Scott "Scrappleface" Ott gets a "Four-'Dude!'" award

Satire and parody are hard. One tends either to be too ham-fisted (see anything by Mel Brooks) or so subtle as to be understood only by one's mother... and she's just laughing to make you feel better.

Then there's Scott Ott of Scrappleface. His parody ranges from good to excruciatingly good. He so has a line on things that, if you see his articles out of context, you have to double-check to be that it isn't an actual story. Check his archives, you'll see exactly what I mean.

It took a lot of nerve for him to put up Pope Shocks Easter Crowd, Doffs Cap and Gown, on Easter, but he did it. For that, he gets a Four-"Dude!" award from me. Here's an excerpt:

Dress[ed] in casual khaki pants and an open-collared long-sleeved denim shirt, his hair mussed with a self-confessed “bad case of miter head,” the pontiff formerly known as Joseph Ratzinger (TPFKAJR), said that “during a long sleepless night of prayer” he had begun to wonder “whether all the pomp and circumstance sends the wrong message, and directs people’s gaze on me rather than on the one who deserves our worship.”

“It makes good television — you know, all the candles and gold and costumes — but we have gathered to celebrate the resurrection of the only sinless man who ever ever lived, the one we believe is Lord the Universe,” the Pope said, “and that ain’t me.”

Read it all. Think his Roman Catholic readers were offended? Ohhh, yeah.

When it's your time to go...

So, this guy is apparently just sitting in a house off in the foothills of the Sierra -- when the foundation collapses, the ground opens up, he's swallowed up and killed. No lie -- just like that. Shocking, sad.

Clyde Cook, the president of Biola University, had a sermon he preached from time to time, the point of which (as I recall) was "no man knows his hour." He began it by relating a series of odd deaths -- like being hit by a part that fell off a passing jet, and the like. He collected clippings to use as his opening illustrations.

No doubt this would go on that list.

It does make a couple of points rather effectively.

1. Death seldom asks permission of those it visits.
2. Though it may do so (so to speak -- avoidable deaths is what I have in mind), there is no guarantee that it will.
3. When God wants you dead, you'll die (cf. 1 Kings 22:34, and context).
4. God can be creative in how He causes your death (compare Deuteronomy 19:5 with Exodus 21:15).
5. If you aren't already prepared to die, you're a fool (Ecclesiastes 3:19; 9:4-5). Best to stop.
6. If your "escape plan" is to carry off a death-bed conversion, then you're the worst kind of barking, drooling, foam-flecked, white-eyed, ankle-biting fool. What, fool -- you think a sign is going to appear in the air in front of you, helpfully noting, "You will die in five minutes. Commence last-minute saving repentance in three... two... one...." No one is guaranteed a bed, nor an opportunity to repent beyond the one he has at this very moment.
7. If you're a Christian who feels he's outlived his usefulness, don't. If God wanted you dead, you'd be dead. Count on it. If you're alive, God has a purpose for you.
8. Now is the best -- indeed, the only -- time to prepare. You know -- "Let's see: clothes, wallet, cell phone, lunch money, being-prepared-to-die-at-any-moment... being-prepared-to-die-at-any-moment??!" D'oh!"

Evolutionists and homosexuals: more alike than one might guess

Various news articles started me thinking about similarities between homosexual agenda advocacy groups, and the First Church of Darwin.

There have been stories about homosexuals demonstrating and protesting Christian meetiings. A report last month related how homosexual advocacy groups are attacking organizations that try to help homosexuals find freedom from -- instead of embrace slavery to -- their perverse passions.

Ever notice how similar the two groups are?

• Both are utterly dogmatic about their perspective.
• Both regard deviations from their perspective, not with openminded interest, but with violent revulsion and contempt.
• Both are intent, not on engaging, but on suppressing alternative views.
• Both insist that theirs is the only possible, true, rational view.
• Even more, both direct the same molten fury against "apostates."

Let's expand on that last point. Both evolutionists or homosexual activists level the same invective against anyone departing from their orthodoxy. What sorts of things do both groups say?

• "He never really was 'gay' / a scientist!"
• "There is no such thing as an ex-'gay' / scientist-who-rejects-evolution!"
• "He's just an anti-gay / anti-science fundamentalist fanatic -- exactly like the Taliban!"

Why? On the face of it, and from a bit of emotional distance, it isn't what you'd expect.

The materialistic, Darwinian, scientistic establishment claims to be all about facts. The face they turn to the world is wide-open to alternative views, with no religious or philosophical axe to grind whatever. You'd think that they'd embrace an alternative approach with open arms, give them an equal seat at the table, allow that their perspective may be valid.

Homosexual activists claim that they've a hard, hard life. They claim to be abused and persecuted. They insist that no one would choose to be homosexual. You'd think that, if someone actually could demonstrate that there is an alternative, there is a different way, they'd rejoice.

In both cases, what you and I'd think is not just wrong -- but exactly, precisely, almost studiedly wrong.

Why?

