From Anguish Languish to English Language: Trains-lading debt Furry Tail avowed Beers into a Fairy Tale about Bears

 It's been decades since I first posted Furry Tails to this blog, and since most of my readers are from countries other than the one in which Anguish Languish was first published, I thought I'd do them the favour of translating this one into Standard English. Here, then, is Goldy Locks and the Three Bears:

Wants pawn term dare worsted ladle gull hoe hat search putty yowler coils debt pimple colder Guilty Looks. Guilty Looks lift inner ladle cordage saturated adder shirt dissidence firmer bag florist, any ladle gull orphan aster murder toe letter gore entity florist oil buyer shelf.

Once upon a time there was a little girl who had such pretty yellow curls that people called her Goldy Locks. Goldy Locks lived in a little cottage situated at a short distance from a big forest, and a little girl often asked her mother to let her go into the forest all by herself. 

“Guilty Looks!” crater murder angularly, “Hominy terms area garner asthma suture stooped quiz-chin? Goiter door florist? Sordidly NUT!”

“Wire nut, murder?” wined Guilty Looks, hoe dint peony tension tore murder’s scaldings.

“Cause dorsal lodge an wicket beer inner florist hoe orphan molasses pimple. Ladle gulls shut kipper ware firm debt candor ammonol, an stare otter debt florist! Debt florist’s mush toe dentures furry ladle gull!”

Wail, pimple oil-wares wander doe wart udder pimple dum wampum toe doe. Debt’s jest hormone nurture. Wan moaning, Guilty Looks dissipater murder, an win entity florist.

"Goldy Locks!" cried her mother angrily, "How many times are you going to ask me such a stupid question? Go to the forest? Certainly NOT!"

"Why not, mother?" whined Goldy Locks, who didn't pay any attention to her mother's scoldings.

"'Cause there's a large and wicked bear in the forest who often molests people. Little girls should keep away from that kind of animal, and stay out of that forest! That forest's much too dangerous for a little girl!"

Well, people always want to do what other people don't want them to do. That's just human nature. One morning, Goldy Locks disobeyed her mother and went into the forest. 

Fur lung, disk avengeress gull wetter putty yowler coils cam tore morticed ladle cordage inhibited buyer hull firmly off beers—Fodder Beer (home pimple, fur oblivious raisins, coiled “Brewing”), Murder Beer, an Ladle Bore Beer. Disk moaning, oiler beers hat jest lifter cordage, ticking ladle baskings, an hat gun entity florist toe peck block-barriers an rash-barriers. Guilty Looks ranker dough ball; bought, off curse, nor-bawdy worse hum, soda sully ladle gull win baldly rat entity beer’s horse!

'Fore long, this adventurous girl with her pretty yellow curls came to a modest little cottage inhabited by a whole family of bears--Father Bear (whom people, for obvious reasons, called Bruin), Mother Bear, and Little Boy Bear. This morning, all the bears had just left a cottage, taking little baskets, and had gone into the forest to pick blackberries and raspberries. Goldy Locks rang a door bell, but, of course, nobody was home, so the silly little girl went boldly right into the bear's house!

Honor tipple inner darning rum, stud tree boils fuller sop—wan grade bag boiler sop, wan muddle-sash boil, an wan tawny ladle boil. Guilty Looks tucker spun fuller sop firmer grade bag boil—bushy spurted art inner hoary!

“Arch!” crater gull, “Debt sop’s toe hart—barns mar mouse!”

Dingy traitor sop inner muddle-sash boil, witch worse toe coiled. Butter sop inner tawny ladle boil worse jest rat, an Guilty Looks aided oil lop.

Dingy nudist tree cheers—wan anomalous cheer, wan muddle-sash cheer, an wan tawny ladle cheer. Guilty Looks set darn inner ladle cheer, bushy worse toe bag ferret, ant soddenly bustard.

On a table in the dining room stood three bowls full of soup--one great big bowl of soup, one middle-sized bow, and one tiny little bow. Goldy Locks took her spoon full of soup from a great big bowl, but she spit it out in a hurry!

"Ouch!" cried the girl, "That soup's too hot--burns my mouth!"

Then she tried the soup in a middle-sized bowl, which was too cold. But the soup in a tiny little bowl was just right, and Goldy Locks ate it all up. 
Then she noticed three chairs--one enormous chair, one middle-sized chair, and one tiny little chair. Goldy Locks sat down in a little chair, but she was too big for it, and it suddenly busted. 

Clamming upper stars tutor beer’s bet-rum, Guilty Looks dish-cupboard tree bets—wan grade bag bet, wan muddle-sash bet, an wan tawny ladle bet. Failing torrid, shay flunker shelf honor ladle bet, an, jester cobbler menace letter, worse sunder slip an snorting.

Climbing up a stairs to the bear's bedroom, Goldy Locks discovered three beds--one great big bed, one middle-sized bed, and one tiny little bed. Feeling tired, she flung herself on a little bed, and, just a couple minutes later, was sound asleep and snoring. 

Inner ladle wile, donors offer cordage cam beck firmer barrier-pecking extradition, currying baskings fuller rash-barriers. Whinny entity darning rum, Fodder Beer stuttered snuffing an gruelling tomb shelf.

“Warts ban goring earn hair?” crumpled dole beer, “Conjure small psalm-sing deferent a boarder horse?”

“Crashes!” crater murder beer, ashy castor quack glands adder tipple, “Hose ban muddling wet debt sop?”

Ladle Bore Beer stuttered crayon.

“Jest locket mar ladle boiler sop—oil garbled dope! An locket mar itchy pitchy cheer—oil bustard!”

In a little while, the owners of the cottage came back from their berry-picking expedition, carrying baskets full of raspberries. When he entered the dining room, Father Bear started sniffing and growling to himself. 
"What's been going on here?" grumbled the old bear, "Can't you smell something different about the house?" 
"Gracious!" cried mother bear, as she cast a quick glance at the table, "Who's been meddling with that soup?"
Little Bear started crying. "Just look at my little bowl of soup--all gobbled up! And look at my itty-bitty chair--all busted!"

Locking adder bustard cheer, Murder Beer bay-gander gat historical, an stuttered hurling tore horsebarn:

“Brewing! Brewing! Way gut BURGHERS inner horse. HORSE BURGHERS! Quack! Coiler place! Wail, dun stun dare lacking end-bustle during nosing! Coiler Place Deportment, quack!”

“Harmer garner coiler Place Deportment wen way dun heifer toiler-fun?” resplendent Brewing, inner trampling verse. “Set darn, worming, an cape quoit! Yore oil-wares thanking dare burghers inner horse!”

Oiler shame, Brewing worse jesters scarred aster udders; infect, haze niece war shagging.

Finely, Fodder Beer gutter grade bag short-gum, Murder Beer gutter muddle-sash haunting raffle, an Ladle Bore Beer gutter tawny ladle pestle, an oiler beers crypt upper stars, ware Guilty Looks worse line honor bet, sunder slip an snorting. Herring door beers, shay weakened, lipped otter door windrow, an dished aware harm jesters fascist shagged scrabble.

