamations any more infuriating than the IFBx preachers who proclaim themselves as "Men of God" while they are shamelessly and remorselessly violating the sacredness of the office of elder. The sheep starve and these shepherds shear them, drive them off, berate them, and abuse them. And they invite thieves in to steal them away. And all the while they claim they have the right to be incompetent and idolatrous, putting themselves and their colleagues in high esteem while bringing the flock to grief. It is a given to them that their position makes them right with God.
So what is it to be right with God? We heard it all the time at BJU: "If you don't do such and such young people, then (thwack on pulpit or even on Bible), "you're not right with God!"
Hockey Pucks! What makes me right with God is the atoning work of Jesus Christ. What sanctifies me is also the work of Jesus Christ. And my life is to be evaluated, not by my works for Him, but by His work in me.
In her book, THE LAST YEAR OF THE WAR, Shirley Nelson writes of the one Bible teacher whose brief sermon on the victorious Christian life really nails what the Christian life is. Here is an excerpt:
We want to be like Christ,....free from the tyranny of self,
flesh crucified, all in our places, with sunshiny faces....
[But] to be a Christian ... may mean to live on the edge...
shocked and dismayed at our own weaknesses, failure, and
evil....Only God can keep us safe on that wild frontier....
[So] how will I know?... How can I tell when I'm filled with
the Holy Spirit? I don't think we will know. I don't think
we'll even ask, or give it much thought. We won't say, "I've
got it!" or ...."At last I am godly!" That will never occur
to us. [197-198]
The point that victory may not mean deliverance, and that success itself in the spiritual life will keep a person too concerned for others to reflect on his own powerful stature, is lost on most of the student body in the story. As young people usually do, they run after easy answers, clear decisions, and instant victories. The fact that their glib self-assurances keep blowing up in their faces does not deter the students, regrettably.
And that's how it often is with us. We try and fail, exert every effort and yet still find sin delightful in the moment of temptation, pray and agonize because we have failed, and experience genuine shock and frustration at a condition that never has changed and never will change. The flesh is enmity against the Spirit. The flesh opposes faith.
To walk by faith is to walk on that tight rope. Anyway, that's how it feels to us. It's to be Peter on the waves, daring to go forward, but so easily distracted by the peril and terror all around us. And so we cry to Christ for help, and He keeps us from sinking. Walking by faith is usually not a stroll. We see our peril every minute. We have to keep our eyes fixed on Christ, and on that perilous walk we learn of Him, but not without some serious dips in the deep that prompt us to cry out and may get us a few rebukes from the One who, nevertheless, pulls us out again.
That's the Christian life. If anybody ever told you it's a points game, or if you have assumed it, just forget about that. You have no points. You have grace instead. You have a kingdom. You have Sonship. Points are for people who can lose the game, and you can't lose if you have Christ. Christ won, and we win in Him. So walk by faith.
Intellectual Defenestration offers comments on Dietrich Bonhoeffer about Christian Community. I'm not as interested in the Christian Community observations as I am in what Bonheoffer accepts as a given for Christian sanctification: " Only God knows the real state of our fellowship, of our sanctification. What may appear weak and trifling to us may be great and glorious to God. Just as the Christian should not be constantly feeling his spiritual pulse, so, too, the Christian community has not been given to us by God for us to be constantly taking its temperature."
ID's blog reminds me of a recent blog about trying to outdo the Pharisees by at least equaling their righteousness. As the writer observed and commended the pretentious righteousness of the Pharisees, I was positively revolted. And then today I received another e-mail from a HAC survivor lamenting the estate of being a "second class Christian".
I dont think there are any e-mails sadder than these. Nor are there any proclamations any more infuriating than the IFBx preachers who proclaim themselves as "Men of God" while they are shamelessly and remorselessly violating the sacredness of the office of elder. The sheep starve and these shepherds shear them, drive them off, berate them, and abuse them. And they invite thieves in to steal them away. And all the while they claim they have the right to be incompetent and idolatrous, putting themselves and their colleagues in high esteem while bringing the flock to grief. It is a given to them that their position makes them right with God.
So what is it to be right with God? We heard it all the time at BJU: "If you don't do such and such young people, then (thwack on pulpit or even on Bible), "you're not right with God!"
Hockey Pucks! What makes me right with God is the atoning work of Jesus Christ. What sanctifies me is also the work of Jesus Christ. And my life is to be evaluated, not by my works for Him, but by His work in me.
In her book, THE LAST YEAR OF THE WAR, Shirley Nelson writes of the one Bible teacher whose brief sermon on the victorious Christian life really nails what the Christian life is. Here is an excerpt:
We want to be like Christ,....free from the tyranny of self,
flesh crucified, all in our places, with sunshiny faces....
[But] to be a Christian ... may mean to live on the edge...
shocked and dismayed at our own weaknesses, failure, and
evil....Only God can keep us safe on that wild frontier....
[So] how will I know?... How can I tell when I'm filled with
the Holy Spirit? I don't think we will know. I don't think
we'll even ask, or give it much thought. We won't say, "I've
got it!" or ...."At last I am godly!" That will never occur
to us. [197-198]
The point that victory may not mean deliverance, and that success itself in the spiritual life will keep a person too concerned for others to reflect on his own powerful stature, is lost on most of the student body in the story. As young people usually do, they run after easy answers, clear decisions, and instant victories. The fact that their glib self-assurances keep blowing up in their faces does not deter the students, regrettably.
And that's how it often is with us. We try and fail, exert every effort and yet still find sin delightful in the moment of temptation, pray and agonize because we have failed, and experience genuine shock and frustration at a condition that never has changed and never will change. The flesh is enmity against the Spirit. The flesh opposes faith.
To walk by faith is to walk on that tight rope. Anyway, that's how it feels to us. It's to be Peter on the waves, daring to go forward, but so easily distracted by the peril and terror all around us. And so we cry to Christ for help, and He keeps us from sinking. Walking by faith is usually not a stroll. We see our peril every minute. We have to keep our eyes fixed on Christ, and on that perilous walk we learn of Him, but not without some serious dips in the deep that prompt us to cry out and may get us a few rebukes from the One who, nevertheless, pulls us out again.
That's the Christian life. If anybody ever told you it's a points game, or if you have assumed it, just forget about that. You have no points. You have grace instead. You have a kingdom. You have Sonship. Points are for people who can lose the game, and you can't lose if you have Christ. Christ won, and we win in Him. So walk by faith.
More on "Second Class Christians"
Somebody over on the FFF mentioned Ian Paisley to me recently. While I disagree with Mr. Paisley on several issues, I recall an excellent sermon illustration I heard from him once, and I want to use it here.
I get e-mails from survivors of Fundamentalist-X abuses. Most of my e-mail comes from people who attended Hyles-Anderson College, although I also get e-mail from survivors of other wacko-theology IFBx schools as well.
One term that comes up often is "second class Christian," which forms part of their lament. Having been manipulated and exploited, they now accept as a given that God is vindictive even against His own blood bought children, And they have been trained to think that, because He has a right to be angry with them for their failings, He will wreak havoc in their lives. They are, they tell me, second class Christians, and they worry about what God will do to them for their failures.
I still remember, when I was 26, a dear old saint of God telling me that because I had earned my black belt and was trusting in that for my strength, God would no longer protect me. She told me this on the night that a senior brown belt decided to "initiate" me in free sparring, and I was very afraid that God wouldn't hear my prayers, because this guy was really going to humiliate me. As it turned out, I kicked the bully about 15 feet across the training hall floor with a kick that---to this day—I have never equaled for speed and focus. It quite literally knocked him off his feet, and he crashed between two other sets of fighters before the floor stopped him. That was God's answer to my worried prayers, and His assurance that He remains my protection, and it was certainly a good enough answer for me!
God does not subject His children to wrath, because God is faithful to His promises, not because we are so faithful. We are all depraved sinners, and in our flesh it is impossible for us to please God. Jesus Christ pleases God, and we are covered by His rightouesness.
Ian Paisley reminded fearful believers of Exodus 12, when God gave the awful decree that He would destroy the firstborn throughout Egypt, but He would spare those who had the blood of the lamb on the lintels of their doors:
Certainly, in the houses of the Israelites, there were those firstborn people haunted by guilt and fear, even though in obedient faith they applied the blood of the lamb to their door posts. They knew they had committed sin with the Egyptians before the Lord raised Moses to deliver them. Could the blood on the door post be sufficient to divert His wrath? After all, His wrath was just. And others, living in that culture of gods and magic, had been the recipients of curses from the Egyptians by their gods. When death walked abroad, what if the many demons of the Egyptian gods diverted death to them? Could the one true God protect against the wicked craftiness of demons and sprites? Would the blood on the door posts guarantee His protection? And still others worried that such a mighty God might not exercise minute care and miss that they had the blood on their lintels, and the rage of His wrath might overflow and kill them along with the firstborn of the Egyptians. Perhaps others worried that because their racial lineage was not purely of Israel, that God would ignore the blood on the lintel and kill them too.
