A FALSE PROPHET ON THE FRONT LINE

(Christianity Today, July/August 2013.) This clip is a rip from a full-page ad in the magazine that, unfortunately, so many people regard as the voice of Protestant Christianity. Christianity Today is far from a model of orthodoxy. But I was surprised to see an ad in there promoting international charismatic mania. It’s hard, I guess, for a magazine to resist big advertising dollars from an enthusiastic quarter when that magazine is lax on doctrine and morals to start with.

I knew nothing of Reinhard Bonnke before reading this ad. As soon as I saw the ad and read it, suspicion filled my heart. Why was I suspicious? Besides the appearance of show and sham, I suspected evil because of these words: “Over time my ministry has seen 72 million people respond to the call of salvation.” Claims like this one are becoming the norm today among globetrotting wonder-workers who claim to be, as this one does, ‘evangelists from the front line.’ If readers of ads like this would just consider the number of converts that are claimed, they might soon realize that such claims must be false. Conversions cause morality to spread. “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7.20.) Has any significant part of Africa become changed for the better on account of Mr. Bonnke’s rip-roaring meetings? What do we hear about on a regular basis on the news? Whole regions of Africa transformed into communities of righteous conduct and holy behavior? No, we hear of clan warfare, machete attacks, and the rapid spread of AIDS on account of fornication and rape. African superstitions (like sex with a virgin as a cure for, or preventative against, AIDS) carry on because the large scale conversions through visiting boasters like Bonnke are not real. The man’s numbers are a mirage. He does not instruct, the Holy Spirit cannot be with him, and sinners are not transformed through his meetings. If you were to add up the claims of these peripatetic showmen, would the numbers not amount to every African soul being saved by now? People who follow and support anarchic speakers of Bonnke’s ilk, and who marvel at his wild boasts and worthless wonders as if they were genuine, need to be amazed at the fact that the numbers do not reflect the morality on the ground. Such gullible believers must not be very moral themselves, not very instructed, more subjective than reasonable, and more superstitious than Scriptural. They would believe in the accretion of conversions even after the accretions overtopped the population of the world. They would believe in this even while the world all around them is on fire with sin, crime, war, and anti-Christian religion. A loud sensationalist says that 72 million souls have been saved. That is enough for them. He says that ‘America shall be saved.’ They believe it. Never mind that no nation has ever been wholly saved. The man says that it will happen. His word settles it. After he passes through and completes his tour, the nation will continue to believe in gods of every sort, immorality will increase, the people will still be renown for blasphemy, and the Sabbath will be scorned again like there is no tomorrow. What will these gullible believers do then? They will continue to listen to their puffed-up braggart and go on to believe his next claim for the next nation. Not only this, but they will continue to empty their pockets to support him financially. The ad says that the admission in Orlando will be ‘FREE!’ Further down it is written that America has enabled financially for the ‘harvest’ in Africa. Let me assure you that it will enable financially for the vain venture in Orlando as well. Reinhard Bonnke will exact an exorbitant fee, if not through tickets or at the door, then through tricky or coercive methods before or during the event. Yes, ‘bring a friend,’ not for Good News, but to pay the Bonnke fee. There is the plausible interpretation for you. The meeting will take place in the Amway center. For the most part, people who come to charismatic meetings like this are not after salvation, but some temporal aid or a quick fix, which is the same reason why people flock to Amway conferences. I am no fan of Amway. But an Amway meeting would be far less deceptive and destructive to the soul than a meeting where the name of Jesus is disgraced by a lying, barking character such as Reinhard Bonnke.

I would never say all of this without listening to this man for myself, though what I have written so far I would not doubt the truth of just on the basis of seeing the ad. After sighting the ad, I decided to watch one of his performances over the internet. ‘God Uses Ordinary People’ (from 2005) is not a sermon. It is not a speech. It is something akin to a semi-hysterical rant. My guess is that all of this man’s ‘sermons’ are like this, crammed with claims and destitute of doctrine. Though rantings and ravings by men like Bonnke are all alike in their tone (rabid), I was fortunate to choose the ‘Ordinary People’ tirade. He gives us some of the background in this one, concerning both his call and popularity. The story of his call to minister is, not surprisingly, a remarkable one. Being too poor to take a tour of London, Bonnke ended up bussing around the city and then walking about in the midst of it. He eventually happened upon the house of a former preacher who then anointed him for his mission just before he died. And thus did the mantle of George Jeffreys fall upon Bonnke. That is the story. And it is interesting to trace the tale backward from George Jeffreys. This Mr. Jeffreys was one of the men responsible for bringing the ‘gospel of signs and wonders’ to Great Britain, a man who was converted during the Welsh Revival of 1905 or thereabouts, which revival was more conspicuous for fanaticism than teaching or preaching. Jeffreys believed that the Brits are the spiritual and even literal descendents of the ancient Israelites. Does a belief like that not have a cultic ring to it? Is that man fit to preach who would believe such obvious nonsense? Bonnke, not to be surpassed by his predecessor in the fantastic nature of his claims, asserts, though somewhat indirectly, to be in the line of apostolic succession!

What was to be the foundation for Reinhard Bonnke’s ministry? This: preaching on the Baptism of the Spirit, and prayers in unknown tongues. That is what the Lord told him, he says. Did the Lord say the like to any New Testament apostle? No, but that doesn’t matter. Why should it? We might even suppose (not by exposition, for Bonnke doesn’t do any) that Jesus chose his twelve apostles ‘at random’ as he ‘bumped into them,’ as it were. That is the revelation to Bonnke for the rest of us, which is for the purpose of teaching that God uses ordinary people. Yes indeed, Jesus prayed all nite just to pick apostles at random the following day! The revelation has no support from Scripture to back it up. No matter. Bonnke needs it to justify his anti-intellectual pattern. 

