What's wrong with this? In a word, everything

Appropriately filed under "Apostasy" by the Christian News Network:

A recently recorded video is circulating online of Victoria Osteen, wife of megachurch speaker and author Joel Osteen, calling on congregants at Lakewood Church to ‘do good for your own self’ because obedience, the church and worship are not for God as much as for self-happiness.

“I just want to encourage every one of us to realize when we obey God, we’re not doing it for God—I mean, that’s one way to look at it—we’re doing it for ourselves, because God takes pleasure when we’re happy,” she declares in the undated 36-second clip with her husband standing by her side and nodding. “That’s the thing that gives Him the greatest joy…”

“So, I want you to know this morning: Just do good for your own self. Do good because God wants you to be happy,” Osteen continues. “When you come to church, when you worship Him, you’re not doing it for God really. You’re doing it for yourself, because that’s what makes God happy. Amen?”

Then Jesus told his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." (Matthew 16:24-25 ESV)

No comment department . . .

. . . because commentary would be superfluous.

Church bureaucrats say the stupidest things, Vol. MCMXXXLIXIII

H/T to David Fischler at Stand Firm for calling out World Council of Churches General Secretary Olav Fykse Tveit for making this unbelievably stupid comment about the conflict in Egypt.

This affects the whole of Egypt. I hope that this will not be interpreted as a conflict between Christians and Muslims.

Aside from reminding us that a long since discredited organization known as the World Council of Churches (WCC) can still manage to insert itself into a controversy once in a blue moon (literally), Tveit's statement only serves to demonstrate how utterly irrelevant the oldline ecumenical movement is and always has been.

Cue the tape.

Pat Robertson's unique talent for making a bad situation worse

Even in his prime, during the heyday of oldline evangelicalism, Pat Robertson was a bit of a loon. Now in the autumn of his career, however, his nationally televised faux pas are becoming something of a daily occurrence. Earlier this week, he appeared to give his blessing to sex change operations.



As if that wasn't bad enough, two days later, he endorsed contraception while managing to insult Appalachians and Catholics.



Of course, Robertson is not the only aging spiritual leader to have lately opened his mouth to insert his foot. Desmond Tutu, however, only comes out of retirement from time to time these days. Robertson, who should have retired years ago, can't seem to resist the temptation--daily, on national television--to exhibit his unique talent for making a bad situation worse.

This could very well be the stupidest person on the face of the earth, Volume 4

Tim McCarver joins the ranks of the Stupid People.



Actually, he's been a member of the club for some time.

No comment department

It's bad enough to have a POTUS who can't speak without a teleprompter . . .

. . . but when the rest of the world is laughing at his inability to utter an original thought, it's even worse!



H/T to Anglican Curmudgeon, who has even more!

Pat Robertson: Foot(ball) in mouth, again

If nothing else, the continued presence of Pat Robertson on the airwaves provides ample material for the more lighthearted posts I prefer to put here on Fridays. Yesterday, the aging (ageless?) evangelical hanger-on offered his prescient commentary on a subject about which he has always been an indisputable expert: the National Football League!

David Fischer at Stand Firm points out just how reckless Robertson's seemingly trite comments are.

Do you suppose it even occurs to Pat that what would “serve [the Broncos] right” would be painful, perhaps disabling, likely career-ending, possibly life-changing, for Peyton Manning? Do you suppose ol’ Pat ever thinks before engaging his mouth? Is it possible to arrange for a permanent power failure just for CBN’s studios in Virginia Beach? Now that would serve him right.

Fischer's sentiments are shared by many, but every time someone expresses the wish that Robertson would just go away (whether via power outage or what have you), I have to bring up this unfortunate piece of information reported several years ago by Ted Olsen at Christianity Today.

Television and televangelism usually work through viewership. A show with few viewers won't stay on the air: On commercial television, no advertisers will buy space. In religious broadcasting, no donations will come in. But Robertson hasn't needed viewers for almost a decade. He has contractual obligations.