And yet, there were others among the firstborn, having seen God at work on behalf of His people in the previous plagues, who went to bed without a second thought, for they were assured that God would see the blood and spare them.
In the morning, those who trembled and worried, as well as those who were confident and sure, awoke, for they had been spared. When God saw the blood, He passed over all of them. The darkest fears and trembling among those who had the blood on the door posts did not bring them to destruction. Similarly, among the Egyptians, the brightest hopes and stoutest courage could not save their firstborn.
Christians tremble and fear the wrath of God, and we have excellent reason to do so, for we believe in Him and have a clearer idea than most of how holy God is. Let's not take Him lightly or excuse our behaviors with glib reasons.
But God is faithful to His Word, and He is faithful to the atoning work of His Son. When God sees the Blood of Christ, His wrath does not come through our doors. We may cling to that Cross in joyful and humbled confidence, perceiving His excellent good will to us because of Christ. Or we may cling to the Cross and hide our eyes against it because we know how terrible the wrath of God is, and we deeply feel our sin. Yet either way, we cling to that Cross and are spared.
Keep your confidence in Christ and recognize that there are no second class Christians. God is a river to His people. Plunge in and be clean; drink and be strengthened. Put your confidence in Christ, and soon you'll see that the flesh will never be pure in this life, but it can be brought under the power of the Resurrection so that the life of Jesus Christ is lived in you.
Somebody over on the FFF mentioned Ian Paisley to me recently. While I disagree with Mr. Paisley on several issues, I recall an excellent sermon illustration I heard from him once, and I want to use it here.
I get e-mails from survivors of Fundamentalist-X abuses. Most of my e-mail comes from people who attended Hyles-Anderson College, although I also get e-mail from survivors of other wacko-theology IFBx schools as well.
One term that comes up often is "second class Christian," which forms part of their lament. Having been manipulated and exploited, they now accept as a given that God is vindictive even against His own blood bought children, And they have been trained to think that, because He has a right to be angry with them for their failings, He will wreak havoc in their lives. They are, they tell me, second class Christians, and they worry about what God will do to them for their failures.
I still remember, when I was 26, a dear old saint of God telling me that because I had earned my black belt and was trusting in that for my strength, God would no longer protect me. She told me this on the night that a senior brown belt decided to "initiate" me in free sparring, and I was very afraid that God wouldn't hear my prayers, because this guy was really going to humiliate me. As it turned out, I kicked the bully about 15 feet across the training hall floor with a kick that---to this day—I have never equaled for speed and focus. It quite literally knocked him off his feet, and he crashed between two other sets of fighters before the floor stopped him. That was God's answer to my worried prayers, and His assurance that He remains my protection, and it was certainly a good enough answer for me!
God does not subject His children to wrath, because God is faithful to His promises, not because we are so faithful. We are all depraved sinners, and in our flesh it is impossible for us to please God. Jesus Christ pleases God, and we are covered by His rightouesness.
Ian Paisley reminded fearful believers of Exodus 12, when God gave the awful decree that He would destroy the firstborn throughout Egypt, but He would spare those who had the blood of the lamb on the lintels of their doors:
For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I [am] the LORD.
And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye [are]: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy [you], when I smite the land of Egypt.
Certainly, in the houses of the Israelites, there were those firstborn people haunted by guilt and fear, even though in obedient faith they applied the blood of the lamb to their door posts. They knew they had committed sin with the Egyptians before the Lord raised Moses to deliver them. Could the blood on the door post be sufficient to divert His wrath? After all, His wrath was just. And others, living in that culture of gods and magic, had been the recipients of curses from the Egyptians by their gods. When death walked abroad, what if the many demons of the Egyptian gods diverted death to them? Could the one true God protect against the wicked craftiness of demons and sprites? Would the blood on the door posts guarantee His protection? And still others worried that such a mighty God might not exercise minute care and miss that they had the blood on their lintels, and the rage of His wrath might overflow and kill them along with the firstborn of the Egyptians. Perhaps others worried that because their racial lineage was not purely of Israel, that God would ignore the blood on the lintel and kill them too.
And yet, there were others among the firstborn, having seen God at work on behalf of His people in the previous plagues, who went to bed without a second thought, for they were assured that God would see the blood and spare them.
In the morning, those who trembled and worried, as well as those who were confident and sure, awoke, for they had been spared. When God saw the blood, He passed over all of them. The darkest fears and trembling among those who had the blood on the door posts did not bring them to destruction. Similarly, among the Egyptians, the brightest hopes and stoutest courage could not save their firstborn.
Christians tremble and fear the wrath of God, and we have excellent reason to do so, for we believe in Him and have a clearer idea than most of how holy God is. Let's not take Him lightly or excuse our behaviors with glib reasons.
But God is faithful to His Word, and He is faithful to the atoning work of His Son. When God sees the Blood of Christ, His wrath does not come through our doors. We may cling to that Cross in joyful and humbled confidence, perceiving His excellent good will to us because of Christ. Or we may cling to the Cross and hide our eyes against it because we know how terrible the wrath of God is, and we deeply feel our sin. Yet either way, we cling to that Cross and are spared.
Keep your confidence in Christ and recognize that there are no second class Christians. God is a river to His people. Plunge in and be clean; drink and be strengthened. Put your confidence in Christ, and soon you'll see that the flesh will never be pure in this life, but it can be brought under the power of the Resurrection so that the life of Jesus Christ is lived in you.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
What makes us beg with such good cheer?
Over on the The Jolly Blogger, Dave is quoting A. W. Pink:
This comes hard on the heels of Dead Man Blogging's recent disastrous post about trying to be good Christians, in which he urges reader to adopt the righteousness of the Pharisees without adopting their rebellion against God (an impossible thing to do, by the way, as their energy to "do good" was based entirely on their pride. Truly being good is simply not a part of our flesh or nature and can come about only by Christ at work in us, through faith in Him).
I was in my late 30's before it dawned on my that no matter how hard I try, I cannot please God. I realized that I will always hurt the people I care about most, always disappoint, always miss the needs of others. Grim despair (and even anger at God) settled over me, but over time, it started to make sense in terms of the Gospel. *I* was surprised and dismayed to realize how total my total depravity is, but God had it figured out ages ago. And still He saved me.
From then on, as CS Lewis wrote, the heart of the Jolly Beggar began to grow in me. It only hurts when I take my self seriously. But it's all joy when I am caught up in the consideration of my Saviour and His power to be my righteousness and my acceptance with God. There simply can be no keeping score with the Christian. If we are honest, we see that every day is fraught with sin, every action flawed by self interest and pride. On the other hand, if we see by faith, we recognize that the boundless good will towards us from God never abates, never abandons, is never deterred or dismayed, always works in us to draw us after Christ. We hope again because we hope in Him and not ourselves. Then jolliness comes, and our begging is in reality great riches. That's the big joke we play on the universe: being nothing, we have everything, because everything has been given to us. Beign mournful sinners, we have great joy; being poor in spirit, we inherit the kingdom of God.
Addendum
The example of the Pharisees is very badly chosen because their alleged good works were an offense to God. They had energy to do those so-called good works because it was all done for them to exalt themselves before men.
So if you want power to pray as regularly as the Pharisees prayed, then pray to be seen of men, and you will find that your flesh can be trained to support you in these efforts.
If you want energy to live a clean outward life as the Pharisees lived (hiding their corruption like whitewashed tombs), then base your efforts in the flesh and take pride in your outwardly clean life, and you will have a moral uprightness that will astound your neighbors.
If you want self-discipline to tithe even the herbs that come across your kitchen counter, then base your tithing on the power of the flesh, and you will learn to tithe everything down to your shoe laces.
If you want to emulate the righteousness of the Pharisees, consecrate yourself to Phariseeism, and you will succeed.
But if you want Christ’s righteousness, then drop confidence in the flesh. You cannot whip or reason or even force yourself to be the thing that by nature you are not. You can’t eat hay; you can’t walk on water; you can’t fly; you can’t be truly good enough to generate even one honestly good work. It simply isn’t in your nature. Christ has given you a second nature that thrives only by faith.
Christ can do good works. He does so effortlessly, and our life is lived by faith in Him. And that is why the righteousness of those who walk by faith far exceeds the righteounsess of the Pharisees and is acceptable to God so that He lets us into heaven and calls us sons. We have the righteousness of Christ. We live by faith, and faith proves itself by works, but those works are the works of One who overcomes our flesh and our will.
I document abuses in Independent Fundamental Baptist churches, and the category of this group (IFBx) that commits the grossest sins are the churches that demand good works without providing the doctrine of Sanctification by grace through faith.