When Bonnke was bucking for his beginning, he sought cooperation from local churches for his first crusade. The answer they gave was that anyone can say, ‘The Lord spoke to me.’ Supposing that this story is true, they were right to put him off like that, and Bonnke should have never been given access by anyone to speak anywhere on anything regarding the Bible. After he got his way, how did his venture take flight? Only 100 persons showed up at his first meeting. But why so many after that? Because of core doctrines preached by a holy minister at his first meeting? No, but because of ‘healings’ in the crowd. God does not put a propeller behind you, Bonnke says. But that’s just about what he claims God did for him. “Sermonettes are for Christianettes,” he says. That’s his way of belittling hard work, learning, and preparation. What did he do instead of preach a carefully wrought sermon? He performed for the audience, and by chicanery or emotive influence, some phenomena occurred. What followed after that? Crowds followed, for the world is full of easily deceived sinners who run after wonders even while their souls are sinking down toward hell. And when they show up, what happens to their excitable selves? The lucky ones have hands laid on them or they collapse, or both. Are they taught anything about the Bible and made to feel their sins thereby? No, but what’s the difference? They will settle for the thrill of falling down. Some dare to hope that they will be healed as they fall. But falling is enough in a pinch. Nothing in a Bonnke meeting resembles what we find in the New Testament ministries of Jesus, Peter, or Paul. What does that matter, though? The discomposed folks who gather in meetings like this don’t know what’s in the Bible and care little to find out. And what kind of narrow-minded bigot would limit himself to the rule of Scripture anyway? How many ignorant folks obeyed this man to go out as if called by the Holy Spirit to do so, only to go who knows where and to what disappointing, and maybe even deadly, end? There are consequences to believing the fancies of fanatics. 

Any person who believes that a ministry of reconciliation begins like Mr. Bonnke’s charade did is disconnected from biblical history and ignorant of the history of the Church. In Acts 2 the Spirit falls upon believers, not unconverted visitors, and much teaching on Jesus Christ follows. In a Bonnke meeting, we are led to believe that the Spirit falls upon unconverted visitors through a man who preaches nothing but stories of himself! This rancid talk he gives about God using ordinary people, for instance, has no doctrine in it except the bare mention of salvation and Jesus’ death. And we are told, even during a rant in which no doctrine is expounded or explained that the finger of God is moving through the stadium! It is more likely that seeds planted in a snow-bank would sprout! The Spirit was not moving in this meeting any more than he moved over the pages of Bonnke’s Bible that time he was ‘told’ by God to read 1 Chronicles. If you have ears to hear spiritual things, maybe you will pick up on the spiritual meaning of this story he tells. Here it is: the finger of God moving over the pages of a Bible, that’s nothing; but the finger of God moving in a Bonnke crowd, this is everything. That person is in a sorry spiritual state, or at least in a spiritually stunted condition, who believes that salvation or healing falls from the sky subsequent to a minister shouting for an hour about nothing but himself and his unbelievable experiences. That person needs education on the bare necessities of sacred Scripture if he believes that, and he probably needs to be saved besides. “All the wisdom in man will not save the world.” This is Bonnke’s way of saying that doctrines (teachings on justification, regeneration, repentance, etc.) are not necessary. I know that ‘wisdom of man’ and ‘doctrine’ are not synonymous. But I tell you, the context and tone lead me to insist that this is his way of dismissing saving doctrines. These doctrines are nothing to him but the contents of man’s wisdom. He has no time, patience, or diligence for doctrine. What need of actual sermons? No need. He will get people to respond to his enthusiastic yelling, pacing, and fist clenching. That is his method: self-caused exuberance instead of warm, careful exposition. It is the easiest and fastest way to get a rise from the audience. His mad zeal reminds me of a certain woman who used to exclaim, ‘Stop the insanity!’ Or of a certain man who used to strain his veins with, ‘Technique!’ Mr. Bonnke might as well be a walking infomercial parody, so little does his performance exude holy spirituality! He is a good actor, though, and has a hypnotic effect on deluded, passive souls. If the man did not expect us to take him seriously, it would be safe to say that he is entertaining. What characterizes a sermon during a meeting in which the finger of God is present? Is a revival sermon about the minister and his experiences? Or is it about the most holy things of God? Edward Griffin has written a competent, dependable summary of what a revival sermon contains. He experienced, under his ministerial leadership, genuine revival in Massachusetts in the 1820’s. We should listen to such a man. What does he say? “In those revivals unwearied pains were taken to lay open the divine character in all its benevolence, holiness, and justice; to present the divine government in all its righteousness and purity, in all its sovereignty and covenant faithfulness, in all its reasonableness and benignity and awful terror; to lay open the carnal heart, festering with every evil passion, and the horrid nature of sin, with its infinite demerits; to explain the great provision of the atonement and the terms of acceptance with God; to bring out the mercy which melts in the gospel and to press home the invitation; to show the reasonableness and sincerity of God in his treatment of sinners, and the unreasonableness of their obstinacy in rejecting the gospel” (W. B. Sprague’s Lectures on Revivals, p. 415.) Quite different, this, than speaking about the self! The results are different as well. What can we expect as the result of Bonnke’s frantic exercises up on his fancy stage? We may expect the same as the outcome witnessed by Edward Griffin during revivals that were false: “The people, who were stupid before, relapse into the same stupidity at the end of the protracted meeting” (p. 415.)