Many people have complained about the 700 Club to cable channel ABC Family, which airs it. But ABC Family has no choice. It is obligated under contract to air it. (The FCC may not be able to do anything, either)

In 1988, Robertson sold the Family Network to Fox for $1.9 billion. Not bad, when you consider the channel was originally launched in 1977 through the donations of viewers who had been promised a Christian alternative to "secular" television, then taken public in 1992. CBN got $136 million from the sale. Robertson's Regent University got another $148 million. Robertson personally received $19 million, and the rest went to the Robertson Charitable Remainder Trust, which will fund CBN after Robertson and his wife die.

But the money wasn't the biggest part of the deal: Fox Family was required to air The 700 Club three times a day—and, if Fox sold the network, the obligation to air The 700 Club had to be part of that deal, too.

Cable World reported in 2001 that Robertson turned down hundreds of millions of dollars to renegotiate. Largely due to frustration that the 700 Club had disrupted its programming, Fox sold the network to the Walt Disney Company in 2001 for $3 billion and $2.3 billion in debt. Now ABC Family is obligated to air the program three times a day.

Submitted without comment. . .

. . . because commentary would be superfluous.

A half-listening student, a hypersensitive campus and the speed at which gossip travels on the Internet conspired to create a very damaging game of broken telephone for one York University professor this week. 

Cameron Johnston, who has been teaching at York for more than 30 years, has been forced to respond to allegations that he made anti-Semitic remarks in a lecture on Monday afternoon after a student misunderstood his comments and began sending emails to Jewish groups and the media. 

Johnston was giving his introductory lecture to Social Sciences 1140: “Self, Culture and Society,” when he explained to the nearly 500 students that the course was going to focus on texts, not opinions, and despite what they may have heard elsewhere, everyone is not entitled to their opinion. 

“All Jews should be sterilized” would be an example of an unacceptable and dangerous opinion, Johnston told the students. 

He didn’t notice Sarah Grunfeld storm out. Grunfeld, a 22-year-old in her final year at York, understood Johnston’s example to be his personal opinion. 

She contacted Oriyah Barzilay, the president of Hasbara at York — an Israel advocacy group on campus — who then sent a press release to media and other Jewish community groups calling for Johnston to be fired. 

Blogs and Facebook groups picked it up, and in a few hours the allegations spread within the city’s Jewish community, albeit mostly online. 

Sensitivities around anti-Semitism are particularly heightened at York, which has a large Jewish population and a history of toxic relations between supporters and critics of Israel on campus. 

“I’m terribly upset,” Johnston said Tuesday. “I’m very proud of the fact that in the history of my teaching career I’ve stood for the best values of what constitutes a meaningful human community.” 

Johnston, who is Jewish, said his religion likely influenced his choice of words, why he used “this example of a completely reprehensible opinion” with historical precedent. 

During the Second World War, Nazi scientists experimented with mass sterilization on Jewish prisoners in concentration camps. 

“I think it’s a very good thing that people are sensitive to this kind of remark, and I think it’s a very good thing that someone would respond immediately and deal with it if they thought that they heard an anti-Semitic comment,” Johnston said. “But in this case, it’s a misreading.” 

The irony for Johnston is that he was trying to teach his students that ideas have consequences. 

“So I’m pretty shocked to find the consequences — what I was talking about in lecture — is that I get seen as an example of prejudice.” 

Grunfeld said Tuesday she may have misunderstood the context and intent of Johnston’s remarks, but that fact is insignificant. 

“The words, ‘Jews should be sterilized’ still came out of his mouth, so regardless of the context I still think that’s pretty serious.” 

Grunfeld also expressed skepticism that Johnston was in fact Jewish. 

Asked directly by a reporter whether she believes Johnston is lying, she was unclear.
“Whether he is or is not, no one will know,” she said. “. . . Maybe he thought because he is Jewish he can talk smack about other Jews.” 