There are preachers who hide incredibly gross sins while exhorting their people to attain to greater and greater good works: longer skirts on the women, shorter hair on the men, no rock and roll music, more time in prayer, being at church every time the doors open, more tithes and offerings. They break the hearts of God’s people and destroy their lives because they with hold the key to all the truly good works we can ever do, and that key is the power of Jesus Christ at work in us, which we apprehend by faith.
Let's not see a superficial or outright deceptive righteousness in the Pharisees and then commend the Pharisees. Commend Christ, and people will then focus on Christ.
Over on the The Jolly Blogger, Dave is quoting A. W. Pink:
"Just as the sinner's despair of any hope from himself is the first prerequisite of a sound conversion, so the loss of all confidence in himself is the first essential in the believer's growth in grace."
This comes hard on the heels of Dead Man Blogging's recent disastrous post about trying to be good Christians, in which he urges reader to adopt the righteousness of the Pharisees without adopting their rebellion against God (an impossible thing to do, by the way, as their energy to "do good" was based entirely on their pride. Truly being good is simply not a part of our flesh or nature and can come about only by Christ at work in us, through faith in Him).
I was in my late 30's before it dawned on my that no matter how hard I try, I cannot please God. I realized that I will always hurt the people I care about most, always disappoint, always miss the needs of others. Grim despair (and even anger at God) settled over me, but over time, it started to make sense in terms of the Gospel. *I* was surprised and dismayed to realize how total my total depravity is, but God had it figured out ages ago. And still He saved me.
From then on, as CS Lewis wrote, the heart of the Jolly Beggar began to grow in me. It only hurts when I take my self seriously. But it's all joy when I am caught up in the consideration of my Saviour and His power to be my righteousness and my acceptance with God. There simply can be no keeping score with the Christian. If we are honest, we see that every day is fraught with sin, every action flawed by self interest and pride. On the other hand, if we see by faith, we recognize that the boundless good will towards us from God never abates, never abandons, is never deterred or dismayed, always works in us to draw us after Christ. We hope again because we hope in Him and not ourselves. Then jolliness comes, and our begging is in reality great riches. That's the big joke we play on the universe: being nothing, we have everything, because everything has been given to us. Beign mournful sinners, we have great joy; being poor in spirit, we inherit the kingdom of God.
Addendum
The example of the Pharisees is very badly chosen because their alleged good works were an offense to God. They had energy to do those so-called good works because it was all done for them to exalt themselves before men.
So if you want power to pray as regularly as the Pharisees prayed, then pray to be seen of men, and you will find that your flesh can be trained to support you in these efforts.
If you want energy to live a clean outward life as the Pharisees lived (hiding their corruption like whitewashed tombs), then base your efforts in the flesh and take pride in your outwardly clean life, and you will have a moral uprightness that will astound your neighbors.
If you want self-discipline to tithe even the herbs that come across your kitchen counter, then base your tithing on the power of the flesh, and you will learn to tithe everything down to your shoe laces.
If you want to emulate the righteousness of the Pharisees, consecrate yourself to Phariseeism, and you will succeed.
But if you want Christ’s righteousness, then drop confidence in the flesh. You cannot whip or reason or even force yourself to be the thing that by nature you are not. You can’t eat hay; you can’t walk on water; you can’t fly; you can’t be truly good enough to generate even one honestly good work. It simply isn’t in your nature. Christ has given you a second nature that thrives only by faith.
Christ can do good works. He does so effortlessly, and our life is lived by faith in Him. And that is why the righteousness of those who walk by faith far exceeds the righteounsess of the Pharisees and is acceptable to God so that He lets us into heaven and calls us sons. We have the righteousness of Christ. We live by faith, and faith proves itself by works, but those works are the works of One who overcomes our flesh and our will.
I document abuses in Independent Fundamental Baptist churches, and the category of this group (IFBx) that commits the grossest sins are the churches that demand good works without providing the doctrine of Sanctification by grace through faith.
There are preachers who hide incredibly gross sins while exhorting their people to attain to greater and greater good works: longer skirts on the women, shorter hair on the men, no rock and roll music, more time in prayer, being at church every time the doors open, more tithes and offerings. They break the hearts of God’s people and destroy their lives because they with hold the key to all the truly good works we can ever do, and that key is the power of Jesus Christ at work in us, which we apprehend by faith.
Let's not see a superficial or outright deceptive righteousness in the Pharisees and then commend the Pharisees. Commend Christ, and people will then focus on Christ.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
The Ten Worst Things to Get on Hallowe'en
Based on stuff I (or family members) have actually received on Hallowe'en, I have compiled a list of the ten worst things to get while Trick or Treating. First, there are the bad but not terrible items. As you see them being dropped in your bag, you feel some regret, but you remember to say thank you because your parents raised you that way, and anyway, your Dad is standing there expecting you to say thank you. But these are items that eventually, you can either eat or use when all the good stuff is gone:
10. Sticky wads of "peanut butter chew candy" that used to come in orange and black wrappers, sometimes on a stick
9. Pennies
Next comes the stuff that technically passes as candy suitable for Hallowe'en, but if you had any brains you’d throw it away. However, there are ethics involved here. It is Hallowe'en, and these items do qualify as candy, so you make yourself eat them eventually. But they're really awful, and you get no pleasure whatsoever in eating them:
8. Candy corn
7. "Wax Candy" of any type. It used to come molded as vampire teeth or other spooky shapes, and I even saw an enormous wax candy harmonica once.
Next come the items you wouldn't eat anyway, but your Dad makes sure that you're not allowed to. He's worried about "loose" items that somebody may have mixed with rat poison or slipped a razor into. So you throw all this stuff away as soon as you get home, which is just as well, because nobody wants these items for Trick or Treat:
6. Those little boxes of raisins
5. Popcorn or popcorn balls
4. Apples
3. Oranges
2. Raisin cookies
But finally, the record-setting crapola thing to get on Hallowe'en, given to you by those well meaning Fundamentalists down the street who wouldn't know a good time with their fellow man if it flew up their noses, the ABSOLUTE WORST treat ever:
1. Chick tracts
But if you threw eggs at their door or toilet papered the tree in their front yard because they failed to cough up a decent treat for Trick or Treat, then it would be like saying you hate God, when really you're just mad because ONCE AGAIN, they remain clueless. Not that you could ever egg their door or TP their tree. Dad is still walking around with you. The whole point of Trick or Treat, historically, is that you're allowed to play tricks on people who don’t give good treats, but Dad is not buying it and never has. He does not care about the history of the holiday: you are not throwing eggs at anybody's door or soaping their windows or rolling the tree in their yard in toilet paper.
Based on stuff I (or family members) have actually received on Hallowe'en, I have compiled a list of the ten worst things to get while Trick or Treating. First, there are the bad but not terrible items. As you see them being dropped in your bag, you feel some regret, but you remember to say thank you because your parents raised you that way, and anyway, your Dad is standing there expecting you to say thank you. But these are items that eventually, you can either eat or use when all the good stuff is gone:
10. Sticky wads of "peanut butter chew candy" that used to come in orange and black wrappers, sometimes on a stick
9. Pennies
Next comes the stuff that technically passes as candy suitable for Hallowe'en, but if you had any brains you’d throw it away. However, there are ethics involved here. It is Hallowe'en, and these items do qualify as candy, so you make yourself eat them eventually. But they're really awful, and you get no pleasure whatsoever in eating them:
8. Candy corn
7. "Wax Candy" of any type. It used to come molded as vampire teeth or other spooky shapes, and I even saw an enormous wax candy harmonica once.
Next come the items you wouldn't eat anyway, but your Dad makes sure that you're not allowed to. He's worried about "loose" items that somebody may have mixed with rat poison or slipped a razor into. So you throw all this stuff away as soon as you get home, which is just as well, because nobody wants these items for Trick or Treat:
6. Those little boxes of raisins
5. Popcorn or popcorn balls
4. Apples
3. Oranges
2. Raisin cookies
But finally, the record-setting crapola thing to get on Hallowe'en, given to you by those well meaning Fundamentalists down the street who wouldn't know a good time with their fellow man if it flew up their noses, the ABSOLUTE WORST treat ever:
1. Chick tracts
But if you threw eggs at their door or toilet papered the tree in their front yard because they failed to cough up a decent treat for Trick or Treat, then it would be like saying you hate God, when really you're just mad because ONCE AGAIN, they remain clueless. Not that you could ever egg their door or TP their tree. Dad is still walking around with you. The whole point of Trick or Treat, historically, is that you're allowed to play tricks on people who don’t give good treats, but Dad is not buying it and never has. He does not care about the history of the holiday: you are not throwing eggs at anybody's door or soaping their windows or rolling the tree in their yard in toilet paper.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
More from the Inbox!