Looking at a busted chair, Mother Bair began to get hysterical, and started howling to her husband:
"Bruin! Bruin! We got BURGLARS in the house, HOUSE BURGLARS! Quick! Call a police! Well, don't stand there like an imbecile doing nothing! Call a Police Department, quick!"
"How am I gonna call a Police Department when we don't have a telephone?" responded Bruin, in a trembling voice. "Sit down, woman, and keep quiet! You're always thinking there are burglars in the house! 
All a same, Bruin was just as scared as the others; in fact, his knees were shaking. 
Finally, Father Bear got a great big shotgun, Mother Bear got a middle-sized hunting rifle, and Little Boy Bear got a tiny little pistol, and all a bears crept up a stairs, where Goldy Locks was lying on a bed, sound asleep and storing. Hearing the bears, she wakened, leaped out of the window, and dashed away home just as fast as she could scramble. 

Oiler beers tar darner stars, an ntoe locker doers an windrows.

“Fodder,” aster ladle bore beer, finely, “Wart worse debt discussing crasher honor bet? Wart worse debt ogling ammonol wet oil debt yowler far honor had, an hoe dint half nor far atoll honor beck? Wart worse debt hobble lurking crasher, Fodder?”

Fodder Beer shuttered.

“Comb hair, mar bore. Heresy gut lessen furrier! Debt discussing crasher worsen HORMONE BANG! Kipper ware firm debt candor ammonol! Dare nor gut! Warts mar, are dun wander catcher goring entity florist oil bar yore shelf. Debt florist’s mush toe dentures furry ladle beer!”

All a bears tore down a stairs, and started to lock a doors and windows. 
"Father," asked a little boy bear, finally, "What was that disgusting creature on a bed? What was that ugly animal with all that yellow fur on her head, and who didn't have no fur at all on her back? What was that horrible looking creature, Father?"
Father Bear shuddered. 
"Come here, my boy. Here's a good lesson for your! That disgusting creature was an HUMAN BEING!
Keep away from that kind of animal! They're no good! What's more, I don't want to catch you going into the forest all by your self. That forest's much too dangerous for a little bear!"

I translated this as literally as I could, exposing the weakness of the author's use of articles: he failed to distinguish between the definite and indefinite articles, sometime even confusing them with possessive pronouns. I gave him as much latitude as I could in a strict translation (probably even more, by translating 'sop' as 'soup'); using dynamic equivalence-- along the lines of the NIV--would make such inconsistencies disappear entirely. And there could be some dialect of English out there in which they wouldn't be phonemically distinct anyway.

John MacArthur and 1 Peter 2:2

I concluded this post with, "Calvinism, of course, does not stand or fall upon a paraphrase of 1 Peter 2:2. It is able to twist any scripture to its ends, and this one need be no exception. So why not just translate it as it stands, and leave its (mis)interpretation up to the theologians?" and I observed an interesting example of this in a sermon by the late John MacArthur that I heard recently on Christian radio.
John was exegeting 1 Peter 2 and read the verse in its entirety. Since his favourite Bible version contains the phrase, "with respect to salvation," he read that part too--but then went on to exegete the verse exactly as he would have had it not been present.

EDIT: Oh, what do you know--Grace to You has made the whole sermon available on their website, so you don't have to take my word for it.
Note what he did here: he took the words "with respect to" which are, at best, a loose paraphrase of the Greek word εις, ַand applied them literally--something I'm sure would be frowned upon if any of his homiletics students at The Masters College (formerly the Los Angeles Baptist College) tried it on virtually any other passage in the New Testament. It's a metaphor of salvation, he says. A figure of speech, not meant to be taken literally.
John, who started out preaching from the New Testament using the King James Version, switched early on to the NASB because, he said, it was so literal and close to the Greek (well, except for this verse, I guess). It should have bothered him, knowing Greek as well as he did, to see what liberties the NASB translators--some of whom he knew personally--took with this verse, but even when he helped oversee a revision of the NASB--the Legacy Standard Bible--he kept in the paraphrase, I suspect because it suited his Calvinist worldview like a literal, close-to-the-Greek translation (one that stands in the text of the ESV, but in the LSB was relegated to a footnote) never could have.

I thought that Calvinism, to pass itself off as a scriptural worldwview, would not have to rely upon a paraphrase that turned something literal on its face into a metaphor. But if that were indeed the case, why couldn't a Calvinist expositor and Bible translator, one who prides himeself in being as accurate to the literal meaning of the original languages as can reasonably be expected, handle a literal interpretation of this one verse?

A review of David Instone-Brewer's Bible Contexts Series - Chapter 20: Cain's "wife"

Dr. David Instone-Brewer is an eminent Bible Scholar in England, one of the experts responsible for the last tranche of changes to the NIV. He knows a lot more than I do about a lot of things, and since he makes it easy to access most of what he writes, I follow him to my advantage--especially in the area of Old Testament Studies, which is his specialty. What I've learned from him, however, are generally facts and insights I hadn't been exposed to before. I don't sit at his feet for much of what he weaves into his teaching, which are just standard tenets of atheism (although I admit, some of them are new to me as well). For although he identifies as an evangelical, he nonetheless looks to atheist scholars and their disciples to inform his interpretation of the Scriptures--and is thus oft led astray.

Dr. D is greatly hampered in his ability to gain insights from the book of Genesis, believing as he does that it was composed as a sort of religious fiction during the Babylonian captivity to inspire Jews not to lose hope in their present situation, or something along those lines. He doesn't believe that it is even intended to be a serious historical record, and certainly not that it was compiled from written eyewitness accounts. There is therefore no apparent limit to the imaginations his mind can supply from a reading of this section of the Scriptures, guided by the speculations of the atheists which lie behind much of his theology. And since he drinks deeply at the font of those who have no access to absolute truth, he all but admits that what he sincerely believes to be true today may be ridiculed a decade or a century from now, as atheist philosophers discard old and unworkable alternative explanations for how the world works, and imagine new ones yet to be disproven. This approach leads him far astray from orthodox understanding. 

Take, for example, his chapter on Cain's Wife. He already reinterprets the first two chapters of Genesis in an atheistic framework, starting with a random humanoid whose ancestral line went back to stardust. He then departs from the atheist narrative just a bit to give God credit for taking this human-looking animal, the pinnacle of billions of years of random evolution, miraculously granting him a human spirit, and then--in a most unusual departure from his involvement of the previous billions of years, and in a biological process we can hardly imagine, much less explain scientifically--splitting off a half-clone which became the first human woman. He then set the newly enlightened couple in special walled enclosure he called Eden and commanded them not to eat a certain fruit. They did so regardless, and as a result they were cast out of Eden to resume their evolutionary progress without any life-sustaining access to the fruit of the tree that conveyed some sort of immortality. And here enters Cain's Wife, who he proposes was a non-human, implying along the way that the host of present mankind must be descended from her.

I hesitate to critique Dr. D in any area of actual OT Studies, as he is an acknowledged expert in both the Hebrew language and rabbinical literature. But here he has left far behind anything directly related to the Hebrew Scriptures to dabble in Evolutionary Biology, in which he is no expert--leaving me on much firmer ground to dispute him. [Edit: he does claim biological expertise based on his undergraduate studies, but then, so could I, having sat for General Science in Bible College.]

