“All those who take up the sword

shall perish by the sword.” –Matthew 26:52b

George Tiller was a paid hitman, only with government protection: trained as a physician, Tiller took money to kill babies.

Today, sadly, Tiller was gunned down in the middle of a church service. Ironically, Tiller the Killer was a member of a congregation called “Reformation Lutheran Church”.

While I hope the gunman–or gunmen if there are multiple parties involved–are prosecuted appropriately, I have no sympathy for Tiller as it pertains to events on this earth. He killed babies for a living; that someone else snuffed him after he got to enjoy 67 years on this earth does not garner much empathy from me.

Still, I must admit, I do not wish his eternal fate–given that he was an unrepentant murderer until his last day on earth, the Scriptures are not terribly encouraging about his current disposition–on anyone.

Oh, and his “church”–Reformation Lutheran Church–is an ELCA affiliate. Can’t say that I am surprised, given that my favorite church is also an ELCA affiliate.

UPDATE: And if you think I’m being rough, Vox Day has this:

Tiller should have been jailed and had his license revoked for the abortion-related midemeanors he blatantly committed; had justice been done then perhaps he would still be alive. Not that I care, as I wouldn’t shed any more tears for dead abortionists than I would for murdered concentration camp guards. And at his church? What sort of church that calls itself Christian allows a totally unrepentant man with the blood of many children on his hands to attend it?

It should be amusing to watch the pro-abortion camp go hysterical with fear over this, as they still hadn’t gotten over the previous round of abortionist shootings that ended over a decade ago. They know at heart that the issue will never be settled; the murder of unborn children will never, ever be acceptable to decent men and women. Abortionists have killed more Americans than every American military foe in history combined, so based on the body count alone, the post-natal termination of an abortionist is more rationally justifiable than the killing of a jihadist in Iraq or Afghanistan.

As for the National Review’s comment, calling this news “sick”, the only front on which I would agree with this is that the shooting of Tiller will now unleash the Obammunists–and their Gestapo minions at FBI and Homeland Security–to declare open season on pro-lifers.

And as they use law enforcement resources to hound pro-lifers–and they will find nothing, because the pro-life movement is dominated by Catholic housewives and Protestant homeschooling SAHMs–they will divert those resources away from legitimate threats, such as Islammunist cells…

Come to think of it, that’s what the last Administration of Democrappers did.

Exurb

I learned a new word today: Exurb.

Exurb:  a region or settlement that lies outside a city and usually beyond its suburbs and that often is inhabited chiefly by well-to-do families.

I read Exurb in this article about the economic woes in the Sun Belt. One of the lines in the article is: Air conditioning, bug spray and drainage canals that transformed marshes into golf-course subdivisions. Ahhh … the truths of the south! Air conditioning is not an option. Bug Spray is mandatory. And in order to have those golf-course subdivisions rather than living on house boats, drainage canals are necessary.

I think, though, if I had the money to live in an exurb, I’d screen-in all my outdoor spaces, add those fans with moisture sprays for the hot days, have both an indoor and outdoor pool, and install extra AC units to keep the interior extra cool all the time.

I hate being hot (these 40+ hot flashes are just sooo much fun!) … and I hate bug spray (it feels so icky, even the good stuff; i just don’t like it) … and I hate bug bites. Gosh, I must be aging! HA!

The Value of Being a Grownup

In the 1980s, I followed just about everything if it had to do with professional tennis. Men’s, women’s…didn’t matter. Say what you wish about Martina Navratilova’s private life, but she took women’s tennis to a whole different level. And the Lendl-McEnroe-Connors-Wilander rivalries were about as good as it gets.

The Lendl-McEnroe rivalry was quite notable, because Lendl was peaking right as McEnroe was beginning to drop off. In 1984, Lendl came back from 2 sets down in the French Open final–against McEnroe of all people–to win his first major championship. In 1985, he routed McEnroe in the U.S. Open final for his first of three consecutive U.S. Open championships. McEnroe never reached another final in a major tournament.

And McEnroe and Lendl were fierce rivals, both on and off the court. Each had a strong dislike for the other.

Still, on the court, as hard as they played, they were grownup enough to be sportsmen. There were instances when Lendl hit a great serve that was called out, but McEnroe conceded the point, as the ball was in. And vice versa. Each wanted to win, but neither wanted to win under a cloud of controversy.

Contrast that with Maria Jose Martinez Sanchez, playing Serena Williams in the 3rd round of the French Open. Sanchez, at 2-2 in the first set, having a break point, hit a “sitter”–leaving herself at the net, in a compromising position, with Williams having an easy shot. Williams did the thing tennis players are taught to do in a situation like that: she drilled the ball straight at Sanchez.