A prophet may be discovered false by many avenues of inquiry. He is usually interactive, asking for Amens from the audience, for example (the case here.) He either preaches doctrine falsely, or he dismisses doctrine altogether; again, the case here. A false prophet usually occupies a glittering stage, which is the case here as well. And false prophets of the charismatic stripe always focus more on personal experiences and manifestations than on the life, death, and merits of Christ and the doctrines that are connected with closing with him for salvation. In other words, redemption by Christ, and his righteousness to a sinner’s account through faith, these are facts not considered worthy of expositing or preaching, while claims of bodily healing and other modern miracles take center stage. The false prophet is usually about the business of temporary, transient things (like money and popularity) at the expense of the soul. And, as if by the gift of God for the naïve, the gullible, the simple, and the credulous, the false prophet will wear on his sleeve the denial of some basic biblical reality. Here, for example, that comes in the form of a mantra emotionally exclaimed: ‘Hell empty; heaven full!’ Even the dullest reader of Scripture ought to notice an error when a speaker’s pet phrase contradicts a fundamental spiritual reality that is set in stone by God in the Bible. Hell is not empty right now, and it never will be empty. That this phrase is just Mr. Bonnke’s way of expressing his desire for the salvation of all is no worthwhile counter argument. A true prophet, while he may desire the salvation of all or any, submits to the will of God that is written in the Bible. And he chooses phrases that are in line with that.

But for me, what mostly singles out the false prophet from the true one is his attitude toward God. This indicator is not as easy to spot as some of the others. Familiarity with a godly attitude is necessary for one to be able to spot irreverence. If a person listens only to speakers who are irreverent, and therefore imagines, when he reads the Bible, that the Psalmist spoke in a saucy manner too, and that this manner is the holy norm, he will not recognize irreverence even when it stands before him disrespecting God. The discerning spirit will feel the irreverence come across, as it does here when Mr. Bonnke tells the story of how he used to skip the first part of 1 Chronicles while executing his reading plan. Seeing and hearing this man repeating and shouting ‘In Jesus’ name!’ and ‘Glory to God!’ will repulse every spirit that is acquainted with the spirit of the Psalms. This man’s exclamatory utterances will sicken the soul of any person who has had sweet fellowship with any portion of Scripture that is conspicuous for exalting any Member of the Holy Trinity. Those who are filled with admiration for a man who labors to exude energy will take Mr. Bonnke’s demeanor for German passion or even holy zeal. My suggested treatment for this false interpretation is this: Listen to this man and then pause to read Psalm 8 or Psalm 26. Go back and forth, from the spirit of Bonnke to the Psalmist, and if you feel no difference, God help you, for then you cannot be very near God’s kingdom. Read a verse from the Bible where God is extolled: “I will praise thee, O LORD, with my whole heart; I will shew forth all thy marvellous works” (Psalm 9.1.)  Then listen to Bonnke say to God: “I do the preaching, and you bring the people!” If you are not struck by the difference there between a holy tone and a sneering voice, then I might go so far as to say that there is little hope for cure to your blind eyes and ears. But the God who is little esteemed by Bonnke knows for sure if you are one of those, or not, who is beyond curing and left over to endure his everlasting curse. “If you love the praise of man, the criticism of man will destroy you.” That is a rare jewel from Reinhard Bonnke, albeit lacking polish, for criticism is often for our good. It may be safer to say: If you love the praise of man so much that you have no regard for criticism, you might be in danger of missing the advice that would save you from Ultimate Destruction in Hell. “Reproofs of instruction are the way of life” (Proverbs 6.23.)

THE VATICAN'S APPROACH TO CLERICAL PEDOPHILIA

Red Deer Advocate, April 19^th, 2010. The Vatican has known about child sexual abuse among its priests since at least 1993, according to this piece of news. Those who know their Roman Catholic history will tell you that the Vatican is as evil as it is old, and that it has been trying to cover its bloody tracks from the start.

It says here that Pope Benedict ‘expressed shame and sorrow’ at the pain suffered by sex-abuse victims. A person can express shame and sorrow without any repentance going on in his soul and without determining to make restitution for the wrongs done by his priests. This pontiff continues to drag his feet where justice is concerned. When have we heard him rail about these priests deserving jail? Never! A person who is in charge of pedophile priests, if he really had sorrow and shame in his heart about their endless abuses, would be pounding his Bible for justice! He would be assisting the law to root these priests out and get them into prison! But no, all he does is ‘express,’ and usually in the Latin tongue so nobody will understand! He does not preach—he does not demand—he does not guarantee justice. His expression is a show. And to merely ‘express’ is a weak show at that! Yea, it is a much weaker expression of remorse than that of Judas Iscariot: “I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood” (Matthew 27.4.) Will Pope Benedict confess as much as Judas Iscariot did? Of course not!         

Pope Benedict’s concern is not justice. His concern is the same as that of Archbishop Collins, his obedient spokesman. Notice that it is ‘the impact of the scandals on the church’ that Mr. Collins is concerned about. When crimes by priests are still under cover, how does the Vatican treat its perverted perpetrators? This news article is poorly written. But it seems to be trying to communicate that the Vatican promoted an official to one of its top posts in spite of having knowledge of his pedophilic sins. The Vatican treats its pedophiles rather well, even to the extent of handing them promotions! and not just average promotions either! but promotions to top posts! Incidentally (though we do not intimate that Mr. Collins may be a child-predator), Archbishop Collins is now, as of January 2012, Cardinal Collins, so well does he enunciate what Pope Benedict wants to him to say!  

I would never say that New Testament Pharisees were as evil as today’s Roman Catholic officials. But the result that follows from promoting perverted priests is the same as that achieved by Pharisees upon making converts: “ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves” (Matthew 23.15.) What is worse than a pedophile priest? Answer: a pedophile priest with more power. How many pedophile priests have been promoted to the rank of bishop? How many to the rank of cardinal? How many have been chosen by cardinals to sit as pope? God knows. And we know this for sure: Church officials who knowingly promote pedophiles to higher posts are not holy and not saved. Therefore their doctrines, practices, and religion must be examined against the Bible. And then the seeker after truth must either remain in the Roman Catholic pew, or else take a walk. Can the narrow path to heaven be through the widespread darkness of Roman Catholicism? Begin your research with that question in mind. A bias in favor of holiness is okay.