Sheldon Goodman, GTA co-chair of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, which speaks on behalf of the city’s organized Jewish community, called the incident “a very unfortunate misunderstanding.” 

“This event is an appropriate reminder that great caution must be exercised before concluding a statement or action is anti-Semitic,” he said.

The Sunday Comics: Church folks should cuss a little (or maybe a lot)

Over here across the pond, we less sophisticated folks call it "cussin'." But whatever you call it, this has to rank as one of the stupidest utterances ever made by a priest.

The Norman church, has stood for hundreds of years in the tranquil village of Burghill, in countryside surrounded by apple and pear orchards. 

However, its vicar, who used to work in the East End of London, is urging parishoners to move aggresively into the modern age - by swearing more.

Reverend Michael Land, 67, said Christians needed to adopt swearing in their everyday language because it is how Jesus would have spoken.

He said too many people put Jesus "on a pedestal" and failed to realise that he was poor, relatively uneducated and preferred not to mix with the elite of his day.

He added that the Church risked becoming out of touch with ordinary people if its clergy did not become "streetwise" and failed to use earthy language.

Rev Land even backed up his suggestion with the admission that once, while driving and wearing his dog collar, he had beeped at another motorist who almost caused an accident then wound down his window and swore at him.

His attitude is reminiscent of the lead character in the new BBC2 television show Rev, which stars Tom Hollander as Rev Adam Smallbone, a vicar who drinks, smokes and swears while tackling parish problems.

Rev Land, who is retired but still preaches at Burghill occasionally, said: "The church must be more streetwise and use language most people use today.

"People view Jesus through tinted spectacles and place him on a pedestal.

"The reality is that he was poor, lacked any real education and did not fraternise with Pharisees or scholars.

"People today would probably be quite shocked at the language he used at that time." 

Rev Land, who moved to the area two years ago, has three adult sons and lives with wife Dawn, 62. He spent 28 years trying to help drug addicts and gang members in Walthamstow. 

He described the driving incident and said: "Someone pulled out in front of me so I sounded my horn. The driver got out of his car and came over to me.

"I wound my window down and said 'why don't you learn to f***ing drive'. He just walked away. I don't think he could believe it. 

"I did not remove my clerical collar, why should I? I did it then and I'd do it again, I'm not afraid to tell it how it is even if that means swearing.

"Just because I am a vicar I am not a soft touch.

"The church needs to modernise and that means keeping up with the trends in language."

Members of his congregation expressed shock at his comments.

One woman in her 80s, who did not want to be named, said: "I must say I am more than a little surprised.

"Rev Land takes the occasional service and I have never heard him swear in any of them but perhaps I will have to listen more carefully next time.

"I would feel uncomfortable if he started effing and blinding during his sermons." 

Mark Paul, 38, a building surveyor, said: "Is it a controversial thing to say? Yes, but I agree with everything the reverend says.

"For too long the church has carried around this image of being something fluffy and quaint when in reality it is gritty and real and swearing is part of that."

A spokesman for the Church of England said: ""While we would not encourage clergy to swear, we all need to remember that they are only human too."

I know. Let the one without sin among us cast the first stone. But, seriously, who needs Monty Python (much less Rev) when you have the present day Church of England?

Dumb Quote of the Week

A letter writer to the Cincinnati Enquirer can't blame Jesus for only choosing male disciples. He just didn't live long enough to appreciate the contributions women could have made to his inner circle.

“Jesus chose the apostles, he chose men not women.” As a believer in Jesus Christ, I choose to believe that had he more time, Jesus would have eventually seen the light and taken full advantage of the brillance, endurance and patience of women, thus entrusting them as apostles (”Women of faith: no stifling debate“). I have faith he would ensure equality. Jesus Christ who believes in all of us (regardless of religion) provides through faith, hope for change. The truths of our faith are simply that…rules are instituted by the church, they can change.