A regular reader from Illinois writes, "Just finished 'IFBx Preachers in the Mist.' Just deliriously splendid -- funny and quite insightful. All those blubbering preachers...so surreal and so awful....For a split second, I wondered if Baptist wasn't a fictional masterpiece like the late Dr. Jass. But by golly, Guy Beaumont seems to be real. Heaven help us, the bogeyman really exists."
If you don't know who Dr. Jass is, click here. Dr. Jass is fictional, but BAPTIST (Guy Beaumont) is real. Here are three brief snippets of him:
You can read more samples of Guy's briliant repartee at the FFF.
A regular reader from Illinois writes, "Just finished 'IFBx Preachers in the Mist.' Just deliriously splendid -- funny and quite insightful. All those blubbering preachers...so surreal and so awful....For a split second, I wondered if Baptist wasn't a fictional masterpiece like the late Dr. Jass. But by golly, Guy Beaumont seems to be real. Heaven help us, the bogeyman really exists."
If you don't know who Dr. Jass is, click here. Dr. Jass is fictional, but BAPTIST (Guy Beaumont) is real. Here are three brief snippets of him:
Thank you for playing my game. You can go back to being morons as usual.LOL!!!
JUST AS I FIGURED Oct-22-04 3:04pm
You really are short on brains. That's the point, whacko!!
Re: For Jerri Massi//if I'm not mistaken... Oct-22-04 3:21pm
You have showed her to be ignorant still. I like watching her make herself look dumb. She's a real pro at it.
NAO Oct-20-04 10:26pm
You can read more samples of Guy's briliant repartee at the FFF.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Spilled wine? Or an offering to God?
In May of 1999, I discovered an article about a well known actress's bizarre husband, and his very public efforts to humiliate his wife. I can't remember which of his weird deeds was the first one that caught my attention, but I did a search on him and discovered that he had run his own campaign, not only to humiliate her, but to keep appearing where ever she was.
It was too soon after the OJ Simpson case to not feel concern. The story, as I was able to put it together from news articles that spanned six months, was one of egregious lies, adultery, and even a cruel trick that had involved bringing their oldest son unwittingly into the father's affair. The actress actually stayed with her husband for a few months after he had flaunted his adultery in front of her, and then finally she left him and filed for divorce. But the bizarre stuff had just begun.
I was in night school at the time and working. But I felt that the husband's bizarre and attention-getting behavior could be a means of control over his wife. When I looked up her somewhat superficial autobiography and saw how young she had been when she'd married him, and how old he had been in contrast (and already married once before), I decided that there was a lot of evidence to support my suspicions of complete control over her in the marriage. Plus, he had been her manager, and I didn't think he was a very good manager. There had been huge gaps in her career.
I was concerned for her well being. I decided to write to her and explain some of the basics of how to engage in battle. I was a third degree black belt at the time, and I was familiar with Miyamoto Musashi's BOOK OF FIVE RINGS.
Fighting, you have to realize, occurs primarily in the mind, no matter what the weapons are. A stable mind relies upon a strong spirit, yet a strong fighting spirit is fed from universal truths that the mind must apprehend and fully believe. So training has to be a mixture of understanding, suffering hardship, and engaging in battles.
She would have plenty of battles and was under hardship, so I wrote to her to explain the very first principles of battle. I customized them for her situation. I was certain that if she only understood how to wage war in the mind, she had enough personal courage to fight for herself.
Not entirely to my surprise, she wrote back to thank me quite warmly, telling me she meant to keep my letter close at hand. And I sent her the second of the two-part epistle. Then over the next week I continued to read accounts of her husband in the news articles on Google.
I wrote to her again and asked her permission to continue to teach her these principles in weekly letters. She assented.
This began six or seven months of constant research on my part, intense physical training to keep my mind open to what I was addressing and learning, and daily writing and revising to produce the weekly letters (which were each about 2000 words).
I chose to drop out of school to work on this project. This woman, in the meantime, answered sparingly but graciously. She was jetting all over the world on acting gigs, making movies. At the very beginnning, I went for a good six weeks without hearing from her at all, and then just as I was writing the letter to apologize to her for wasting her time, she wrote a brief but quite effusive thank you to me from Germany. But never, in our correspondence, did she ever share anything in detail with me about her private life, or her husband, or her children, or even her beliefs. I think she was startled when I told her I was a Christian Fundamentalist, but she never commented on it. The greatest encouragement she gave me was when she told me that before each court appearance or meeting, she re-read all the essays, all over again.
I had asked her permission to write martial theory to her, and so I tried not to blatantly preach Christianity at her, fearing I would offend her by breaking my word. But I did tell her at several points that I had to explain what I was saying in terms of being a Christian. There are certain precepts of samurai thinking where I think Christian thought supplies a better answer. She never objected. Indeed, at least once when I cautioned her that I wanted to address a matter but would have to do so as a Christian, from the Bible, she was very open to what I said (because it was so true and it really did help her take another look at her situation from a fresh perspective).
The only thing that she ever really shared with me was court dates, and then only once or twice. But---when I knew about them---I would tailor the letters to these situations. At those points I wrote more than once a week.
I worried about her. There was no doubt that she was suffering. Yet she never blamed her husband to me, and once or twice when I included snide remarks about him, she didn't respond at all. At one point, she told me that she wanted to forgive him, and she was working on forgiving him, and she even asked me for my views on how to forgive. As far as I recall, that was the only direct question she ever asked me. I thought---and still think---she was completely sincere in this. I have never seen a person so completely unwilling to hate others outright. Whatever this woman does not believe about God or the Bible or Christanity, she knows better than most Christians---better than I, certainly---how absolutely essential it is to forgive in order to live a happy life.
I finished the first series of letters by the end of the year and wrote a shorter series to her the next year. But she was losing interest, and the letters were losing their pertinence to her situation. Eventually, as her troubles with her x-husband faded, her replies to me faded as well, until I stopped writing to her altogether.
I found it personally upsetting, and offensive, when she mocked Bible-believers on the television show, POLITICALLY INCORRECT. That occurred when I was still writing to her. And I let her know it was offensive. She never apologized or even addressed it with me again. But weeks later, on another episode of the same show, she took great pains to make sure the viewers knew that, though she disagreed with Jerry Falwell (who was on the show with her that night), she respected him.
Every now and then in reading news interviews where she was featured, I would catch some phrase she would use as a borrowing from the essays that I'd written to her. I edited the essays to remove all references to her personal situation, and I put them online to help others. (Click here to read them.)
Then, of course, after all was finished, and I was working on new projects, I learned about some of the R rated films she'd down as a young woman. I was stunned. Now, more recently, new allegations of affairs and even an abortion have come out (put out by her ex-husband, of course).
I labored hard to write essays to help a person, but as it turns out, that person likely has caused or contributed to the downfall of others---at least of their souls. (She's not the type to attack anybody outright.) I understood from the start that there is no trade off on Christian service. We can help another person and never see that person change. We can be a friend and not have a friend. Joseph served Pharoah. Daniel served Nebuchadnezzar. Neither of the men they served changed, though they condescended to be gracious to the religion of their servant (if one can *condescend* to that which is greater and wiser than any emperor).
Following Christ is about giving more than receiving, and I understood that. Indeed, the letters themselves, once edited, have turned out to be of benefit to many people, a gift of service that has a broader scope than just their first recipient. And working wth her distant graciousness helped me understand the highly stratified classes of our society. She was born of British aristocracy and truly was (and is) a member of the "Jet Set." Some people are so beautiful, so refined, and so thoroughly cosmopolitan, that the only way NOT to be foolish in front of them is to be strictly yourself and have no pretense. I understood that I must have come across like a provincial person (though very well read) and certainly very middle class. But knowing that, she treated me with respect and could even laugh at my jokes (in writing).
I learned a lot about writing, a lot about getting past my own awe of people, a lot about having to battle the conditioning of my culture in order to love as God commands us to love, without respect of persons but with great fear of God. I learned to pray to love her as God loves her but to treat her as she expected to be treated.
The greatest benefactor from the letters is me, thus fulfilling Christ's promise that it is better to give than to receive. What I gave certainly has come back to me. How often I have used those letters when in difficulty and encountering adult bullies!
My own life reached a turning point when I wrote those letters, because I hammered out for myself and came to understand how universally true the great truths of the universe are. These days, in my constant struggle with corruption in Independent Baptist Fundamentalism, the education I got from researching the letters has been a tremendous help. (In fact, I have uncovered some new points that I wish I had written in the first edition.)
But the touch of troubled amazement remains. On the one hand, a woman was in danger of being destroyed (emotionally, possibly financially, if not physically) by a man who openly displayed the most bizarre of behaviors. I don't know if her husband physically frightened her or not; his actions certainly frightened me on her behalf. To watch from the sidelines, knowing I could at least offer to help her, yet refusing, would have been unthinkable.