PROGRAMS IN PLACE OF PREACHING

(City Light News, June 2013.) The writer of this article is puzzled that faithlessness and church attendance are on the increase together. The answer just happens to be in the big question period at the head of the article: ? Doctrinally anemic programs like Alpha (which has the big ? on the cover of its book) are largely responsible for the increase of both faithlessness and church attendance. ‘Creative engagement’ is less offensive and judgmental than preaching; and so it’s an attractive way for timid Christians to give church growth a whack. You get lots of husk but not a lot of kernel that way, many unbelievers, but few converts. Church growth, of whatever sort, must be what Alpha pastors are after.

This is how dull the talking heads at church meetings are. Faithlessness and church attendance are up. The cause of this strange harmony: faithless programs that plant infidels in God’s Church. Not realizing what the cause is, these heads of churches (ever talking, never preaching) put their programmed heads together around some boardroom table and decide to take advantage of the paradox by setting up a whole campaign of programs! Yes, Alberta 2013! That’s the newest gospel replacement. Get ready, not for revival, but for a bumper crop of faithlessness. ‘Building bridges’ has a positive, constructive sound. The problem is that the bridges lead to everywhere but the cross. The campaign “will provoke people to ‘Question Everything.’” Yes, people will be provoked to question many things—except the merits of all these faithless Alpha courses! People are distracted by many things, it says in the article. Yes, they are distracted by many things, not the least of which are programs like Alpha! Did Peter or Paul and their Master try to ‘creatively engage’ sinners with innocuous programs whose way of witnessing is to make faithless sinners feel they have faith already? No, but the New Testament model is just too discriminate and offensive for bloodless pastors to use. All their weak hearts can do is pump up more programs. They have no heart for preaching, no heart for the gospel, no heart for the heart of Christianity. They’re scared right down to their shriveled up arteries. The truths that made great preachers of old bubble up with heat and light, our pastors turn white at the suggestion of. To preach down to sinners a gospel from above is a horrid thing to these men. To say ‘repent’ with distinction, detail, and exclamation is the shibboleth they can’t utter. They are foreigners to preaching, just as the men of Ephraim were foreigners to the word that they couldn’t pronounce. They ‘compass land and sea’ to make proselytes to programs, but take no steps at all to becoming proselytes to preaching in order to save the souls they gather. The gospel is their shame; programs are their crown. Alpha is their smooth way; the Way of Life is too rough for them.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Romans 1.16.) And notice: “But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness” (1 Corinthians 1.23.) Many who are preached to stumble at the word and cause trouble, like the unbelieving Jews who continually hunted the head of Paul. Many others who are preached to regard the word as foolish, and so the preachers of it they treat as fools. Caving in to such responses is what Paul warned Timothy not to do: “Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord” (2 Timothy 1.8.) Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown on this: “Paul…felt it necessary to stir him up and guard him against the possibility of unchristian dereliction of duty as to bold confession of Christ.” Is Alpha’s cowardly approach a bold confession? It is because pastors have caved in to the pressure of the possibility of persecution that they resort to programs in place of preaching. They will not risk so much as being called fools for the sake of preaching Christ. Caving in is what pastors do through Alpha and similar inoffensive, seeker-friendly, creatively engaging, ecumenical-minded courses and programs. To be ashamed of preaching Christ crucified is to be ashamed of Christ, if anything is.

What kind of message does God use to effect revival but the effective, faithful preaching of his holy word? Here is the sort of content that a revival message contains, in the words of a minister actually used by God in a broad way: “The object was to make the impenitent feel that they were under a righteous condemnation, that they had destroyed themselves, that their hearts were entirely alienated from God, that in this alienation lay their guilt and not their excuse, that, of course, they were bound to repent and become reconciled to God without a moment’s delay, that, nevertheless, so desperate was the depravity of their hearts that nothing short of the power of the Holy Ghost would ever subdue it, and that God was under no obligation to exert that power. So far as could be known at the time, and so far as the ‘fruits’ enable us to determine, these and other kindred truths were ‘the power of God unto salvation’, to multitudes that were ready to perish. The design was to exalt God and bring the sinner in guilty at every step, not to terrify even the vilest transgressor so as to render him incapable of reasoning and reflection, but to induce him, under the strong convictions of an enlightened conscience, to ‘flee from the wrath to come’, and ‘lay hold on eternal life’” (Heman Humphrey, in W. B. Sprague’s Lectures on Revivals of Religion, p. 360.) Do ministers leading Alpha preach like this? I know that they do not. Do they even try? I don’t think so. Preaching Christ crucified involves more than coaxing people to a ‘decision.’

Are you a pastor seeking to gain a world of churchgoers through faithless programs? Are you willing to receive churchgoers as church members, no matter how worldly and unrepentant they may be? Let the Scriptures reason you out of that for the good of your own soul and the poor multitudes that you refuse to really preach to. “For what is man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels” (Luke 9.25, 26.) If these verses seem not to touch you, then consider that you may be spiritually blind. If you will not consider that you may be spiritually blind, then count on it: you are spiritually blind for sure, for a man whose eyes have been opened by the grace of God will not begrudge to examine his profession of faith. Hath God given you a spirit of fear? (2 Timothy 1.7.) 

ROMAN CATHOLIC DRONES

Red Deer Advocate, April 19^th, 2010. Says the archbishop drone: Roman Catholic sexual abuse scandals are ‘dramatic exceptions’ to the good work done by priests. In light of all the pedophilic crimes that are being discovered within the ranks of the Roman priesthood, it is more accurate to call these scandals ‘commonplace villainies,’ not ‘dramatic exceptions.’