I will be interacting in this post with Chapter 20 of his book Bible Contexts which, at least for now, can be found at his website http://www.biblecontexts.com/. He introduces the chapter as follows:

If Cain married someone living outside Eden, this would explain some strange details in Genesis. It would also explain how our gene pool contains so much variation.

---

His book is all about explaining strange details in Genesis with even stranger speculations. He sees a problem with God selecting just two humanoids--really, only one--to begin the human family tree. Although his God is capable of many amazing feats, Dr. D seems constrained by his acceptance of atheist teaching to place the Laws of Nature at a higher tier on the hierarchy than that occupied by Nature's God. The God who could split the first man in half at the sub-cellular level to produce the first woman was nonetheless stumped at providing this pair's descendants with enough genetic variety to produce the four blood types, so He needed to pull in some genes from the neighboring humanoids to pull it off. Thus, Cain's Wife. 

Now Mrs. Cain was not a Neanderthal, mind you--Cain had already inherited those genes from his long-dead humanoid ancestors. What she provided instead was access to the "rich gene pool" that had resulted from millions of years of primate evolution. Dr. D uses a modern analogy to explain why this was not only sufficient, but necessary, if humanity were to survive The Fall:

 Cain could, of course, have married his sister – though the Bible doesn’t say this happened. It is difficult to imagine her wanting to marry a brother (especially the nasty brother who murdered the nice one). Presumably this incest wouldn’t be dangerous like it is today because God could have made sure there weren’t any dangerous recessive genes in Adam’s chromosomes. However, our human race would be very weak if the entire gene pool had been limited to just Adam’s chromosomes. Restricted gene pools often cause problems in overrefined agricultural animals or crop lines because this makes them vulnerable to pests and changes in the environment. This is solved by interbreeding with wild species to reinvigorate the gene pool by introducing more variety.

Here he makes a mistake commonly perpetuated by pseudoscientists, assuming that a genetic bottleneck always results in a dangerously depleted gene pool. The reason modern agricultural crops and animals have depleted gene pools, and wild varieties don't, is precisely the result of human intervention to breed out unwanted variation. Absent that unnatural selection, a fairly robust set of genes will continue to be passed on, even in a small population. But racism is a powerful and primordial urge, such that organisms resist hybridisation and generally seek to mate with creatures most like themselves, resulting in further speciation, as any organisms that depart from the standard in the same direction tend to seek out each other for breeding, leaving an even more depleted genome to their descendants. Were it not for the balancing act of another primordial urge--that of men, having gone forth to conquer, seeking and finding sexual release amongst the females of the conquered races--humans would be much more genetically depleted than we are. 

If I were to hypothesize myself, I would say that God created Adam with two completely different sets of chromosomes, with each of the millions of gene pairs consisting of different alleles. Thus Eve was far more distant from Adam, genetically, than any two humans are today; at the time she was split off from him, she only shared 50 per cent of his genetic material. And if God were powerful enough to pull off forming yet another haploid set for the rest of Eve, then he only shared half of her genome--providing far more diversity than Cain could have brought into the young race by impregnating a distant descendant of the Neanderthals and Denisovans. Adam could well have carried one haploid gene for Type A blood, and one for Type B. We don't even have to split that in half again to get all three of the blood types just among their children, provided that Eve possessed the same. And if, post-Fall, any two of their children ended up with an allele that lacked the information for producing either the A or B antigen, Type O could emerge as early as their grandchildren's generation. It's a stupendous pity that Dr. D, with all his learning, didn't see how God could accomplish this without having Cain interbreed with a non-human. 

       Mutations occur very rarely, unless there are carcinogens present. This is good, because most mutations are dangerous – as seen by the effects of carcinogens. Reproductive cells are protected from mutations by DNA repair mechanisms, which make sure that accidental mutations are rarely passed on to our children. A few do get through – on average sixty-four mutations – though this is tiny compared to the three billion base pairs that are copied perfectly.⁴ However, some of these are so harmful that they result in miscarriage – about 10 percent of pregnancies end this way. So even a small increase in mutation rate would result in a lot more miscarriages.

Dr. D goes on at length to describe just how humanly impossible it would have been for God to actually get the human race going with just two people. Okay, and where does the book of Genesis imply that God can't do anything humanly impossible? This cognitive dissonance would be laughable, did he not with such sincerity lend credence to the atheist hypotheses. Of course, the way heredity works now, in our currently depleted human population, where any two humans on the planet share at least 99.9 per cent of the same genome, does not necessarily speak to how things would have worked back when they shared barely half of that. We don't really have any idea what a genuinely rich gene pool looks like, as the nature of genetic recombination means that some genes go missing with each successive generation, and after several thousands of years, every genome has become depleted to one extent or another--unnatural selection greatly accelerating the process. And since this goes against the collective wisdom of Evolution--which imagines, contrary to all evidence, the gene pool at large becoming progressively richer over time--Dr. D. just isn't going to hear this from his atheist mentors or their disciples.

So whom DID Cain marry? Well, as all scholars have noted, Genesis doesn't say. And why should it? If humanity began with only one man and one woman, and no ape-men to "enrich the gene pool," then of course he married his sister. Anyone with even half a human brain could figure that out with just a little help; there's no need to state the obvious. All we need is the succinct statement of the compiler of Genesis 3 that Eve was "the mother of all living." That leaves no room for any previous races to insert their alleles into the human genome, period. 

Dr. D should have stuck with interpreting and explaining the Bible, and left fairy-tale speculations to those who reject the Genesis account out of theological necessity. 

A review of Contact, an alleged work of science fiction: Part One

I recently had the opportunity to view Contact, a movie that was released over two decades ago—almost the amount of time it would take for a transmission of it to reach the Vega system. I was struck from very early on in the production by the similarities between it and Isaac Asimov's famous story, Nightfall. I have written several posts reviewing that story, which are available here. I suggest reading them now, for background, before going any further. 

Now, I'll start out by saying that although I was aware of the movie when it came out, and that it was discussed in the Christian Media at the time, I've had no thoughts about it whatsoever for the past twenty plus years, so I trust that everything I say here will be uninfluenced by any other reviews. As I review Contact, I'll continue to allude to my earlier observations on this topic, which remain very relevant. Inasmuch as it's a long movie, I'll probably do this review in several installments. But, to begin at the very beginning:

The movie opens with the iconic roar of the MGM lion, framed by the Latin motto, Ars Gratia Artis--Art for Art's Sake. Not a single frame of the actual movie has yet been shown, but already we are being set up to believe that what follows is just pure entertainment--science fiction. But is it? Might there also be a deeper agenda, Art for the Sake of Persuasion? 