Maybe it's this:

Both share the same real root problem, as do we all. They "love" contrary viewpoints like cockroaches "love" light: not. The scientistic establishment is really a religio-philosophical worldview. So is that of homosexual activists. Both define their lives in terms of their central allegiance (materialism / homosexuality).

Both bet their souls that the God of the Bible doesn't exist.

And so you see, in both cases, if they're mistaken, they lose more than a detached intellectual argument. They lose their god, they lose their world. The Darwinian dogmatist can no longer define everything in terms of mindless, valueless processes. The homosexual's passions are no longer the transcendent, unchallenged measure and defining-point of all things.

And so, everything is called into question: the way they view themselves, their decisions, their allegiances, their values, their relationships, their responsibilities, their world. They feel they have a nice little "gig" going. Challenge the foundations, and the whole is threatened.

In these cases it isn't a problem of utter ignorance of the truth; it is suppression of the truth they know (Romans 1:18). The reality of the holy, infinite-personal God of Scripture is not a welcome concept, for all their thinking is predicated on His irrelevance (Psalm 10:4). If He is in fact relevant -- if a scientist can show that the Biblical model makes more sense than the Darwin's hopeless muddle; if a homosexual can find freedom from his self-destructive passions -- this is the end of the party as they've conceived, constructed, and walled and fenced it.

That may be why alternative views provoke such violent (and similar) reactions from both religions. The Lordship of Jesus Christ is great news -- unless you have bet everything on being able to be your own Lord. Then it feels like terrible news, and it can enrage and drive one far beyond reason.

Which pretty much explains what we see unfolding today.

Superman... a Methodist? Batman an Episcopalian? Holy WCC!

[NOTE: due to the vagaries of my Blogger template, and my inability to navigate them fully, I had to make some of the pictures illegibly small. Click on them, and you'll be taken to the source site, where they can be better read.]

Wow... "holy" and "WCC" so don't go together....

A dear friend (Terry Rose) just sent me a link to a page called The Religious Affiliation of Comic Book Characters. It's a quite-serious look at the world of superheroes, super-villains, and the other ink-and-pen creations kids have been devouring for decades.

I was quite the aficionado in the 1960's, but have long-since stopped following comic books, except when they're turned into movies. This page takes a pretty serious approach to identifying and documenting the implicit and explicit religious leanings of the characters in the Marvel, DC and other comic universes.

You'll find out that Superman is a Methodist, Batman is Episcopalian/Roman Catholic, the Fantastic Four's The Thing is Jewish, and that God's religion is described as... God.

You who've kept up on comics will have more intelligent observations on this than I have. I'll say this, though: the page depicts a much better-balanced and "real" world than TV or the movies. From those media, you'd assume that virtually no good person seriously practices any identifiable religion. For instance, I've made this observation about one of the most otherwise creative minds in Hollywood, Joss Whedon:

...Whedon has evidently never known, liked and understood a real-live, practicing, Bible-believing Christian. He shares that with most Hollywood writers, sadly. Whedon can create believable murderers, maniacs, flawed heroes, monsters, in-betweeners, and a hundred other types. But he seems unable or unwilling to create a credible, likable, genuine, openly Christian character -- let alone create one and go anywhere with that character.

Contrast that with history, and the real world inhabited by most of us outside of Hollywood.


Funny, isn't it? Comic books being more real than live-action media?

Help for pastors this Easter Sunday -- if I'm not too late!

If you're preaching on the complex of events from the last Passover meal to the Resurrection, and you want to allude to Luke 22:44 ("And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground"), please note two things:

1. Textually, the verse may or may not be original. (That is why versions often put it in brackers, or have marginal notes). If you accept it as genuine -- and I make no comment on that --
2. Please, please, please do not do what so many do, and preach about the medical reasons for Christ sweating blood! Note what the text says: "like [Greek hosei] great drops of blood." Brother, if it is like something, then it isn't that thing! I am not like a man; I am a man. Christ is not like God Incarnate, He is God incarnate. And His sweat is not depicted here as being great drops of blood, but as being like great drops of blood.

Thank you, and Happy Resurrection Day!

If "24" really is going to be made into a movie...

...won't it have to be called "2"?

The much-needed "Slap me!" call

(At the risk to starting a "Dan's web site has gone to the girls!" rumor....)

I really liked the idea of Amy DeBurgh's hyper-ellipticized post Hit Me...........Sister!

Amy starts out thus:

My friend called me this morning and said, "Slap Me!" This is godly wife terminology for "remind me of what God expects of me today." Hit me with the hard words so I can be like Christ today. Are your friends like that? Are you like that? Do you purposefully put yourself in the place of learning and growing.....or do you belong to the mutual admiration society?

As you'd see if you read the post (which I do recommend), Amy does love her looong ellipses...........a lot! But her point is solid-gold, and made me think of Hebrews 10:24, which fairly literally reads "and let us closely consider one another, for the purpose of provocation of love and of good works."

That noun "provocation" is paroxusmos, whence our "paroxysm." It's an odd word to find used thus; it is usually negative, of a sharp disagreement (Acts 15:39), or indignation (Deuteronomy 29:28 and Jeremiah 32:37 in the Septuagint).