On the other hand, she has done catastrophic harm to others in supporting pornography and in her personal choices. My elderly neighbor, on first hearing of this from me, told me that we have to accept that those who do not believe in the Saviour will act contrary to the teachings of the Saviour. They do not have Christian values, nor should we expect them to. We have to love them with the love of Christ.
Certainly, I never watered down truth to her. How innocently did I assure her that one reason her husband was so bizarre in his public behavior was that his adultery had started to unhinge his mind! He now alleges that she had numerous affairs. Oh dear, no wonder she remained quite distant! I had no idea at the time---as she knew full well---what sort of life she had led behind that extremely respectable exterior.
If I had known, would I have declined to help her? Does God want us to extend such labor willingly to those who oppose His ways? Where do love of others and fear of God meet? Joseph had no choice in his service, nor did Daniel. Fearing God, they served proud kings who took what they wanted and were laws unto themselves. And I, not knowing, helped a proud, aristocratic woman who also has been a law unto herself.
The other thing that bothers me is that it was God's will that I not know until well after the fact. This chills my heart about myself. It is difficult to assist those who neither care about us nor respect our values. If I'd realized ahead of time that this woman had earned money from loathesome films and had done all the rest, would I have told myself it was God's will to back off, when actually He decreed that I help her?
It makes me think of Peter and the tent that came down. We draw back and say, "I'm too righteous to do that, Lord," but God says, "go do it, in faith."
This woman demonstrated, quite unconsciously, qualities that I admire a lot. First, she forgave a wretched man who was incredibly cruel to her. And forgiving him, no matter how many times he came back to hurt her, was a very high priority in her mind. I really respect that. I wish I held forgiveness in such high esteem. In fact, I learned from her to value forgiveness more.
In spite of living a life that I think was dishonest (in that she created an image of respectability when she was actually doing radically immoral things), there was an honesty in her that was jarring to me. As I said, she didn't reply back to me much, but what she said she would do, she always did. The first time she told me about a court case, I was almost as worried about it as she was. I did extra research into what is called "blending" (Check the essays.) and wrote an extra essay just to help her face her husband in person. She knew I was genuinely concerned, and she promised to e-mail me the same day as the court appearance, to let me know how she did.
At the time, I did not know she was scheduled to fly out to Europe as part of her busy filming schedule. The next morning, I got an e-mail from her with a time stamp of 11:57 PM from LA. If it was the last thing she did on that busy day, she was going to keep her promise and let me know how it went. The e-mail waas only two sentences long, typical of her. That same day there was a remark in the paper that she had just flown out, and I realized that she had kept her word at some inconvenience to herself, simply because she had said she would do it. I could see from her e-mailsl that she was honest in what she said. If she didn't want to tell the truth about something, she said nothing. But when she spoke, she told the truth. Also, she expressed genuine grief once or twice, but she never expressed self pity. She never expressed rancor. She never wrote bitterly.
And, oddly enough, she was remarkably open minded (to everything except the Bible). When I paused to consider (as I often did) that I must be coming across to her as pretty provincial and limited and middle class, it amazed me that she accorded my words with the same level of trust that she accorded advice from her own peers. (Indeed, at times she accorded my words more confidence.) She maintained that gracious distance from me (which I realize may have been as much for my benefit as hers, as she knew her life would be shocking to me), but there was no doubt that she was following what I wrote to her and doing much of what I suggested. She never grudged on telling me which specific letters had really helped her, and she did acknowledge changing her point of view on a couple things I wrote about.
On the other hand, the whole aristocratic thing itself, the derision she has expressed about middle class values, her complete dismissal of the Bible coupled with her complete ignorance of it (which she also demonstrated on POLITICALLY INCORRECT), they are all foolishness and pride. The rich and powerful often assume they have morality by the tale, and then their self-serving actions turn into a monster that bites them, or even devours them. And they never figure out the way that the entire universe runs, and it admits no exceptions to its laws.
My mind was remade as I considered our different worlds. (Oh so different!) Even now, four years later, as I write this, my mind is still reforming around these paradoxes of such transparent humility and such stunning pride, such willingness from one who knew so much to learn something new from a nobody; and yet such hard heartedness when her own deeds had come back to her, to mock the beliefs of those who believe Bible (including her own correspondent, who was trying to help her).
And now to read of the revelry and riot of her life. At times it's difficult not to judge. At other times, I am so thankful God tells not to judge. Have faith in Him, do good, exercise patience in our labors, wait on the Lord. So I tell myself. And I pray for her. It;s been sporadic, but as news has recurred of her bitter husband attacking once again, I have started to pray for her regularly again.
There's nothing else to say to her, except this: Although it's really, really hard to beat the devil, it is absolutely impossible to make a truce with him.
But she probably has learned that without my help.
In May of 1999, I discovered an article about a well known actress's bizarre husband, and his very public efforts to humiliate his wife. I can't remember which of his weird deeds was the first one that caught my attention, but I did a search on him and discovered that he had run his own campaign, not only to humiliate her, but to keep appearing where ever she was.
It was too soon after the OJ Simpson case to not feel concern. The story, as I was able to put it together from news articles that spanned six months, was one of egregious lies, adultery, and even a cruel trick that had involved bringing their oldest son unwittingly into the father's affair. The actress actually stayed with her husband for a few months after he had flaunted his adultery in front of her, and then finally she left him and filed for divorce. But the bizarre stuff had just begun.
I was in night school at the time and working. But I felt that the husband's bizarre and attention-getting behavior could be a means of control over his wife. When I looked up her somewhat superficial autobiography and saw how young she had been when she'd married him, and how old he had been in contrast (and already married once before), I decided that there was a lot of evidence to support my suspicions of complete control over her in the marriage. Plus, he had been her manager, and I didn't think he was a very good manager. There had been huge gaps in her career.
I was concerned for her well being. I decided to write to her and explain some of the basics of how to engage in battle. I was a third degree black belt at the time, and I was familiar with Miyamoto Musashi's BOOK OF FIVE RINGS.
Fighting, you have to realize, occurs primarily in the mind, no matter what the weapons are. A stable mind relies upon a strong spirit, yet a strong fighting spirit is fed from universal truths that the mind must apprehend and fully believe. So training has to be a mixture of understanding, suffering hardship, and engaging in battles.
She would have plenty of battles and was under hardship, so I wrote to her to explain the very first principles of battle. I customized them for her situation. I was certain that if she only understood how to wage war in the mind, she had enough personal courage to fight for herself.
Not entirely to my surprise, she wrote back to thank me quite warmly, telling me she meant to keep my letter close at hand. And I sent her the second of the two-part epistle. Then over the next week I continued to read accounts of her husband in the news articles on Google.
I wrote to her again and asked her permission to continue to teach her these principles in weekly letters. She assented.
This began six or seven months of constant research on my part, intense physical training to keep my mind open to what I was addressing and learning, and daily writing and revising to produce the weekly letters (which were each about 2000 words).
I chose to drop out of school to work on this project. This woman, in the meantime, answered sparingly but graciously. She was jetting all over the world on acting gigs, making movies. At the very beginnning, I went for a good six weeks without hearing from her at all, and then just as I was writing the letter to apologize to her for wasting her time, she wrote a brief but quite effusive thank you to me from Germany. But never, in our correspondence, did she ever share anything in detail with me about her private life, or her husband, or her children, or even her beliefs. I think she was startled when I told her I was a Christian Fundamentalist, but she never commented on it. The greatest encouragement she gave me was when she told me that before each court appearance or meeting, she re-read all the essays, all over again.
I had asked her permission to write martial theory to her, and so I tried not to blatantly preach Christianity at her, fearing I would offend her by breaking my word. But I did tell her at several points that I had to explain what I was saying in terms of being a Christian. There are certain precepts of samurai thinking where I think Christian thought supplies a better answer. She never objected. Indeed, at least once when I cautioned her that I wanted to address a matter but would have to do so as a Christian, from the Bible, she was very open to what I said (because it was so true and it really did help her take another look at her situation from a fresh perspective).
The only thing that she ever really shared with me was court dates, and then only once or twice. But---when I knew about them---I would tailor the letters to these situations. At those points I wrote more than once a week.
I worried about her. There was no doubt that she was suffering. Yet she never blamed her husband to me, and once or twice when I included snide remarks about him, she didn't respond at all. At one point, she told me that she wanted to forgive him, and she was working on forgiving him, and she even asked me for my views on how to forgive. As far as I recall, that was the only direct question she ever asked me. I thought---and still think---she was completely sincere in this. I have never seen a person so completely unwilling to hate others outright. Whatever this woman does not believe about God or the Bible or Christanity, she knows better than most Christians---better than I, certainly---how absolutely essential it is to forgive in order to live a happy life.