We then move into the opening sequence, which is a juxtaposition of animated video and archived audio. The animation is a zoom-out that begins with a satellite view of Cape Canaveral, tracking westward as the sun overtakes it from the east. Meanwhile the audio track is a montage of news broadcasts interrupted by brief bursts of contemporary music, working backward from the present day as the camera recedes from Earth, both tracks accelerating: the animation rapidly passes the Moon, Mars, the Asteroid Belt, Ceres, and Jupiter—already moving much faster than the speed of light—as the audio track has already reached a quarter century before present, to the Watergate Scandal of President Nixon, then immediately on to M.L. King's March on Washington. By the time Jupiter and its moons recede into the background we can hear an announcement of the assassination of President Kennedy. Then, as Saturn fades into the distance, we race through another two decades, passing through the McCarthy Era all the way to the beginning of the American involvement in World War Two. What is being hinted at is that news broadcasts are traveling into space at the speed of light, with the very earliest broadcasts leading the way into the rest of the galaxy. A bit of a stronger hint comes after the disappearance of Saturn, as the sun itself blinks out and we see a rapidly receding series of stars and galaxies as the audio takes us back through the Thirties to the earliest days of Radio. Then the audio itself gradually fades to background static, as we continue to back our way through a dusty nebula and into intergalactic space, where total silence reigns. Other galaxies zoom by with increasing rapidity, until the screen becomes a total blur which resolves into the left eyeball of our protagonist, the young Ellie Arroway. Meanwhile, the audio picks back up again as background static, resolving into the signal of a ham radio she is operating, with her voice now in real time, attempting to make contact with “anyone out there.” Thus the stage is set for a lifetime of hovering over a radio, seeking not only a signal from another rational being, but, most importantly, the opportunity for interaction therewith. And we see her determination as she scans the dials in search of a response, getting encouragement from her father to keep trying—then, when she finally lands a station out of Pensacola, he congratulates her for achieving the “farthest one yet.”

Okay, at this point in the actual screen-acting, we already move from the realm of science to science fiction, because that's just not how the propagation of ham radio waves works. One does not start out pulling in nearby signals, then progressively move to the outer limits on the country, then farther out into the hemisphere, and finally, with “a big enough antenna,” to the other side of the world. The propagation of radio waves on the frequencies of the amateur bands is such that one is actually more likely to land a station a thousand miles away, than an hundred. But, not to let the facts of science get in the way of a good story, the scriptwriters expect us to believe that Ellie will start small, and keep progressing until she is at the point of asking radio operators on the other side of the Universe to “come back.” 

But that's not Ellie's only goal: in the very next scene we see her asking her father, with growing excitement, how far out it is possible to hear: California? Alaska? China? The Moon? Jupiter? Saturn? Suddenly she grows reflective, and asks her dad the question only a ten year old could ask: Could we talk to Mom?

Ah, now the subject of Religion intrudes, because young Ellie is asking an existential question, one immeasurably beyond the reach of the technology that so fascinates her. Science she knows, geography and astronomy she is beginning to understand, but of the Eternal State, she is much the innocent child, asking questions far beyond her ken. Here her father fails her—being unable to give her the answer she wants—because he, like her, only believes in Science, and Science has no answers to any of the deeper questions of life. And here the movie reveals its main argument. Having, at the behest of her father, dismissed the possibility of making contact beyond the grave, Ellie turns to the next best thing: making contact beyond the Solar System. And here we stop to consider the implications.

”Hey Dad, do you think there's people on other planets?” she asks, again in all innocence. “I don't know Sparks, but it seems like if it's just us, that would be an awful waste of space.” And is precisely here that the movie lands on its main theme: this phrase will be repeated at crucial points in the plot, to drive the message home that somewhere, on a cosmic scale, there is a sense that it would be wrong for Earth to be the only populated planet. This doctrine is never proven, nor is there ever even seen any need to prove it. Ellie simply accepts it on faith, and goes on to make it the guiding belief in her life's work, which is to search for, and find, signs of intelligence in outer space. She will run into many obstacles in that quest—the entire plot of the movie consists of her overcoming them, one after the other—but she will never be shaken in her core belief that there MUST be someone else out there—and an unstated corollary to that belief is that they MUST be so immeasurably greater than humankind, both in intelligence and technology, that they will be able to bridge the unbridgeable gulf between us, and make meaningful contact. It only remains for us to let them know we are here, and to devotedly await their response.

Do you see where this is headed? One thing this movie does, and does well, is to demonstrate that humankind is incorrigibly religious: everyone is forced by their very nature to believe in a higher order of beings, ones whose powers and understanding are beyond our comprehension. And the movie will go on to demonstrate our absolute impossibility of approaching these beings using our own abilities, or of comprehending them using our own understanding. Atheistic Science is turned on its head, and shown to be just another religion after all. 

I think that's enough for the first installment; we are now fully seven minutes into a two-and-a-half-hour movie, and in the next scene we will see Ellie instantly transition to Dr. Arroway the astronomer, having finally achieved the ultimate in her muttered ten-year-old goal of "get[ting] a bigger antenna."

A Petition from the Church to Donald Trump--or is it?

Here is the stunning transcript of a video available on Youtube. I provide the relevant part:

Hello everybody! Welcome back to another episode of Anabaptist Perspectives. We're here in Boston, Massachusetts at Sattler College. We're with Dean Taylor. You're the president of the college here. We're in your office, and you did a lecture on this earlier this year that really caught our attention, and we wanted to talk to you about that and and see if we can hit some of those high points. So, during that lecture you said—and it was obviously rhetorical just kind of make a point—you read a petition to our president Donald Trump. Can you just read that and then explain kind of what you're getting at there and then how that all ties in with with parts of our Mennonite history.

 Alright. Well excellent. OK. I'll start with a letter, and then I'll explain what I was thinking. Sure. OK. The idea was, it was bringing out that, you know, there's been a lot of, you know, negative things against the president, and, you know, we know we're supposed to pray for our president and pray and the government, and so the idea, you know, that all these attacks on the president that we should say something. But, in that, I wanted to make a point though because I was... what I was feeling was that too many of our people are imbibing—they're taking on this whole way of thinking of the current presidency, and that's very scary. So I wrote this petition. Here it goes.

To the president, Donald Trump:

We, the conference of Anabaptists, assembled today in Shipshewana and the free state

of Indiana, feel deep gratitude for the powerful revival that God has given our

nation's through your energy and promises joyful cooperation and the

upbuilding of our fatherland through the power of the Gospel, faithful to the

motto of our forefathers, "No other foundation can anyone lay than that

which is laid which is Jesus Christ." With greatest excitement, we are following the

events of our beloved country and experienced in spirit the national

revolution of the American people. We are happy that, in America, after a long time,

a government that freely and openly professes God as creator stands at the

head of the nation. With special sympathy, we hear that the

government takes seriously the realization of Christian principles in

social, economic, and cultural life, and especially emphasizes the protection of the family.

And signed the conference that I was with]. 

So, the point that I was

making is that, with just a couple words changed, that was a telegram—

that was sent from the Mennonites of Germany to Adolf Hitler. 

Who are the false teachers in Acts 20:30?

 As I posted earlier (here, here, and here), The Newer and Improveder International Version has a hard time being consistent with its translation of the Greek word for 'men', being unwilling to exclude women altogether from that designation, but not showing any good reason for why it does or doesn't. An excellent example is in Acts 20:30.