As to the good work that priests do, it is during their supposed work that they commit their crimes. And what of all the good work that is done by priests who are not pedophiles? Their chief work is to teach or perform ceremonies like the Mass, which is the heresy that pretends Christ can be sacrificed anew to some benefit for sinners, when, in fact, the Bible teaches that there is no more acceptable sacrifice to be made for sin since Christ was crucified on the cross. So these Masses are useless and sinful because they are needless and anti-Christian; that is, they would add to what Christ accomplished, as if his perfect sacrifice on the cross were insufficient. Hebrews 9.26 says that “once in the end of the world hath he [Jesus Christ] appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” It does not say that regularly does he appear to put away sin by being re-sacrificed by a priest, but that once he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. So it is done. It may never be done with God’s blessing again. The fact that it is perfectly and completely done makes the Mass unnecessary, and sinful to perform. And since that sacrifice on the cross is sufficient to put away sin, it renders unnecessary also, all prayers to Mary and the saints for help, and all good works that one might try to rack up for salvation. In essence, that once-for-all, all-sufficient sacrifice condemns any other attempt at satisfying the anger of God toward sinners. The ultimate sacrifice for sin has been made. God is satisfied with it. And the sufficiency of this sacrifice is what we must trust in order to be saved.

Priests love to ‘work’ with children. Given all the pedophilia that we now know that priests have been guilty of, we cannot blindly assume that the work they wish to do with children is really work. After all the pedophilic indecencies that priests have been caught doing, who could remain so ignorant and careless as to risk the bodies, virtues, and souls of children to obtain some dubious, priestly benefit? If you leave your child with a Roman priest, it is in the face of God the All-Seeing Judge that you do it; and this Almighty God will have the last Word about such ‘childcare’ in the end. Any biblical novice should be able to recognize from his little bit of reading that God cares especially for children. So we must be cautious (especially Roman Catholic laypersons) to leave our children with guardians who are least likely to abuse our children. Roman Catholic priests do not qualify.

The Canadian archbishop is a Roman Catholic ‘yes-man’ who says whatever accords with the wishes and will of his master the pope. And that Toronto’s priests are given a ‘pastoral message’ to repeat is proof that they are not permitted to speak for themselves when shameful scandals abound. They are the pope’s politicians, lower-level drones who speak when they are told to speak and who say what they are told to say. Have they wills and brains of their own? Feelings of their own? Apparently not. The great concern they are brainwashed to promote is the reputation of Mother Church. Is it not more important, righteous, and holy to throw your concern on the side of the abused children?

Don’t be a Roman Catholic drone, whoever you are. Read your Bible and put up personal prayers to God. He is the only Holy Father; the other one is an imposter. While you pray, never mind your rosary. Why not recycle that? There are none of these to be found in use among the saints in the Bible. Speak to God from the heart, not by rote.

The Roman Catholic spokesman says that you ‘should not be discouraged by the seemingly endless stream of victims.’ Think about that. Multitudes of victims are discouraged. But you shouldn’t be. How does this square with the Bible’s command to ‘weep with them that weep’? (Romans 12.15) You should weep with all the victims, but more: you should be as mad as the hell these pedophiles ought to be cast into! It is unnatural to have no anger about this. If you are not disturbed, ask yourself why. Are you hanging on to your tradition in spite of your revulsion? Are you suppressing your revulsion because you want to continue to believe that Roman Catholicism is true and blameless and that this religious institute may some day open heaven’s gates for you? Surely there is enough evidence by now for you to seriously reconsider your belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church. How many atrocities will it take to make you doubt? What is the true Church? How may I be part of it? How may I get a salvation that will one day look down on the hell these Romish perverts deserve? These are the righteous questions that a holy indignation would ask. Begin seeking answers to these questions, whether you are a Roman Catholic, or just someone who shrinks from criticizing anyone. And why not get a fresh start by setting your Roman version of the Bible aside? You may keep to it; I would have you read it rather than nothing at all. But would it not be nice to have a brand new Protestant KJV in your hand, big and black, authoritative-looking, and reliable? Begin to put your quest in motion. Get to the bottom of this Church issue, and maybe you will get to the bottom of your own redemption while you are at it, which is your greatest need. And may the grace of God through his Holy Spirit guide you. If you like, you may even email me. Ask me any question you like. My email address is in my profile.    

Under the new rule of Pope Francis, the rules remain the same. Pedophile priests are protected, drones continue to drone, and victims continue to seek justice. 

THE DECLINE OF JUSTICE IN CANADA

Red Deer Life, July 17^th, 2011. “There is no longer any reasonable prospect of conviction.” This is the feeble excuse given by the Crown to not pursue justice for suspected murder! Can you feel the matter-of-factness, or flippancy of that statement? The man was sentenced for murder once. And so never mind pursuing the other charges laid against him! How does the Bible interpret judicial apathy like that? “They that forsake the law praise the wicked” (Proverbs 28.4.) In other words, by refusing to punish the wicked for his crimes, our Crown sides with the wicked against its own law. This murderer should have been put down after his first sentence. But not only is he allowed to live, he has the prospect of freedom too. He reaps life and freedom by the decline of justice. The most wicked reap life and freedom by the decline of justice in Canada.

Prior to 1865, capital punishment extended beyond reasonable bounds in this land. For instance, in 1803 in Montreal, 13 year old B. Clements was hanged for stealing a cow. From 1865, the death penalty was in force for crimes of murder, treason, and rape. In 1961, the law began to suffer its whittling down. And in 2011, murderers get to go free after some years of confinement; some of them get to dodge jail altogether.

Execution for the crime of murder is good sense. It makes good sense to the majority of Canadians. As recently as 2009, an Angus Reid poll showed that 62% of Canadians support the death penalty for the crime of murder. Why should a conservative government fear reinstating capital punishment, then? Liberals would spin the act as part of a wider agenda just waiting to be implemented. But a just government should act in the direction of justice regardless of spin and slander. Politicians, though, are more afraid of losing power than they are zealous for righteousness.

A lot of judicial watering down has occurred since 1961, the year when murder was classified under capital and non-capital offences. The Bible calls this the framing of mischief by a law (Psalm 94.20.) And this injustice brings punishment by the LORD upon the framers and the people who support these framers in office (verse 23.) Law is made to punish persons like murderers (1 Timothy 1.9.) Reducing execution to life, and making life into 25 years, or 10 years, or even 7 years, depending on the murder degree, is to make a law for the murderer’s good instead of for his crime. This is outrageous to God and dangerous for every citizen.

