Showing posts with label Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church. Show all posts

Monday, June 1, 2009

Abortionist Slain in Church

The grisly murder of an usher (while his wife /widow looks on from the choir) is the last thing most people expect to see in a Church service.

But that's what happened in Wichita this week-end. BBC's full-length report here.

So, what happened?

It's too soon to know the whole story, but here's what we know from early reports.

1) Tiller (the deceased) has been shot at before.

2) He operated a facility in which "late-term" abortions were conducted.

3) A suspect (age 51) is being questioned by authorities.

I tried to learn about the Church itself, to get a sense of whether it is holds a conservative or liberal (theologically, not politically) view of the Bible, and to determine whether the career path of Dr Tiller would be at odds with the overall direction of the Church. There was no doctrinal statement published on their website to help sort this out. It seems they have attended there for years, have been active in different Church events, and contributed sufficiently with their finances to be listed among other contributors in a memorial on the property.

I did learn that there have been ongoing protests involving abortion, this church, and this Doctor. Sites like this one vent their grievances and actively protested, but do not endorse violence. It had the decency to denounce the cowardly murder, and provides links to the local newspaper.

What we do NOT know (yet) is whether the killer was a member of the church, or an outsider with a plan to kill him. We do NOT know whether he claims to be a Christian (or member of any religious group at all). We do NOT know what motivated the killer to pull the trigger, whether it was convictions about the nature of abortion, or personal experiences relating to them, or some other reason beyond the victim's profession.

There is a tendency in media to sensationalize such events and to claim that these are somehow the natural outcome of Christian belief.

I want to stress that, historically, both in the example of Jesus Christ, and in the sum and total of the Christian life as laid out in the Scripture actions like this are thoroughly condemned. That is, appointing oneself to execute another person is universally indefensible. God gives us governments and legal systems,vigilante-ism is forbidden. ( Romans 12:18-21)

If it turns out that the attacker claims to be acting in the name of Christianity, it will be worth noting the force and speed with which the Church (locally and generally) denounces both this man and his actions. His actions alone will be regarded as sufficient proof that he is not truly Christian.

As a parting note, I consider this man's murder brutal and barbaric, but the reason I do so is because I see all people as to be made in the image of God. The reaction I have to his murder is precisely this same reaction that this man's employment provokes in me: revulsion.

Why revulsion? Because I see in it the calculated, brutal and barbaric killing - for profit! - of possibly thousands of lives every bit as valuable as his own. Not because of what they can or cannot do, but because of whose Image they bear.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

The Merit of Heresy...

As anyone who knows me must realize by now, I am deliberately and intentionally orthodox in my Christian beliefs.

I know I fall short, as -- certainly -- we all do, but I make it my aim to conform to Biblical Doctrine.

So why, of all things, would heresy be something I would commend?

Let me be clear.

I do not endorse heresy, but I welcome the challenge they provide -- because good ideas survive strong challenges. In fact, these are precisely the crucibles in which good ideas become better.

Where would the Christian understanding of the Trinity be without the heretical challenge of Arius and those who followed him? What if the Early Church did not have to identify True Scripture in response to the pretender Marcion's pseudo-canon? Would Augustine of Hippo have written his doctrinal masterpieces if he were not arguing against Pagans, Donatists, Arians, and Manichaeans?

Would Luther have touched off the Protestant Reformation without Tetzel and Pope Leo X?

The list goes on, and extends to scientific and social critique, too.

Issues of suffrage, property rights, personal liberties, human relations (both micro and macro) were advanced by such battles of ideas, as were astronomy, medicine, agriculture, mathematics, physics, chemistry etc..

But in today's world, we have some who would silence dissent.

Could someone in today's world freely classify Islam as a aberrant pseudo-Christian heresy? (Without facing a human rights tribunal?) Probably not.

But that's exactly what it was characterized by St. John of Damascus (Biography here and here) in his work on Heresies from "The Fount of Knowledge".

See a long excerpt in context here. John outlines their core doctrines as outlined in the 8th Century.

But Islam refuses to be held to the mirror, and would rather lodge official complaints and harass free citizens exercising their right to critique, or stir international outrage which sometimes boils over into riots and worse. (Remember a certain cartoon, or the murder of a documentary-maker?)

As sometimes the Secularists do, when people won't dance to their tune.

Here is a current story about a Canadian Government Insider (Warren Kinsella) trying to force a broadcaster to exclude a dissenting voice. (H/T Ezra Levant)

There is a long-running criticism of the Church, in rejecting Galileo.

The Catholic Church did not believe Galileo's heliocentric universe, claiming it ran contrary to existing belief.

Did it actually run contrary to existing belief? Yes, it did.

But was it for THEOLOGICAL reasons? Not principally. It is incorrect to say that it was because of their religious views, mainly. They had accepted the scientific position of a 1st Century (probably pagan) scientist named "Ptolemy". Who was this upstart (Galileo) to contest some 1400 years of "settled science".

Like some liberal theologians of today, they had reinterpreted the Word of God in a way that could be wed to the prevailing scientific views of the age.