First, let's back up and see how various translations handle 'men' in Acts 17:34 (from blueletterbible):

However, some men joined him and believed, among them Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them. - NKJV

But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them. - ESV

But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them. - NASB

So, the more literal versions were okay with translating ανδρες as 'men', despite the associated difficulty of including a woman in their number. How about the least literal translations?

but some joined him and became believers. Among them were Dionysius, a member of the council, a woman named Damaris, and others with them. - NLT

Well, that was pretty safe, Just leave off translating the word, as the NIV did in Acts One. But most of them tried to translate it with something:

However, some people joined him and believed, including Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them. - CSB

But some people joined him and believed. Among them were Dionysius, who was a member of the Areopagus, a woman named Damaris, and others with them. NET

Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others. - NIV

So, to the CBD, ανδρες could, and presumably should, be either left untranslated, or at least translated vaguely as 'some people', whenever women could, or should, be included in the referent. So what happened in Acts 20:30, when Paul warned the Ephesian Elders about the coming of false teachers?

Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. - NKJV

and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. - ESV

and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. - NASB

Again, the more literal versions translate ανδρες as 'men', despite the difficulty that false teachers of a female sort would likewise arise (Revelation 2:20). Surely, though, the translators of the more progressive versions would be able to see women in this verse? Let's check.

Even some men from your own group will rise up and distort the truth in order to draw a following. - NLT

Men will rise up even from your own number and distort the truth to lure the disciples into following them. - CSB

Even from among your own group men will arise, teaching perversions of the truth to draw the disciples away after them. - NET

Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. - NIV

Well, suddenly all their problems with a literal translation of ανδρες seem to have vanished at this verse. Despite the difficulty, all are agreed that only those Ephesians of the male sort were in any danger of becoming false teachers. But Paul himself, later writing to Timothy in Ephesus, specifically spoke of

"gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth." - NIV 2 Timothy 3:6-7

Global search-and-replace has failed them once again. 

EDIT Oct 2, 2020
It has been brought to my attention that (at least in the 2005 Edition), the TNIV  did in fact read "some will arise" and this was one of the reversions made in the 2011 NNIV. 

Is Answers in Genesis a Christian Ministry?

It's been along time since I wrote about why I won't be going to the Creation Museum, but I recently ran across a public post by a young woman on social media that explains why one of their employees quit and won't be going back. I reproduce it here in full:

My experience of employment at Answers in Genesis

In December 2016, I began work in the housekeeping department at the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum. I worked for three years as a seasonal employee (working up to 10 months each year, usually 40 hours per week, no benefits) and then the last month, December 2019, as a technically full time employee.
I generally enjoy cleaning, did some fun projects, and liked talking with guests from around the world. But it was often physically demanding and the hours that I worked were always difficult. For the first two years I worked shifts that varied daily from as early as 07:00-15:30 to as late as 13:00 to 21:30, and for the third year I worked 3rd and 2nd shifts.
As a child I grew up visiting the Creation Museum, reading Answers in Genesis books and magazine, watching their videos and even attending the conferences in my teens. As a 20 year old I was very excited to work at what I believed to be a Christian ministry.
During my employment, I did have many positive experiences and made good friends with some very kind people. Workmates helped fix my car, went to the doctor with me, or gave hugs and spent some time with me.
However, there are serious problems with the way that Answers in Genesis operates and especially in the way that it treats employees. I personally experienced and/or had workmates who experienced dishonesty, bullying, overwork, illegal discrimination, harassment, and blackmailing. Here are a few of many examples that I personally experienced:
June 2017. The Creation Museum is open on Sundays, and most employees who work on Sundays are unable to attend church, which forces hypocrisy because they are required upon hire to sign a statement promising to faithfully and regularly attend church.
There are several reasons that I and many workmates thought the Museum and its employees would benefit by being closed on Sunday. One day as we discussed this and considered bringing up our thoughts to management, one of my workmates said a joke about going on strike on a Sunday. We made it clear that we were NOT for a strike, but because we simply said the word “strike”, we were falsely accused of attempting to incite a strike. People who knew me well enough to know that it was something I would not do spoke up for me, and I only received a warning.
January 2018. There was a time during my employment that I struggled with serious physical and mental health problems, to the point that I was suicidal (unfortunately I felt too afraid to tell anyone). As I mopped the bookstore early one morning before the museum opened, a lady who was stocking shelves asked how I was doing and stopped to pray for me for 2-4 minutes, then we both continued with our work. It was going to be a slow day, and no one was in a rush to get things done.
She received a warning from management for “being idle and chatting” for praying for me.
May 2018. Once when my car was broken down, a workmate who happened to get off work at the same time as me gave me a ride home. I’ve known this man for years and have always felt completely safe and comfortable with him. He got into trouble with management for it for zero reason other than that he was alone with a woman, and was forbidden from giving women rides in the future, even when off work.
It would’ve been okay if it had been his own choice, but it was nonsense for AiG to force the Graham rule on him. It resulted in inconvenience for me, and totally unnecessary shame for him.
December 2019. I injured my back one evening while lifting bags of trash. I had to lift them out of a deep container that goes up to my waist, which made it impossible for me to lift while bending my knees rather than my back. I had to lift them out of the container and onto a cart. Most bags had an average weight that I was used to but one was much heavier than usual (it probably weighed more than half my own weight).
I filed an injury report and asked for a rule to be made limiting how much the bags could be filled (I was told that cafe workers filled that bag as much as possible to save themselves time), or that they would have to notify us of unusually heavy bags so that a stronger person could be the one to lift them.
Several days later when I was unexpectedly asked to be on trash duty again, nothing had been done and... so what that I had recently been injured doing that task.
Being short-staffed was always a problem that worsened. For quite some time I was the only person on housekeeping night shift when there should have been 3-4 people, and got very overworked and lonely (it was worth it to me at the time for consistent schedule). By the time I left I was the longest remaining employee in the department besides the manager.
At the end of December 2019, I broke down with a mental health crisis and the physical pain from the back injury, suddenly making me literally unable to work.
I’m glad to finally be out of that situation and wish I had gotten out sooner. I’m not sure how and why I stayed for so long. Part of it was the seasonal opportunity which enabled me to take a couple of months off each year for overseas missions trips. Also, I was used to similar environments and treatment from the past so it felt normal to me. I have a usually quiet and submissive personality, am highly motivated and gave my best effort for work.
I often looked for other jobs in the area, especially so that I could afford my own place to live (AiG is known for its low pay). Except for a couple of times that I stayed with friends who were safe and kind, my living situation was incredibly stressful and is a long story itself.
I also tried a few times to transfer into other positions within AiG and always got either turned down for unknown reasons or talked out of it.
Answers in Genesis has been confronted by many people for mistreating employees, and given professional counsel on how to change. They haven’t cared to listen, and continue to be a corrupt organisation that subsists on manipulation and unconditional submission to authority.
My main purpose for writing this, rather than to confront AiG, is to promote awareness and freedom of thought among the employees. I want them to be able to protect themselves and realise that their personal well-being is massively more important than AiG and its true ambition. A person is a worthy image-bearer created by God, an organisation is not.
Those who know me know that I’m personally very much for making sacrifices for the Gospel, but at AiG the sacrifice is for upper management’s dream to build something “bigger and better than Disney” and awe the public.
“It’s God’s work.”
The talk is contradicted by the walk and even by itself.
I haven’t approached AiG as described in Matthew 18. AiG couldn’t have made it more clear both to myself and to others that it is closed to any criticism or dialogue. While there are some Christians who work at AiG, I do not consider it to be a Christian organisation.
Christians are individual PEOPLE, not families, organisations, or governments.
I haven’t heard this discussed before and think it should be discussed: AiG claims that questions about evolution cause young people to leave Christianity/church. First, leaving church is not necessarily the same thing as leaving Christianity. Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian. Not going to church doesn’t make you not a Christian. It is entirely possible to worship God, listen to Bible teaching, and get regular fellowship/discipleship without attending church services. I’m glad for Christians who attend church services, but I have a problem when they accuse those who don’t of disobeying God.
Second, AiG is the only place that I’ve heard that claim. Since my early teens I’ve talked about Christianity with many people who grew up Christian and later left it, but never has one told me that evolution had anything to do with it.
I think that creation ministries, while they can be somewhat useful, are way over-prioritised and are a huge distraction from helping young people in ways that we actually do need help. The problem of evolution has been turned into a distraction from the real problems in Christianity... whether intentionally or not, I don’t know.
Close friends out west are helping me with a place to rest, heal and get professional help. I’m so grateful for them and for my friends who patiently talk and empathise with me. Trying to process the pain and confusion is quite unpleasant, and at this point thriving is mostly unimaginable to me. I’m honestly struggling in my faith, but I’m sure that with time my relationship with God will be strengthened and I’ll be back to working and sharing the Gospel with people.
I apologise to anyone who feels surprised by this. I didn’t want to openly talk about this because I don’t want to be negative and because of the personal things in it.
I won’t think less of anyone for choosing to use AiG resources, visit the attractions, or work there, however if you actually try to excuse or minimise the abuse then I won’t trust you. AiG preaches good messages and makes a positive impact on some people, and I wish for that to continue. But it does not justify their bad actions against some other people. Only cults teach that good can outweigh bad, and only those who have things to hide have fear when silence is ended.
I love and miss my friends and former workmates at the Creation Museum and am so thankful for you and everything you’ve done to show me kindness. I think of you every day.
Please do think and speak for yourself. It is very hard to recognise the damaging effects of any religious and authoritarian group while being in it.
Be brave. You are meant to live free!
A caution to anyone currently working at AiG: this post will be monitored by AiG. If you publicly comment on or react to this post, you could be targeted by management as others have been in the past.