The Bible warns us to remember the good laws that preceded us. “My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother” (Proverbs 1.8.) 62% of us want capital punishment reinstated. Fairly recent ancestors would agree. For progress in the sphere of justice to occur, we must regress to pre-1961 standards. Do not be afraid to be a spokesman for executing murderers. In Canada, believe it or not, you are in the majority. And God himself agrees with your position. 

SYMPATHY FOR BOMBERS

Red Deer Advocate, April 24^th, 2013. This news clip provides a summary of how influence played its part in what we now call the ‘Boston Bombings.’ How are people made to sympathize with an evil cause? ‘He just took his brain,’ said the uncle about how Misha influenced Tamerlan. In turn, Tamerlan ‘took’ Dzhokhar’s brain. The result is a terrorist strike, multiple murders, mass crippling, emotional trauma, ongoing anxiety, and, hopefully, death to the surviving murderer.

The Bible, in simple language that every reader can understand, warns against your brain being ‘taken’ by extremists. “My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not. If they say, come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause…My son, walk not thou in the way of them” (Proverbs 1.10, 11, 15.) A brain that is uneducated in morals is in imminent danger of being ‘taken’ and made to sympathize with evil plots and deeds.

It is coming out now that the guilty parties were immigrants to the USA who were more lazy than industrious. You really have to watch your brain when it has already given in to a ‘poor-me’ ‘have-not’ mentality. Go downtown (almost any town will do) among the tax-takers who can work but won’t, and there you will find many brains ‘taken’ by conspiracy theorists who spout nonsense, like 9/11 being an inside job, for example. Why is that? When you believe that society owes you a free living, this naturally leads to the belief that society is against you even while it pays your bills and that this society is against you even from the top down in the most violent way. You people who believe that President Bush or the CIA is responsible for 9/11, watch your brain. It is ripe for being recruited.

Some brains are ‘taken,’ not by extremists or conspiracy theorists, but by sophisticated philosophies. The brains over at the CBC are of this type; that is, almost every CBC brain that I hear over the radio is of this sort. The CBC brains that are ‘taken’ are not terrorists, nor do they openly endorse terrorism. But their rhetoric vis-à-vis terrorism is often scary in the extreme. When the second bomber (Dzhokhar) was caught in Boston, the citizens who were gathered to witness it started chanting, ‘USA! USA!’ Susan Bonner (a CBC journalist) was on the scene, and what was her comment about that? It was ‘hard to watch,’ she said. No, Susan, we don’t chant like that for Canada when evil is overcome because evil is seldom overcome up here. When evil is overcome, some of us might want to chant, if that’s okay with you. Where do Susan Bonner’s sympathies lie? She couldn’t sympathize with the chanters? She was offended by cheers for justice against a murderer? You see, she was concerned about the ‘show of force’ by the police against a ‘nineteen year old boy.’ Those were her sentiments exactly. I heard it on April 21^st on CBC’s Cross Country Checkup. This is what happens when liberal philosophy takes over your brain. Rex Murphy, the program’s host, also expressed concern about the show of force, though not in so many words. Remember that your political idol, Rex, invoked the War Measures Act against the FLQ! Those who listen to the CBC are usually of the same mind as the radio hosts. One caller into Rex’s show was ‘so sorry a young life is wrecked,’ referring to that of the nineteen year old terrorist. Not one word of sympathy from that caller, though, for the victims. On The Morning Edition (another CBC program), I heard the same trendy thoughts. The concern there was the possible waving of Miranda rights, which would be to the purpose, it was pitifully said, of interrogating the suspect vigorously even while he lies seriously wounded in the hospital! This is how the discussion was framed! What misplaced sympathy! The CBC is liberal for every freedom that terrorists want to eradicate, yet its voice is always terrorist-friendly. I have often reflected on this anomaly. The best answer that I have for it may be just a conspiracy theory, especially since it comes from a man who believes in many of them. But even a person who imbibes conspiracy theories is right sometimes, usually because he has unwittingly picked up some nuggets of truth during his frenzied gathering of oddities. He informed me that when a political wing goes far enough to one side or the other, it begins to rub shoulders with the other extreme. Terrorists want dictatorial government, except for its elite members who are free to do as they please. The CBC promotes a dictatorial nanny-state, and wants to limit freedom of speech and association so long as they and their special interest groupies are exempt. Extreme leftists and right-wing extremists are similarly minded politically. They just want different kinds of dictatorship. The CBC, though, when it caresses terrorists with soft words and sympathy, is like a child reaching out to pet a mad pitbull. The Taliban and company are not into rubbing shoulders with people who are bent on making their women into harlots and bosses. To terrorists, justice; to the people under their tyranny, decency: this is the only reasonable approach. Only then can we hope to change nations for the better through our communications with them. And if you bring a well-balanced morality with you, the gospel might be listened to with attention. Too bad that the CBC, with its gutter ethics and irreligion, is what so many terrorists believe Canadian Christianity to be!

Those who yield their brains over to conspiracies to commit murder usually get snared in this life and they are certain to be judged in the next. Those who show concern for terrorists at the expense of victims, they are on the broad way leading to hell too, on the strength, not of heinous crimes, but strange philosophies added to sinfulness. If your sense of justice is as shaky as what you hear emanating from CBC radio, then the mercy of God has likely never got into your senses. How come? Because salvation from the penalty of sin comes to the affections through an understanding of God's mind as revealed in his word; and mercy received from God soon gives birth to a sense of justice toward those persons who God declares the law ought to punish. ‘Thou shalt not kill’ is a meaningless commandment if it doesn’t mean there should be severe penalties for the crime of murder. “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” (Genesis 9.6.) This is the biblical ideal. It is largely believed at the CBC that man is an evolved monkey. Why not pity bombers if you believe that? Monkeys are sinless, after all. Whatever philosophy we believe affects where our sympathies lie. When you have sympathy for bombers, your philosophy is to blame, and it is time for a change.