It isn't particularly gentle. It's a jab, a poke, a prod -- a slap.

I love that Amy says that this is "godly wife terminology." What a great attitude; what self-awareness it shows, and what a Godward heart. I'm sure we've all known of women who become ingrown in their self-pity, and isolate themselves from all that might give a godly perspective that might change everything. (I wrote a little tool years ago, which may be of some use to women who actually don't have anyone like that available.)

But of course, women have no corner on this market. The dangers of Proverbs 12:15 and 26:12 are not gender-specific. Men need this ministry just as much, in our own ways. I remember a conversation with a pastor-friend, when I was in a slump of misery about something. What he said to me was friendly, loving -- and very bracing, not unlike a slap of cologne on a freshly-shaved face. But it was I needed to hear, to connect what I believed as a Christian, with how I needed to view and approach the situation. It provoked me to love and good works.

Are you anyone's friend enough to give a needed slap (Proverbs 27:6)?

Are you wise enough both to accept such a jolt (Proverbs 15:32b), better still to invite and welcome one (Psalm 141:5)?

Or do you make sure to remain aloof from the very possibility (Proverbs 15:12)?

It all will ultimately come down to our life's orientation: selfward, or Godward. For the Christian, that question was supposed to be settled at conversion. It is still impossible to serve two masters.

Christian womanhood: two different views

On the one hand. I was doing my usual blogbrowse, and hit on the Bayly brothers' blog, Out of Our Minds, Too. Tim Bayly writes today about Carolyn Custis James, a familiar name. I expressed my concerns about James' troubling article in the PCA's magazine. At that time, I knew nothing of her background. Now I find that the Baylys' site features a host of posts.

Reading through the information and links and reactions in those posts, the least one comes away with is the affirmation that I'm not the only one who picked up the same "vibes" from James' line. Worse, there is some confirmation of those misgivings.

Bayly comments:

The flap is all about a woman listing her credentials in such a way that prominence is given to her evident disdain for, and denial of, domesticity--cooking, cleaning, and being what is called a housewife--when the world is filled with other godly women who pray each day that God will give them the holiness not to despise such menial tasks despite their high IQs, their deep biblical knowledge and understanding, and their yearning to play the man on the stage of the wider world outside the home and family confines.

Here is from James' own blog:

Carolyn is her husband’s favorite theologian. She is not a kitchen wife. She does not keep house, cook, clean or sew, but she reads an awful lot and often talks to women (and sometimes men) from all over the world about women’s struggles within the evangelical church.

By contrast. In the course of reading over the Baylys' page, I found a very thought-provoking confession of a woman's faith written by Rebecca Jones: My Credo as a Christian Woman. It is all worth reading and pondering, including this:

I believe that sin affects every area of my life. I am not, therefore, surprised that my sinful nature rebels against some of the very truths I confess. May God mercifully soften my heart and conform me to His perfect will.

Jones has a number of articles listed here, including a thoughtful reflection on submission.

Lot of food for thought in those links.

AFTERTHOUGHT: I've quoted this before, but Libbie said it so well, it bears re-repeating:

...they claim to be wanting to lift women up. Yet they go about this by denigrating the clear mandates given to women in scripture, exalting the mandates given to men, and then saying that women should be doing the men's tasks because the women's tasks are rubbish.

Why I "round up" to being a 5-pointer

When in a more whimsical mood, I say that I'm (depending on the day) about a 4.97-point Calvinist. That rounds up to 5.

In my reading of Scripture, the T, U, I and P are pretty much directly, flat-out stated, in so many words. The L, less so -- but I find it to be the most natural and inescapable deduction from the direct statements of Scripture, and from the way the apostles preached and wrote.

The first time I read of this position (in Iain Murray's The Forgotten Spurgeon), it seemed like heresy. It contradicted what I thought it meant to preach the Gospel: "God loves you, and has a wonderful plan for your life. Jesus died for your sins." Later came the other Murray's (John) Redemption: Accomplished and Applied. Evidence was piling up.

But the pile became a mountainous avalanche when I read John Owen on the subject. Owen lays it out like the world's most formidable lawyer. Stroke by stroke, speck by speck, he inexorably paints the reader into a corner from which, so far as I know, none has ever escaped. I've read supposed "answers" to Owen in the years since -- and not only are they not answers, but they don't even seem to understand the question.

The question is, for the person who affirms the Biblical doctrine of the sovereignty of God, "What did Christ mean to accomplish, and what did He accomplish, by His death?"

Now one post by Jason Robertson over at Fide-o wraps it up about as concisely as I've ever seen it put. Robertson quotes Owen, then pointedly draws out the implications. Ken Fields thoughtfully provides the sourcing of the quotation in the Comments section.

Read it, ponder it, feel the weight of the logic. As far as I know, no one has ever made better sense of Scripture than the way Owen summarizes the case. Dodge, evade, duck, yes. Made better sense of Scripture, no.