What is Privilege? Does The White Man have it?

The short answer is that the White Man doesn't have privilege, but homeless illegals and Jussie Smollett do. The long answer follows a definition.

Privilege is defined as "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group." But the modern use of that term implies something more: privilege implies being a member of a group that gets special treatment because of who they are, not because of what they have accomplished.

For an example, we begin with the special immunity granted to homeless illegal immigrants by the Sanctuary City movement, exemplified by Denver's odd move to decriminalize public defecation.  The problem was not so much that homeless aliens without official permission to reside in the US were relieving themselves on public sidewalks, but that when they were arrested and convicted of such behaviour, they risked automatic repatriation under the US federal government's new policy of expelling criminal aliens. By reducing the offence from a misdemeanour to an infraction, the Democrats who control Denver's city government were able to make an end-run around this policy, and keep their Sanctuary City status at the expense of clean streets and sidewalks. In Denver, homeless illegals have privilege.

How about Jussie Smollett? In the early morning hours of January 29, 2019, Chicago Police received a report from Jussie that he had been assaulted on the sidewalk of his upscale Chicago neighborhood. Now, here is were Jussie's privilege kicked in. Chicago police receive hundreds of reports of assault every day, the vast majority of them far more serious than what Jussie reported. But Jussie was a celebrity, even claiming that he was identified by, and targeted for, his celebrity. So instead of sending him off to have his superficial wounds checked out at the hospital and filing his report in the bottom drawer, the Chicago Police force went into high gear. They notified the FBI. They began the exhaustive process of viewing footage from every surveillance camera that may have caught the alleged incident on tape. They began a publicity campaign to keep the public appraised of any progress in the case. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were invested in tracking down the attackers and bringing them to justice. In the end, Jussie turned out to have fabricated the whole thing, paying a couple of his buddies to act out the attack. Again, privilege kicked in. For weeks into the investigation, Jussie continued to keep up his story and demand justice. Democrats around the country, including several Presidential candidates, circled the wagons to defend him and share in his outrage. It was only when the Chicago Chief of Police read a scathing statement accusing Jussie of choreographing a hateful fraud that was a discredit to everything he should have stood for that the house of cards finally began to wobble and sway. Jussie was protected at every stage by his privilege, and that privilege means that although he's committed any number of crimes, up to and including federal Mail Fraud in the process of mailing himself white powder, he may well never end up seeing the inside of a prison cell for it. At far greater levels and to a far greater extent than your average Joe Homeless in Denver caught with his pants down, Jussie Smollett has privilege.

But privilege extends much farther than even that. Look at Ted Kennedy, whose father started out with a small degree of privilege as the son of a rising Boston politician, forced his way into Harvard despite failing grades in high school, and leveraged his way into a political dynasty so powerful that not even Ted's obvious culpability in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne could cost him his Senate seat. Joseph Kennedy himself was not above murder to consolidate his political power; an underage prostitute whom he hired to accuse a competitor of rape died under mysterious circumstances just as she was about to come clean with her story. As a result, the competitor was ruined, and Joe got an even bigger corner on the movie industry. Through an endless succession of such dirty deals, Joe was able to enlarge his empire to the point that he could coerce an editor to put his son Jack on the cover of Time Magazine, helping to ensure his success in the upcoming election. The Kennedy brothers had privilege.

But the White Man does not have privilege. I was turned down by the elite university to which I applied, even though I was far more qualified academically then either Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. or Thomas Watson Jr.--the least-qualified-ever president of IBM--neither of whom could have even gotten into college without privilege. I don't have a father who gets invited to the White House. I can't call upon the vast resources of a metropolitan police force to investigate a minor complaint, or expect to escape prison if my complaint turns out to be a hoax. I can't even expect to get away with relieving myself against one of the signs at the St. Louis Transit Station stating for all to see that public urination is a crime. Unlike homeless illegals, sons of politically powerful people, and self-important TV stars, I don't have privilege.

A Nigger in which woodpile?

"There's a Nigger in the Woodpile"--a phrase the White Man has only just become aware of, ironically, from reading an article recommended by the venerable Mennonite historian Peter Hoover, whose Pennsylvania Dutch idiom has taken in the expression as a calque, "Do steckt eiats en Neger im Holzhauffe."