I finished the first series of letters by the end of the year and wrote a shorter series to her the next year. But she was losing interest, and the letters were losing their pertinence to her situation. Eventually, as her troubles with her x-husband faded, her replies to me faded as well, until I stopped writing to her altogether.
I found it personally upsetting, and offensive, when she mocked Bible-believers on the television show, POLITICALLY INCORRECT. That occurred when I was still writing to her. And I let her know it was offensive. She never apologized or even addressed it with me again. But weeks later, on another episode of the same show, she took great pains to make sure the viewers knew that, though she disagreed with Jerry Falwell (who was on the show with her that night), she respected him.
Every now and then in reading news interviews where she was featured, I would catch some phrase she would use as a borrowing from the essays that I'd written to her. I edited the essays to remove all references to her personal situation, and I put them online to help others. (Click here to read them.)
Then, of course, after all was finished, and I was working on new projects, I learned about some of the R rated films she'd down as a young woman. I was stunned. Now, more recently, new allegations of affairs and even an abortion have come out (put out by her ex-husband, of course).
I labored hard to write essays to help a person, but as it turns out, that person likely has caused or contributed to the downfall of others---at least of their souls. (She's not the type to attack anybody outright.) I understood from the start that there is no trade off on Christian service. We can help another person and never see that person change. We can be a friend and not have a friend. Joseph served Pharoah. Daniel served Nebuchadnezzar. Neither of the men they served changed, though they condescended to be gracious to the religion of their servant (if one can *condescend* to that which is greater and wiser than any emperor).
Following Christ is about giving more than receiving, and I understood that. Indeed, the letters themselves, once edited, have turned out to be of benefit to many people, a gift of service that has a broader scope than just their first recipient. And working wth her distant graciousness helped me understand the highly stratified classes of our society. She was born of British aristocracy and truly was (and is) a member of the "Jet Set." Some people are so beautiful, so refined, and so thoroughly cosmopolitan, that the only way NOT to be foolish in front of them is to be strictly yourself and have no pretense. I understood that I must have come across like a provincial person (though very well read) and certainly very middle class. But knowing that, she treated me with respect and could even laugh at my jokes (in writing).
I learned a lot about writing, a lot about getting past my own awe of people, a lot about having to battle the conditioning of my culture in order to love as God commands us to love, without respect of persons but with great fear of God. I learned to pray to love her as God loves her but to treat her as she expected to be treated.
The greatest benefactor from the letters is me, thus fulfilling Christ's promise that it is better to give than to receive. What I gave certainly has come back to me. How often I have used those letters when in difficulty and encountering adult bullies!
My own life reached a turning point when I wrote those letters, because I hammered out for myself and came to understand how universally true the great truths of the universe are. These days, in my constant struggle with corruption in Independent Baptist Fundamentalism, the education I got from researching the letters has been a tremendous help. (In fact, I have uncovered some new points that I wish I had written in the first edition.)
But the touch of troubled amazement remains. On the one hand, a woman was in danger of being destroyed (emotionally, possibly financially, if not physically) by a man who openly displayed the most bizarre of behaviors. I don't know if her husband physically frightened her or not; his actions certainly frightened me on her behalf. To watch from the sidelines, knowing I could at least offer to help her, yet refusing, would have been unthinkable.
On the other hand, she has done catastrophic harm to others in supporting pornography and in her personal choices. My elderly neighbor, on first hearing of this from me, told me that we have to accept that those who do not believe in the Saviour will act contrary to the teachings of the Saviour. They do not have Christian values, nor should we expect them to. We have to love them with the love of Christ.
Certainly, I never watered down truth to her. How innocently did I assure her that one reason her husband was so bizarre in his public behavior was that his adultery had started to unhinge his mind! He now alleges that she had numerous affairs. Oh dear, no wonder she remained quite distant! I had no idea at the time---as she knew full well---what sort of life she had led behind that extremely respectable exterior.
If I had known, would I have declined to help her? Does God want us to extend such labor willingly to those who oppose His ways? Where do love of others and fear of God meet? Joseph had no choice in his service, nor did Daniel. Fearing God, they served proud kings who took what they wanted and were laws unto themselves. And I, not knowing, helped a proud, aristocratic woman who also has been a law unto herself.
The other thing that bothers me is that it was God's will that I not know until well after the fact. This chills my heart about myself. It is difficult to assist those who neither care about us nor respect our values. If I'd realized ahead of time that this woman had earned money from loathesome films and had done all the rest, would I have told myself it was God's will to back off, when actually He decreed that I help her?
It makes me think of Peter and the tent that came down. We draw back and say, "I'm too righteous to do that, Lord," but God says, "go do it, in faith."
This woman demonstrated, quite unconsciously, qualities that I admire a lot. First, she forgave a wretched man who was incredibly cruel to her. And forgiving him, no matter how many times he came back to hurt her, was a very high priority in her mind. I really respect that. I wish I held forgiveness in such high esteem. In fact, I learned from her to value forgiveness more.
In spite of living a life that I think was dishonest (in that she created an image of respectability when she was actually doing radically immoral things), there was an honesty in her that was jarring to me. As I said, she didn't reply back to me much, but what she said she would do, she always did. The first time she told me about a court case, I was almost as worried about it as she was. I did extra research into what is called "blending" (Check the essays.) and wrote an extra essay just to help her face her husband in person. She knew I was genuinely concerned, and she promised to e-mail me the same day as the court appearance, to let me know how she did.
At the time, I did not know she was scheduled to fly out to Europe as part of her busy filming schedule. The next morning, I got an e-mail from her with a time stamp of 11:57 PM from LA. If it was the last thing she did on that busy day, she was going to keep her promise and let me know how it went. The e-mail waas only two sentences long, typical of her. That same day there was a remark in the paper that she had just flown out, and I realized that she had kept her word at some inconvenience to herself, simply because she had said she would do it. I could see from her e-mailsl that she was honest in what she said. If she didn't want to tell the truth about something, she said nothing. But when she spoke, she told the truth. Also, she expressed genuine grief once or twice, but she never expressed self pity. She never expressed rancor. She never wrote bitterly.
And, oddly enough, she was remarkably open minded (to everything except the Bible). When I paused to consider (as I often did) that I must be coming across to her as pretty provincial and limited and middle class, it amazed me that she accorded my words with the same level of trust that she accorded advice from her own peers. (Indeed, at times she accorded my words more confidence.) She maintained that gracious distance from me (which I realize may have been as much for my benefit as hers, as she knew her life would be shocking to me), but there was no doubt that she was following what I wrote to her and doing much of what I suggested. She never grudged on telling me which specific letters had really helped her, and she did acknowledge changing her point of view on a couple things I wrote about.
On the other hand, the whole aristocratic thing itself, the derision she has expressed about middle class values, her complete dismissal of the Bible coupled with her complete ignorance of it (which she also demonstrated on POLITICALLY INCORRECT), they are all foolishness and pride. The rich and powerful often assume they have morality by the tale, and then their self-serving actions turn into a monster that bites them, or even devours them. And they never figure out the way that the entire universe runs, and it admits no exceptions to its laws.
My mind was remade as I considered our different worlds. (Oh so different!) Even now, four years later, as I write this, my mind is still reforming around these paradoxes of such transparent humility and such stunning pride, such willingness from one who knew so much to learn something new from a nobody; and yet such hard heartedness when her own deeds had come back to her, to mock the beliefs of those who believe Bible (including her own correspondent, who was trying to help her).
And now to read of the revelry and riot of her life. At times it's difficult not to judge. At other times, I am so thankful God tells not to judge. Have faith in Him, do good, exercise patience in our labors, wait on the Lord. So I tell myself. And I pray for her. It;s been sporadic, but as news has recurred of her bitter husband attacking once again, I have started to pray for her regularly again.
There's nothing else to say to her, except this: Although it's really, really hard to beat the devil, it is absolutely impossible to make a truce with him.
But she probably has learned that without my help.
IFBx Preachers in the Mist
When Dian Fossey was carrying out her now-famous study of the mountain gorillas in Rwanda, she kept careful notes of the behaviors of the group. Her insights into their interactions made gorillas much less fearsome to human beings and provided readers with a basic understanding of the gorilla "culture" and mind.
The primate mind depends on certain rituals: accepted behaviors that either communicate specific needs that are well known to the members of the group, or else create a sense of unity in the group to keep it together. Not having minds as sophisticated as human beings (but being one of the most clever creatures of the animal kingdom) the gorillas use group ritual as a behavior that replaces more sophisticated communication such as we would use in a group. It's a step-down replacement, suitable for a more limited mind, yet it achieves about the same thing in the end: group unity and cohesiveness. Granted, there are limits in that the ritualized behavior is learned and conditioned and not based on any intelligent articulation, but as gorillas themselves have limits, the ritualized behaviors work very well for them and assist them in their survival.