POPISH PROTECTION

City Light News, April, 2013. Does a pope possess the moral authority to call on someone to be a protector? He calls on everyone to protect ‘the environment, the poor, and their families.’ When will he do his part? Who is he protecting? Should he not be protecting the persecuted? Who is more persecuted than those poor persons who have been abused by pedophile priests? There are many Roman priests who have been ‘outed’ as pedophiles and they have not received adequate punishment. And the bishops who covered for them need to be punished also. Pope Francis calls people to be protectors. When will he be an example by protecting children instead of the priests who have molested them? Does he even care for the poor? A pope who cared for the poor would have a heart for the persecuted also, would he not? A pope who cared for the persecuted would punish pedophile priests, would he not? Have we heard of any measures being taken by this Assisi wannabe to that end? No, and we are not likely to hear of any. The pope’s purpose is to protect the power in Vatican City. This is his chief concern. If you are a victim of pedophilia by a Roman Catholic priest, you have learned that popish protection means no protection at all for you.

The truly converted who have received the Spirit and exercised their illumined minds for a few years can discern that the pope has no power in his speech. “And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power” (Luke 4.32.) This was said of Jesus when he taught in Galilee. Why was there power in his speech? Because his doctrine was backed by a holy life. “Which of you convinceth me of sin?” (John 8.46.) There was power in his speech because his acts were in harmony with what he taught. There was power in his speech because while he preached righteousness he never forgot to condemn injustice also, unlike Pope Francis.

“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do” (John 8.44.) When will Pope Francis speak to his pedophile priests in this righteous, condemnatory fashion? What moral work could be more important for Pope Francis to do than to rush upon guilty pedophile priests, with legal aid and force, and beg the book to be thrown at each guilty priest under his charge? The pope has no spiritual power, except from the devil maybe. But he has great political influence. He could make this happen. No force upon earth prevents him. If he were a just man, would he not do this good deed? If he were a just man, would he not begin by quoting Jesus’ words to these molester-priests and then sic the law on each one of them? It was Jesus’ mission to preach, heal, forgive the repentant, live holily, and die on a cross for the sins of man, not dole out civil justice. But it is the mission of a minister of God’s church to excommunicate evildoers to the ‘destruction of the flesh’ (1 Corinthians 5.5.) This kind of judgment is to the purpose, after all, that the spirits of these evildoers ‘may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.’ Why does the pope not do it then? Is he not a true minister of Christ? Does he not care for the souls of his priests? Maybe he cares for their souls as little as he cares for the children they have molested. A true minister of Christ would exercise discipline, just as the Bible commands him to. “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone” (James 2.17.) 

CHRISTIANITY TODAY

(Christianity Today, June 2013.) The article I'm critiquing: 'Want to Change the World? Sponsor a Child,' by Bruce Wydick. 

What is Christianity like today, in 2013? More specifically, what is that which passes for Christianity like today? These pictures, as I intend to show, tell us what it is like. 

These drawings from third-world kids are taken from ‘Christianity Today,’ the magazine. The drawings are central to the argument in the cover story that child-sponsorship, at least through ‘Compassion International,’ works. Lots of figures are thrown around to convince us that it works. A sponsored child is ‘27 to 40 percent more likely to complete secondary school’ and ‘14-18 percent more likely to obtain a salaried job’ when he grows up, for example. How might these figures be verified by us, though? We either trust Bruce Wydick, the writer of said article, or we do not.

He must have learned somewhere that a professor of economics is more convincing when he adds illustrations to his formulas; hence the drawings that he includes. And this is where our trust has reason to be suspended. This is where we have reason to believe that ‘philosophy and vain deceit’ (Colossians 2.8) are being used to convince us that child sponsorship works. This ‘philosophy and vain deceit’ is what popular Christianity is like today.

The first drawing is what an unsponsored child drew when asked to draw ‘a self-portrait set in the rain.’ The second one is what a sponsored child drew when asked to do the same. The first one, because a single color was used, means that the child has ‘feelings of hopelessness’; his facial expression signifies unhappiness; and he must have a ‘low view of self-efficacy’ because he did not draw an umbrella in the hand. The second one, because of all the color that is used, means the child is hopeful and optimistic; and she must have a high view of self-efficacy because she drew a smile on the face, and added an umbrella in the hand and the sun peeking out. Percentages are thrown around at this point in the article too. “Compassion children…were 13 percentage points less likely to draw themselves as a tiny figure,” for example.

The two drawings that are included in the article, though, are from children widely dissimilar in age. The first one is by an unsponsored child, but he is a five-year-old boy. The second one is by a sponsored child, but she is a thirteen-year-old girl. Should the choice of drawings that are put on view make us suspicious, maybe? This is obviously the main thing that is offered up to convince us of the success of child sponsorship. Not only is false philosophy being used to convince us of something here, but vain deceit as well. The ‘psychometric happiness index’ (p. 24) is the false philosophy; the choice of drawings (p. 25) is the deceptive support. For some sake of honesty and self-respect, Bruce Wydick feels that he must tell us the age of each child artist. But this important distinction is not discussed, and we are expected to make little note of it. (The ages do not appear plainly over by where the drawings are put in; I wrote them in myself.)

The reason behind the bleakness of drawing A, might it not have something to do with the artist’s age? Would this five-year-old boy even think of putting an umbrella in the hand? Has he ever seen one? Does he know how to make mouth and eyes to smile on paper? Would he not be less apt than the much older girl to use a variety of colors? Would he be less apt, maybe, to put a sun in the picture when not asked to do so?

The Providence of God, in its special, more noticeable features, is so often a great helper to me. A few weeks before I read this article, I put on the wall over to the right of where I do my reading, a bulletin board with a child’s drawings pinned to it. I had marked down, after the drawings were done, the age at which each drawing was done. The artist, as a four-year-old girl, drew a dinosaur on one paper and a monkey on the other, each in a single color scheme, in spite of many colors being available to her. Also, neither animal was drawn with smiling eyes, and only the dinosaur was given an upturned, happy mouth. As a five-year-old, she drew a picture of me swimming on one paper and another of her grandma swimming on the other. In each drawing, several colors were used, and on each person, the mouths and eyes were made to smile.