Now, it is very much to Peter's discredit that he used this phrase so cavalierly without translating it literally. Interestingly, I had heard the expression "skunk in the woodpile" which, having lived around both skunks and woodpiles, I took to be a literal-based metaphor, but scholars are agreed that it is actually a northern euphemism for the Southern original. The Pennsylvania Dutch, however, kept the original expression when taking it into their language, using it idiomatically for "There's something suspicious here behind the scenes." I won't go into the full usage of the phrase, as it can be looked up online (although some internet filters will restrict such research as regarding a "mature topic.")
I'll have a further critique of Peter Hoover in my next post, regarding his rejection of Premillennialism; this post will focus on the Holocaust denial in the linked article, which Peter introduced in a recent mass email as follows:

Probably about the strangest thing that has ever happened between my Jewish friends and me, is what appears at an Orthodox Jewish website on-line: 

http://nccg.org/ning/groups/judaism/questions-by-a-mennonite-about.htm

Do you see who wrote the article?  [he did]

I wrote it years ago after I visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington D. C. At first when I discovered it on-line (without my permission, but that is just fine) I was a bit alarmed. But then, the more I learned about it, the more surprising it became. This Orthodox Jewish group that published it, and that has kept it on-line for years, agreed with my conclusions, and shared all the same questions. 

When I got my first Kindle, I decided to make it a habit to download and read all the memoirs of Holocaust survivors that came available for $1.99 or less, but I soon had to give up the hobby as it became too overwhelming; there was literally about one every week. It is incredible that someone as deeply learned and widely traveled as Peter Hoover could even consider that the Holocaust Story is a Jewish fabrication, in the face of the thousands upon thousands of eyewitness testimonies to it. To me, that's the skunk in the woodpile! This willing suspension of belief is all the more incredible, with Peter being a respected historian not only of his Mennonite forefathers but also of the Russian Old Believers, concerning whom he wrote the book "The Russians' Secret."

While I continue to puzzle this out, the only theory that makes any sense is one that actually explains the situation perfectly. Peter Hoover has rejected God's chosen people, considering himself and his ilk to have fully replaced them as the apple of God's eye. Thus he not only turns away from the implication of the Scriptures that say otherwise, but even turns a blind eye to the historical fact that the Jews remain a special people--the only people, in fact, to survive intact from antiquity (although he also--no surprise--buys into the Khazar Hypothesis).

This all serves to remind us that every historian is biased, and no work of history can be taken as gospel--except the incredibly accurate Gospel Story itself.

My encounter with Donn Ketcham

I say, what a week. About a thousand people have accessed this blog in the past two days following the publication of a Christianity Today article on Donn Ketcham. For only the second time, albinism is the second most popular topic here. So it's only appropriate that I write a little further on the topic, including an account of my own encounter with the good doctor.

But first, an examination of the recently released  ABWE and Donn Ketcham Investigations Final Report. My comments will be interspersed, in italics.

Analysis indicates that there existed, and in some cases exist today, typically unspoken beliefs and attitudes within ABWE that were revealed through the investigation by way of documents and interviews – beliefs and attitudes that contributed to missionary family and ABWE administrative lack of awareness, lack of responsiveness, and poor decision-making regarding policy violations and abuse behaviors and events. The root causes of significant impact include:

1. There existed a prevailing attitude toward authority in evangelical circles, primarily that there was a "spirituality" standard that required unquestioning compliance with authority. This attitude prevented the development of a healthy system of checks and balances and openness to corrective actions. Critical thinking skills were suspended.
This is a prevalent problem in evangelical circles that have been influenced by Bill Gothard or the Patriarchy movement. But, on the mission field, it goes back way further than that--it probably originated in a military mindset.

2. There existed a focus on ministry as being the top priority. Individual needs and voices tended to be dismissed in the service of the "greater good", i.e. ministry and the spread of the Gospel.

There is also a warped sense of priorities: the work must go on, even if the worker is tainted by sin. Yet, nationals are held to a higher standard, and can be summarily dismissed if under suspicion of moral failure.

3. There existed a prevailing attitude about the status of women in the work place. Especially in the historical time period under investigation women were considered "support" personnel. As such, their opinions and observations carried less weight and were easier to dismiss and ignore. Because women were considered of lesser value, it was easier to "send them home" and/or remove them from the mission, i.e. Donn Ketcham’s lovers over the decades.

　This is a good point; it is almost always MEN who are kept on in spite of moral failure; single women are much more expendable.

4. There existed a prevailing attitude toward children relative to the ministry and to adults. Ministry activities were more important than child needs. Children were not to interfere with or block the "ministry". In fact, children were "sacrificed" so that the ministry would not be "discredited." This, in part, led to blaming a child for what was, in truth, the responsibility of an adult. This also led to children not speaking up about what was happening to them. The children saw much that the adults missed.

5. There existed a prevailing belief that missionaries are "more spiritual" than the average Christian, and because of their "sacrifices" are "entitled." This creates a vulnerability to and blindness about wrongful (and even criminal) behaviors, i.e. a tolerance of Donn Ketcham using inappropriate sexual joking and bragging about his sexual exploits with National women.

Missionaries are thought of as more spiritual, due to their biblical training and being in "Full-time Christian Service." There is also the Baptist focus on right theology over right living.

6. There existed a class system of value and importance on the field. A doctor was considered more important than others, which led to a sense of subservience and obedience on the part of the victims and observers who might have otherwise spoken out regarding Donn Ketcham’s abusive behaviors. This class system impacted the Donn Ketcham family as well.

7. There existed an idealization of Donn Ketcham, a doctor, whose charisma garnered many dollars for ABWE and blinded many people to his true character, i.e."How could such a wonderful man who did so much for the Ministry be that bad? was an oft reported sentiment." For example:

a. He became a demigod in the mission. Donn Ketcham contributed to his persona by presenting himself as a strong spiritual leader, preaching, speaking, and leading Bible studies. He often instructed and condemned others on the very sins he was and had been committing for decades.

b. A result of the idealization is that other decision-makers set aside their own opinions and capacities and deferred to Donn Ketcham, including ABWE administrators who were in positions of authority over Donn Ketcham.

8. There existed a customization of ABWE Principles and Practices and consequences for violation of those Principles and Practices for Donn Ketcham while the organization strictly enforced the Principles and Practices and violation consequences for other mission personnel. For example:

a. Donn Ketcham’s paramours were removed from the field in spite of their pleas to return, while Donn Ketcham was allowed to return.

b. One missionary family was sent home and required to attend 2 years of counseling followed by a period of observation for issues related to parenting a high-needs child. Donn Ketcham, on the other hand, was sent to Chittagong (a discipline that was not strictly enforced) and required to complete a recommended possible 30 sessions of counseling, of which he only completed 17, for outright violation of ABWE’s code of behavior. Of note, the missionary family’s requirements for counseling were at Donn Ketcham’s insistence.

c. Counselors selected in the Donn Ketcham matter failed due to inadequate training and experience, a lack of professional certification and licensure, conflict of interest, accepting assignments outside of scope of expertise, and ethics violations as to working with the perpetrator and his victim/survivor.