I have been amazed, in my continuing interactions with Independent Fundamental Baptists of the X persuasion (IFBx), to also note certain distinct group rituals. And really, upon reflection, I think it has many similarities to Fossey's gorillas. Lacking intelligence regarding the Scripture that they claim to know and believe, IFBx groups, usually led by the dominant male in the group, engage in certain observable, repeatable rituals.
The first of the rituals I have noticed is the affirmation of the secondary male ritual. I first noted it almost 30 years ago, at Pastors School in Hammond Indiana. Jack Hyles would call up preachers of smaller churches and then launch into a eulogy for them in front of the crowd (which included their native group of church members). He would get quite emotional in recounting the secondary male's exploits and sufferings. And of course, the secondary male in question would become quite tearful as he realized that, yes, he was indeed a brave soldier of the cross, and at last everybody knew it. Normally, tears in Fundamentalist male groups are banned, except when a dominant male evokes them. Then tears are considered quite manly, and all the males do their best to shed them.
The affirmation of the secondary male ritual has been carried around to smaller groups, and the gorillas---I mean the IFBx preachers---have introduced it into the smaller groups where they are the dominant males. It's a handy replacement of genuine Christian fellowship, as is engaged in by real Christians, and it also replaces the Biblical process of confrontation, repentance, and restoration. It was used most recently by Chris Farris, when he rebuked the FFF for thinking that Guy Beaumont (BAPTIST) is a failure because he disobeys every single mandate of Scripture about the bearing and dignity of the pastor:
And to this, Guy Beaumont of course gave the ritualized response:
Remember, in the ritualized social practices of the IFBx males, tears are obligatory at this point, and so Guy shed them, virtually, of course. It's a classic conciliatory gesture in which the secondary male submits and yet is given his dignity by the primary male (Male ascendancy is usually ascribed according to the size of a male's church.)
Of course there has been no change at all in Guy's behavior. Gorillas---sorry, I mean IFBx preachers---are incapable of the higher sensibilities reserved for those who practice a genuine faith. They can only mimics and engage in ritual. But it was a perfect opportunity to document one of the primary rituals that has held IFBx churches together for so long.
There are other ritual behaviors in the culture of the IFBx group, but as time is short this morning, I will have to document them later.
When Dian Fossey was carrying out her now-famous study of the mountain gorillas in Rwanda, she kept careful notes of the behaviors of the group. Her insights into their interactions made gorillas much less fearsome to human beings and provided readers with a basic understanding of the gorilla "culture" and mind.
The primate mind depends on certain rituals: accepted behaviors that either communicate specific needs that are well known to the members of the group, or else create a sense of unity in the group to keep it together. Not having minds as sophisticated as human beings (but being one of the most clever creatures of the animal kingdom) the gorillas use group ritual as a behavior that replaces more sophisticated communication such as we would use in a group. It's a step-down replacement, suitable for a more limited mind, yet it achieves about the same thing in the end: group unity and cohesiveness. Granted, there are limits in that the ritualized behavior is learned and conditioned and not based on any intelligent articulation, but as gorillas themselves have limits, the ritualized behaviors work very well for them and assist them in their survival.
I have been amazed, in my continuing interactions with Independent Fundamental Baptists of the X persuasion (IFBx), to also note certain distinct group rituals. And really, upon reflection, I think it has many similarities to Fossey's gorillas. Lacking intelligence regarding the Scripture that they claim to know and believe, IFBx groups, usually led by the dominant male in the group, engage in certain observable, repeatable rituals.
The first of the rituals I have noticed is the affirmation of the secondary male ritual. I first noted it almost 30 years ago, at Pastors School in Hammond Indiana. Jack Hyles would call up preachers of smaller churches and then launch into a eulogy for them in front of the crowd (which included their native group of church members). He would get quite emotional in recounting the secondary male's exploits and sufferings. And of course, the secondary male in question would become quite tearful as he realized that, yes, he was indeed a brave soldier of the cross, and at last everybody knew it. Normally, tears in Fundamentalist male groups are banned, except when a dominant male evokes them. Then tears are considered quite manly, and all the males do their best to shed them.
The affirmation of the secondary male ritual has been carried around to smaller groups, and the gorillas---I mean the IFBx preachers---have introduced it into the smaller groups where they are the dominant males. It's a handy replacement of genuine Christian fellowship, as is engaged in by real Christians, and it also replaces the Biblical process of confrontation, repentance, and restoration. It was used most recently by Chris Farris, when he rebuked the FFF for thinking that Guy Beaumont (BAPTIST) is a failure because he disobeys every single mandate of Scripture about the bearing and dignity of the pastor:
"Did we ever stop to think that behind that key board is a man who is doing his best to please his God by pastoring a church there in Pennsylvania? A man who gets lonely and scared. A man who gets tired and discouraged. A man who sometimes wonders if he will ever make it....Now, I know what some of you are going to say, 'BAPTIST acts like a jerk on here' and to that I say, 'He is without sin, let him cast the first stone!'
And to this, Guy Beaumont of course gave the ritualized response:
Tears filled my eyes as I read your post. Yes, I am guilty as charged. Thank you for your kind and encouraging words. I find it easy to get along with a real person such as yourself. But God tells us to love the unlovely and how we ought to treat those that hate us. With that, my work is cut out for me.
Remember, in the ritualized social practices of the IFBx males, tears are obligatory at this point, and so Guy shed them, virtually, of course. It's a classic conciliatory gesture in which the secondary male submits and yet is given his dignity by the primary male (Male ascendancy is usually ascribed according to the size of a male's church.)
Of course there has been no change at all in Guy's behavior. Gorillas---sorry, I mean IFBx preachers---are incapable of the higher sensibilities reserved for those who practice a genuine faith. They can only mimics and engage in ritual. But it was a perfect opportunity to document one of the primary rituals that has held IFBx churches together for so long.
There are other ritual behaviors in the culture of the IFBx group, but as time is short this morning, I will have to document them later.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
An Independent Fundamental Baptist Pastor defends his "brother."
Christian Farris is the son of Everrett Farris, senior pastor of Crosspointe Baptist Church in Pinellas Park, Florida. Christian and his brother Jonathan are on church staff as well, in associate pastor roles. Nice work if you can get it, and another evidence of some of the problems endemic in Independent Baptist churches. Theirs is the church that brought Dave Hyles, a rampant sexual player who was kicked out of Miller Road Baptist church for having affairs with over a dozen women, onto their church staff. They then shipped him off to another church (Berean Baptist, pastored by Tom Neal) when he was caught in adultery. The matter was kept secret until Dave Hyles was again caught in adultery in Tom Neal's church and kicked out.
Chris has a difficult time dealing with me on the Fundamentalist Forum because I protest loud and long that their pastorate is fallen and has demonstrated such incompetence with Scripture and such disobedience to it that they are disqualified from church office. I keep asking him and his brother Jonathan if they have repented of their sin in bringing this monster onto church staff, and this infuriates them.
So far, they have accused me of being ugly, being a liar, and who knows what else. The typical fundamentalist rants against any who oppose them are homosexuality and other gross sins. But I must admit, once you've taken part in shipping around a gross adulterer from church to church, knowing he has engaged in such sin multiple times---as a pastor, it's kind of hard to make charges against others stick.
Anyway, Chris Farris' latest demonstration of IFBx theology has been the public reconciliation between him and Guy Beaumont, aka BAPTIST on the Hyles-Anderson forum of the FFF. Here are some brief samples of Guy Beaumont's posts. Remember, Guy also claims to be a pastor:
Guy can get even more venomous than this, but I will let my readers go do their own research.
Last night, Chris posted a long remonstrance with the forum, apologizing for his attitude toward the other "men of God" (IFB preachers) and especially Guy. Here is Chris's assessment of the wrongness of rebuking pastors like Guy Beaumont: "Regardless of whether or not we agree with everything a pastor does or doesn’t do most certainly doesn’t give us right to tear him down or his ministry. It’s wickedness, I don’t care how much you try to justify it."
His remarks are a reflection of the culture of the Independent Baptist Church-X movement, in which any man who lays claim to being a pastor is accepted as having a right to that office and thus *is* a man of God, no matter how much he demonstrates otherwise. Furthermore, in IFBx thinking, the title of being a "man of God" brings with it all kinds of entitlements and puts a man above accountability.
I am willing to accept that there was mere squabble-level stuff going on between Chris and Guy, but the fact is, a man who rails against others as Guy Beaumont does is not fit to hold church office according to Paul's standards of pastoral conduct as recorded in I Timothy. And there is even an injunction against having any fellowship with him at all in I Corinthians chapter 5.