CoE Bishop: I Didn't Really Say What I Really Said, Really

The Church of England is not exactly blessed, shall we say, with very many stellar bishops these days. With the notable exceptions of N.T. Wright and Michael Nazier-Ali, old Mother Church appears to be overrun with ecclesiastical higher-ups who are, to put it kindly, severely intellectually and spiritually challenged. Rowan Williams, the beleaguered Archbishop of Canterbury, is notorious for opening his mouth and promptly inserting his foot. But even he must take a back seat to Gordon Mursell, the Bishop of Stafford, who in a recent pastoral letter published throughout the diocese of Litchfield, made the following comments:

Two events dominate the media as I write this. The first is the horrifying discovery of the crimes of Josef Fritzl, in the Austrian town of Amstetten: he imprisoned and abused his own daughter, and several of the children he fathered through her, in a soundproof underground cellar beneath his own house for 24 years. The second is the local election results, in which Labour have suffered their heaviest losses for many years.

These two events have more in common than we might think. It’s easy to demonize Josef Fritzl. And it’s certainly hard to imagine a more monstrous or revolting crime. The publication of photographs showing him sunbathing in Thailand while his helpless daughter and several young children were locked in his basement is bound to make us ask: how could anyone do such a thing?

And yet Josef Fritzl represents merely the most extreme form of a very common philosophy of life: I will do what makes me happy, and if that causes others to suffer, hard luck. In fact you could argue that, by our refusal to face the truth about climate change, we are as guilty as he is – we are in effect locking our children and grandchildren into a world with no future and throwing away the key. We are right to be disgusted at these crimes. But mere disgust is too convenient. There are lessons for all of us to learn.

Now, in case you are thinking, as any logical person would, that +Mursell is drawing a moral equivalence between the hideous behavior of Josef Fritzl and a "refusal to accept [what he believes to be] the truth about climate change," think again. The bishop, facing a firestorm of criticism, later "clarified" his remarks.

In a statement, published on the Lichfield Diocesan website, the Rt Revd Gordon Mursell says: “I am not saying that people who refuse to accept the reality of global change are child abusers - but that’s what is being reported on internet blogs. Whether that’s because of the way the letter has been reported; or because I used an extreme example is for others to decide.

"I’d like to set the record straight: I am not suggesting that, to quote the BBC News website’s headline: “Climate deniers are like Fritzl” - and to those people who are offended because they think I have said that people who deny climate change are like paedophiles I’d like to apologise for being unclear.

“But I do not seek to retract the letter or the point that I was actually trying to make - which is a point so old you’d think people would understand it by now. The corny way of putting it is that “I” is the centre of ‘SIN’.

“All to often in today’s society the philosophy of ‘me first’ has overtaken the idea of the ‘common good’ and what is important for ‘me’ and ‘my family’ take precedent over what’s good for the stranger on the other side of the world.”

He added that the luxury of debating the rights and wrongs of climate change is exclusive to the west, while those who suffer are the world’s poor. He said: “While we have the liberty in the West of debating whether climate change is real or perceived; or whether ‘that scientist’ should be believed over ‘this scientist’ people are dying.

“Some of the emails I’ve received say that I should keep my nose out of climate change issues because I’m not a scientist. This is the very response that must be condemned. If we leave this important issue to scientists we have a convenient excuse to do nothing.”

Okay, let's get this straight. The bishop didn't really say what he really said, namely, that people who do not agree with him about climate change are like child abusers or paedophiles. They are merely guilty of a crime just as monstrous and revolting because they put their own selfish interests ahead of the "common good." But didn't the bishop himself say it was "hard to imagine a more monstrous or revolting crime" than that of Josef Fritzl?

This is a textbook illustration of what happens when an illegitimate premise (that shifts in the earth's climate are a crisis brought on by man-made factors rather than a naturally occurring phenomenon) is made to sound legitimate and the fringe elements are allowed to define the terms of the debate. Inevitably, the conversation degenerates into a reductio ad absurdum.

HT: Midwest Conservative Journal

Gaffapalooza

Barack Obama continues to open his mouth and insert his foot.