9. There existed a conflict between administering ABWE as a faith-based entity (grace, mercy, compassion, forgiveness, etc.) versus a corporate/business entity (with protective policies and procedures in place, governance checks and balances, etc.). For example:

a. This confusion allowed compassion and forgiveness to block appropriate legal and administrative actions. Equally, it allowed organizational concerns (i.e. financial, the need for doctors) to repeatedly block appropriate responses to victim/survivors.

b. This confusion resulted in ABWE not reporting to authorities Donn Ketcham’s pedophilia as it became known to the organization over decades.

c. This confusion and lack of following corporate principles and practices in place, resulted in multiple affairs and the sexual and emotional abuse of both adult women and children.

d. This confusion allowed "forgiveness" (a faith-based concept) to be used in the service of corporate avoidance of tough issues, i.e. Donn Ketcham’s preferential treatment, a child being blamed for the sexual abuse perpetrated by Donn Ketcham in order to protect Donn Ketcham’s wife, Donn Ketcham continuing in a leadership role even while home for discipline, and a misleading confession avoiding the truth of child sexual abuse being presented with no supervision by ABWE.

e. This confusion contributed to ABWE’s failure to seek out or use appropriate professional and legal counsel for Donn Ketcham when the organization was aware of and had worked with such professionals in matters affecting other ABWE missionaries.

10. There existed a difficulty with logistics in that time period which resulted in a lack of timely communication between Bangladesh and the U.S. headquarters and vice versa.

a. This isolation tends to make people cling tighter to what is familiar, hence the development of "we’re all family" (aunts and uncles). Such a family sense makes it more difficult for people to have perspective, to ask for information, to critique inappropriate actions, and to see reality, i.e. many still refer to the 13-14 year old missionary kid (MK) victim/survivor as a "consenting (implied) adult".

b. Such an isolated community also creates a "tribal knowledge" where facts are assumed, truth is unintentionally distorted (i.e. time frames, ages) – all of which lead to difficulty "connecting the dots" when abuse happens.

11. There existed a culture of naiveté, due in large part to the underlying mistaken belief that "abuse doesn’t happen in Christian circles."

a. This created an environment in which behavior that would activate a censorship response in most circles was dismissed or ignored.

b. Children’s fears (and in some cases terror) of physical exams with Donn Ketcham was ignored.

c. This attitude also prevented acquisition and dissemination of information about abuse, abuse behaviors, grooming behaviors, and symptoms displayed by abused victims. With no one educated about abuse, or aware that it is a possibility in ANY environment, the mission compound became a fertile field for a manipulator and abuser.

d. Naiveté also made it easy for Donn Ketcham to find, prey on, and intimidate victims and potential witnesses.

A final comment: I wonder if one reason why ABWE leadership was so willing to overlook Donn's sin was that they were blinded by their own guilt in the same areas. An example of this which has come to light is that of  R. C. Sproul Jr.

Okay, now for my encounter with Dr. Ketcham.

It is interesting now to think back to October 1987 and realize that at the time Donn Ketcham spoke in a missions conference I attended, he was already under counseling from ABWE for the very sort of behaviour for which he was not long  afterward expelled. Yet, there he was preaching as an official representative of ABWE. And I must say, he was a very good preacher--I still remember that his subject was Gideon. There was nothing in his persona as a preacher to indicate the darkness that was even then consuming his soul. Nor, I expect, was any big announcement made from that same pulpit 2 years later announcing the fall of that famous preacher. No, such smug announcements were always reserved for the guy from the other theological camp.

UPDATE MAY 2017: As of this February, Donn Ketcham has finally been indicted for sexual molestation. According to the charges, he did continue his deviant behaviour after returning to his Michigan practice, and a former pediatric patient has come forward with criminal allegations of abuse in 1999--just shy of the statute of limitations.

UPDATE JAN 2018: A felony trial almost never takes place within a year of charges being filed, and this case is no exception. Donn is contesting his competency to stand trial.

A review of The Demands of Christian Citizenship, a sermon by Adrian Rogers

I recently heard a sermon by the late Southern Baptist President Adrian Rogers, on The Demands of Christian Citizenship. Now, I like Adrian Rogers, and appreciate a lot about the man and his ministry. But some of what he teaches in this sermon concerns me, inasmuch as it calls into question my Christian credentials; there are demands in the sermon that I have no intention of meeting (although, as it happens, in an earlier life I actually did things to have met them fully). I've written elsewhere on how I would now differ from the Baptist view on such things (although there was a time in my life when I didn't), so in this post I'll only be briefly critiquing the main points of his sermon, which follow. I think there were six in the audio sermon, but no online source seems to list more than four--this is a compilation of the five I can remember (I think the sixth may have been Protect the Government, which see under my posts on warfare).

As Christian citizens, the Word of God directs us to these responsibilities to our country:

1. Pray for government 1 Timothy 2:1-3
Well, of course I can't dispute this, being a man, and given that Paul would that all men lift holy hands in prayer for those in authority, that we may live quiet and peaceable lives in all piety and integrity. I can only thank Dr. Rogers for encouraging me on to more frequent and fervent prayer.

2. Pay for government. Romans 13:1-7
Again, this is something for which I needed encouragement. It does get a little complicated, though, given that the government's desire is to pay me. So his argument begins to break down when faced with modern reality. He says, "simply no loophole when it comes to paying taxes. Jesus did it, so must we."  But in paying his taxes, Jesus himself said that as sons of the king, we really didn't have to. Sounds like a major loophole to me! So, no net benefit to me from this point.

3. Praise government. 1 Peter 2:17
Well, he does have some biblical precedent for this: Paul respectfully addressed Agrippa, and Peter did tell us to honour the king. I would have to admit that this point still needs emphasis, in a digital age where it is so easy to post satirical criticism of one's president or legislator. Definitely, that's not honouring the king. And he does balance this point out with the next one, so I'll grade this point as being well worth hearing as often as is needed for it to sink in.

4. Preach to government. Ephesians 4:15
He gives the example of John the Baptist, who was respectful enough in delivery to gain Herod's hearing, but hardline enough to get executed for the message itself. So, another good point to go along with the previous one--rebuke when necessary, but still in a respectful way that doesn't detract from the message. So far, I'm finding a lot to appreciate and apply from this sermon.

5. Participate in government. 1 Peter 2:12
Here is where Dr. Rogers makes a gigantic leap, both in hermeneutic and logic. Nowhere in the Bible are Christians actually commanded, or even recommended, to participate in government--so he has to quote Daniel Webster rather than Scripture for this point. Jesus certainly never participated in government (he fled when they would make him king), nor did any of the apostles. Government figures in Christian Scripture are generally the bad guys, to be respected or rebuked, even rewarded, but never to be joined in their governance. Furthermore, he says nothing of the alien, the felon, even the citizen lacking a social security number or otherwise disenfranchised for exercising his religions beliefs--none of whom are able to participate in government even at the lowest level of voting. So while I vehemently part ways with Dr. Rogers on this point, I propose that by diligently carrying out the first four duties, a Christian has fully discharged his responsibility to participate in government, and no civic limits apply to any of these.

So, a good sermon overall--just ignore his final point, and strive to apply the first four. That should keep you busy enough!