The ball clearly hit sanchez in the right arm–not her tennis racket–and bounced into the open court. The shot was ruled good, awarding the point and critical service break to Sanchez, who would win the first set.

Trouble is, if the ball hits any part of your body–and not your racket–you automatically lose the point.

The proper thing for Sanchez to do would have been to concede the point, knowing it was not a legitimate play. This would have made the score “deuce”. Instead, she claimed that she hit the ball with her racket, even though the instant replay showed otherwise.

She won the first set, by cheating.

To Williams’ credit, she managed to come back and win the match, taking the 2nd and 3rd sets while battling an apparent stomach bug. She had hard words for her opponent:

The ball did touch her 100 percent on her arm…The rules of tennis is when the ball hits your body, then it’s out of play. You lose a point automatically. So the ball hit her body, and therefore, she should have lost the point instead of cheating.

I couldn’t agree more.

Remember THIS

as we remember and celebrate Pentecost. Feminist nutballery has never been so…amusing.

Our Mother who is within us
we celebrate your many names.
Your wisdom come.
Your will be done,
unfolding from the depths within us.
Each day you give us all that we need.
You remind us of our limits
and we let go.
You support us in our power
and we act with courage.
For you are the dwelling place within us
the empowerment around us
and the celebration among us
now and for ever. Amen

In the name of the Mother, Child, and Womb

Undisciplined use of any three words to refer to the Trinity is a “rock, paper, scissors” theology—three, any three, will do. The Trinity is too vital to our faith for such laziness. Here are examples of ways to amplify and enrich our language of the Triune God. They are products of disciplined reflection, yet are vivid and rooted in Scripture. Note the inner relationships between the terms:

* The One to Whom, the One by Whom, and the One in Whom we offer our praise
* Speaker, Word and Breath
* Overflowing Font, Living Water, Flowing River
* Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-giving Womb
* Our Sun, Ray and Warmth
* Rock, Cornerstone and Temple
* The Fire that Consumes, the Hammer that Breaks, the Storm that Melts Mountains

Can you envision them being used in your prayer life and in worship? Can you think of others?

And to answer the questions: HELL NO on both.

I’ll take rock-paper-scissors on this one. After all, Jesus established His Church on the “rock”–that reality that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God–that Peter confessed.

Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Anything else…isn’t Christian.

For Discussion

This is for all you infant baptism adherents, in particular those of you who think that not baptizing infants puts them at risk.

I want you to provide a Biblical case for infant Baptism. Here are the ground rules:

(1) This is a Sola Scriptura blog. References to creeds and confessions are not acceptable. At best, those are Biblical commentaries. They have their importance, but they don’t make a Biblical case.

(2) Invoking an important Biblical principle–such as covenant–and using that as a pretext for imputing a modus operandi, without providing Biblical substantiation for the modus operandi in question–is not acceptable.

(3) If you are an ordained minister who is bound to the Westminster Confession, you are welcome to use a different moniker if you wish to disavow your promotion of the practice. I promise not to out you to your Presbytery. If you wish to come out of the closet, on the other hand, there is plenty of room for Reformers in the believer-baptizing world. Think of this as a grand opportunity for liberation.

(4) Appealing to tradition is not acceptable.

Good luck. You’ll need it.

Is Anyone Else Concerned About This?

Personally, I think Daniel Hauser and his mom are making an ill-advised decision to refuse chemotherapy, especially given that his cancer is 90% curable with chemo.

Still, that the government would intervene–denying him and his family the right to seek their own course of action–is disconcerting.

After all, a government that can force a cancer patient to take chemo, can also force such a one to accept a “physician-assisted suicide”. And with the trend moving toward government control of health care, such measures can be a matter of cost-containment…

That they are acting “in the interests of a child” means nothing, because–at the end of the day–they can always classify a patient of their choosing as a non-competent party and therefore act within the party’s best interests….

Ding Dong Il Does it Again

This might as well be reminiscent of Team America.

Ding Dong: “Hans Hans Hans. We’ve been through this a dozen times. I don’t have any weapons of mass destruction! OK Hans???”

Hans Blix: “Then let me look around, so I can ease the U.N.’s collective mind.”

Ding Dong: “Hans, you break my balls here, Hans! You break my balls!”

Hans: “I’m sorry, but the U.N. must be firm with you. Let me see your whole palace, or else…”

Ding Dong: “Or else what?”

Hans: “Or else we will be very very angry with you. And we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are.”

Here is the R-rated video clip.