Chris also relies upon a classic IFBx piece of theology when he writes, "Those of us who have ripped him and torn him down, did we ever stop to think that behind that key board is a man who is doing his best to please his God by pastoring a church there in Pennsylvania?"
Ah yes, the great last resort of the weeping righteous. "I was doing my best to please God." In a religion based on good works, it is the final claim and plea for some sort of standing. In the religion of the flesh, Grace is due to the man who "does his best," because if works are the basis for righteousness, then even if we fail, trying should at least get us some points.
Let a man lie, let him rail, let him berate, let him scorn, let him defend the indefensible. But at the very end, if he whimpers and says, "But I was trying my best to please God," then in his mind, he should have some standing of acceptance, however low, because he put forth genuine effort. He worked to be righteous, at least on some level.
Such reasoning will get you far among the papists and the deists. But the truth is, BAPTIST has been told repeatedly that his method is entirely unbiblical, his thinking reveals an alienation from God, and his actions oppose the teaching of the Scripture.
There is no room for grace in a heart that works its best to please God. God is offended by the people who do their best to please Him. Isaiah likened our best efforts at righteousness to men adorned with menstrual rags in the presence of God. It is grossly offensive to God for us to adorn ourselves with our works. It is grossly offensive to Him if we dare to make our plea, "I tried my best" and hope for anythng other than condemnation. Heaven is for those who have no works to claim. Christ came to bless those who are poor in Spirit, those who approach God only as beggars. Blessed are the people who beg from God, for THEY get the kingdom of God, not those who plead the merit of having done their best.
When God came in the flesh He expressly said He had not come to minister to those who have any standing of righteousness. He came to save the lost. He came to give His righteousness to people who have no claim to righteousness.
Chris Farris and Guy Beaumont clearly ARE men who have tried their best to please God, and they have come to the same end as any person who tries his or her best to please God----self justification, wrath, manipulation, denial of wrongdoing, and all along a constant defiance against the commands of Christ.
All the trolls, all the mockery, all the cowardice, they are all the marks of people who try their best to please God. That system always leads one way and one way only---the exaltation of the flesh.
Yes, I can see Guy Beaumont tries his best to please God (as does Chris Farris), and so he must resort to every trick of the flesh to keep his engine of human effort going. But the Bible teaches that we are completely dependent on the righteousness of Christ, and this Christian life is lived by faith in the Son of God and not confidence in our efforts.
Away with tears, away with self pity, away with mawkish claims of brotherhood based on human effort and sham church offices. The only true brotherhood is based on fellowship in Christ, standing in Christ, knowing Christ, and Christ living in us, His people. Until that is the claim and the basis that either Chris Farris or Guy Beaumont pleads for fellowship and forgiveness, then they do not have fellowship with Christians. We can pity them; we can keep explaining the truth to them, but until they repent of sin and rely on grace, they are practicing a religion outside of Biblical Christianity. And they will keep demonstrating where they have their confidence by their actions and their words.
Christian Farris is the son of Everrett Farris, senior pastor of Crosspointe Baptist Church in Pinellas Park, Florida. Christian and his brother Jonathan are on church staff as well, in associate pastor roles. Nice work if you can get it, and another evidence of some of the problems endemic in Independent Baptist churches. Theirs is the church that brought Dave Hyles, a rampant sexual player who was kicked out of Miller Road Baptist church for having affairs with over a dozen women, onto their church staff. They then shipped him off to another church (Berean Baptist, pastored by Tom Neal) when he was caught in adultery. The matter was kept secret until Dave Hyles was again caught in adultery in Tom Neal's church and kicked out.
Chris has a difficult time dealing with me on the Fundamentalist Forum because I protest loud and long that their pastorate is fallen and has demonstrated such incompetence with Scripture and such disobedience to it that they are disqualified from church office. I keep asking him and his brother Jonathan if they have repented of their sin in bringing this monster onto church staff, and this infuriates them.
So far, they have accused me of being ugly, being a liar, and who knows what else. The typical fundamentalist rants against any who oppose them are homosexuality and other gross sins. But I must admit, once you've taken part in shipping around a gross adulterer from church to church, knowing he has engaged in such sin multiple times---as a pastor, it's kind of hard to make charges against others stick.
Anyway, Chris Farris' latest demonstration of IFBx theology has been the public reconciliation between him and Guy Beaumont, aka BAPTIST on the Hyles-Anderson forum of the FFF. Here are some brief samples of Guy Beaumont's posts. Remember, Guy also claims to be a pastor:
Thank you for playing my game. You can go back to being morons as usual.LOL!!!
JUST AS I FIGURED Oct-22-04 3:04pm
You really are short on brains. That's the point, whacko!!
Re: For Jerri Massi//if I'm not mistaken... Oct-22-04 3:21pm
You have showed her to be ignorant still. I like watching her make herself look dumb. She's a real pro at it.
NAO Oct-20-04 10:26pm
Guy can get even more venomous than this, but I will let my readers go do their own research.
Last night, Chris posted a long remonstrance with the forum, apologizing for his attitude toward the other "men of God" (IFB preachers) and especially Guy. Here is Chris's assessment of the wrongness of rebuking pastors like Guy Beaumont: "Regardless of whether or not we agree with everything a pastor does or doesn’t do most certainly doesn’t give us right to tear him down or his ministry. It’s wickedness, I don’t care how much you try to justify it."
His remarks are a reflection of the culture of the Independent Baptist Church-X movement, in which any man who lays claim to being a pastor is accepted as having a right to that office and thus *is* a man of God, no matter how much he demonstrates otherwise. Furthermore, in IFBx thinking, the title of being a "man of God" brings with it all kinds of entitlements and puts a man above accountability.
I am willing to accept that there was mere squabble-level stuff going on between Chris and Guy, but the fact is, a man who rails against others as Guy Beaumont does is not fit to hold church office according to Paul's standards of pastoral conduct as recorded in I Timothy. And there is even an injunction against having any fellowship with him at all in I Corinthians chapter 5.
Chris also relies upon a classic IFBx piece of theology when he writes, "Those of us who have ripped him and torn him down, did we ever stop to think that behind that key board is a man who is doing his best to please his God by pastoring a church there in Pennsylvania?"
Ah yes, the great last resort of the weeping righteous. "I was doing my best to please God." In a religion based on good works, it is the final claim and plea for some sort of standing. In the religion of the flesh, Grace is due to the man who "does his best," because if works are the basis for righteousness, then even if we fail, trying should at least get us some points.
Let a man lie, let him rail, let him berate, let him scorn, let him defend the indefensible. But at the very end, if he whimpers and says, "But I was trying my best to please God," then in his mind, he should have some standing of acceptance, however low, because he put forth genuine effort. He worked to be righteous, at least on some level.
Such reasoning will get you far among the papists and the deists. But the truth is, BAPTIST has been told repeatedly that his method is entirely unbiblical, his thinking reveals an alienation from God, and his actions oppose the teaching of the Scripture.
There is no room for grace in a heart that works its best to please God. God is offended by the people who do their best to please Him. Isaiah likened our best efforts at righteousness to men adorned with menstrual rags in the presence of God. It is grossly offensive to God for us to adorn ourselves with our works. It is grossly offensive to Him if we dare to make our plea, "I tried my best" and hope for anythng other than condemnation. Heaven is for those who have no works to claim. Christ came to bless those who are poor in Spirit, those who approach God only as beggars. Blessed are the people who beg from God, for THEY get the kingdom of God, not those who plead the merit of having done their best.
When God came in the flesh He expressly said He had not come to minister to those who have any standing of righteousness. He came to save the lost. He came to give His righteousness to people who have no claim to righteousness.
Chris Farris and Guy Beaumont clearly ARE men who have tried their best to please God, and they have come to the same end as any person who tries his or her best to please God----self justification, wrath, manipulation, denial of wrongdoing, and all along a constant defiance against the commands of Christ.
All the trolls, all the mockery, all the cowardice, they are all the marks of people who try their best to please God. That system always leads one way and one way only---the exaltation of the flesh.
Yes, I can see Guy Beaumont tries his best to please God (as does Chris Farris), and so he must resort to every trick of the flesh to keep his engine of human effort going. But the Bible teaches that we are completely dependent on the righteousness of Christ, and this Christian life is lived by faith in the Son of God and not confidence in our efforts.
Away with tears, away with self pity, away with mawkish claims of brotherhood based on human effort and sham church offices. The only true brotherhood is based on fellowship in Christ, standing in Christ, knowing Christ, and Christ living in us, His people. Until that is the claim and the basis that either Chris Farris or Guy Beaumont pleads for fellowship and forgiveness, then they do not have fellowship with Christians. We can pity them; we can keep explaining the truth to them, but until they repent of sin and rely on grace, they are practicing a religion outside of Biblical Christianity. And they will keep demonstrating where they have their confidence by their actions and their words.