Observe, there is much bleakness and singularity of color in the first set, compared with unreserved happiness and multi-colors in the second set. What made the difference? Is the difference on account of her being an unsponsored child at the age of four and then a sponsored child at the age of five? No, for she was a spoiled first-world brat (whom we love) during the drawing of each set, but one year older during the drawing of the second set. That’s the great difference that a little age can make in the drawings of a child artist.

What great difference might there be, do you think, between the artistic abilities of a five-year-old boy and a thirteen-year-old girl? Is the disparity of content and aspect between one drawing and another due to child sponsorship? Or might age alone have a lot to do with the disparity? Notice this also: the five-year-old boy was given white, lined paper to draw on, very drab; but the thirteen-year-old girl was given colored drawing paper to do hers on, very pretty. Might that kind of disparity influence what one might draw? 

There is yet one more clue to this article being fishy. There is a full-page ad (page 6) in this issue for Compassion International. Beside this (page 7) there is an almost full-page appeal for the support of it. Put this all together: the ad, the appeal, the article with its opportunistic choice of drawings, the index gobbledygook, and you have a conflict of interest, unchristian philosophy, deceit, and propaganda. That’s Christianity today, folks. A person should not be protested against, not even so much as one word’s worth, if he were to call the creators of this project devious miscreants instead of devoted Christians. “Hope is a fuzzy concept for economists,” Mr. Wydick says on page 23. Maybe, and the practice of deceit should be a fuzzy concept for Christians. “I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil” (Romans 16.19.) Application here: Do not yield to the use of trick-psychology and deceptive execution.  

Every time I buy this magazine (about once every two years) I am reminded of the downgrade Western evangelicalism is on and of how rapid the decline is. Because the timing of this issue so coincided with my bulletin board being put up: just in time for me to compare what is on it to the drawings in the magazine, it seems right to suppose that I was destined to buy the June issue of this measly magazine, not to learn anything by, but to teach something by. ‘Christianity Today’ is not very Christ-like, only representative of what passes for Christianity today. One could do several righteously condemning articles on the content of just one issue of this magazine. This is why I do not hesitate to make the generalization: ‘Christianity Today’ is representative of the low-grade spirituality that calls itself Christianity today.

INSENSITIVITY THROUGH CIRCUMSTANCE, IGNORANCE, AND PRIDE

Red Deer Advocate, November 9^th, 2011. Michael J. Fox has empowered himself, he says. By this self-power, supposedly, his Parkinson’s disease ‘appears to have plateaued.’ Now there is a measure of truth to this positive assertion. “The spirit of a man will sustain his infirmity” (Proverbs 18.14.) The spirit of a man will bear much affliction, and carry it too. A positive attitude will compel the sick man to go farther than a wounded spirit is able to get to.

Not to pit Solomon against Job, but here is a more ominous truth: “One dieth in his full strength, being wholly at ease and quiet” (Job 21.23.) Instead of bragging about this little, temporary strength that he has been able to dig up from his own depths, Mr. Fox ought to be giving glory to the God who has granted his spirit the strength to get this far. Christopher Reeve (Superman) got ridiculously optimistic on account of being able to move his finger that time. Now Mr. Fox has gotten silly by his own flicker of hope. ‘I don’t have time to get worse,’ he tells us. This is not the movies, Mr. Fox, like when Jesse Ventura didn’t ‘have time to bleed.’

Besides the fact that God has, in his patience, extended mercy for a time, why has Mr. Fox’s spirit sustained his infirmity? Has it not largely been because of circumstance? Many other sick folks have not been able to get their wealth up to supply luxurious comforts. Their little fame does not draw broad sympathy. They have no supportive partner to ease daily depressions. This is why ‘you have to empower yourself’ is such an insensitive message. It is an easy thing to say when your own disease has slowed down and when your support systems are all up and running.

Where do insensitive remarks like that come from? I mean, from what sins do they arise? They arise from ignorance and pride. A man humbled by the truth of God would not boast of empowering himself. Much less would he advise others to do it! Proverbs 18.14 is a fact, not a piece of advice meant to be relied upon. Is it not true that any man may die in his full strength? This happens daily. Yes, for the Bible speaks truly. Empower yourself! How insensitive to say so! Take this instead: Be wary of your strength, be it ever so little or much! There is a message, and not for all sick persons only, but for every healthy person too. Make the LORD God your strength and salvation (Psalm 18.2.) There is the best advice.

“Give glory to the LORD your God, before he cause darkness, and before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains, and, while ye look for light, he turn it into the shadow of death, and make it gross darkness” (Jeremiah 13.16.) If you are sick of trying to empower yourself to no good purpose, confess your sins (like wanting to sacrifice embryonic stem cell life in order to save your own skin) and cast your weakness, and especially your little strength, upon God through Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Saviour sent from heaven to save sinners from terrors beyond the grave. “Repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1.15.)

FORESIGHT THROUGH KNOWLEDGE

(Red Deer Advocate, April 29^th, 2010; Red Deer Express, May 16^th, 2012; Red Deer Life, February 10^th, 2013.) Man is by nature selfish. Because he is selfish, he dictates to others in order to satisfy his self. You can observe this behavior early on in children. A child will take the lead among his playmates, and he will begin to dictate in order to guide the game according to his pleasure. Satan dictated to Eve in order to please himself.

Some persons are naturally more passive than others. This does not mean, however, that they would not like to dictate. They lack the spirit and the pluck to do it, and so they stand back and acquiesce. Or, it may be, at least for some, that humility is in force to suppress the lust for self-satisfying power. Such persons may get elevated to some rank. But their rank is bestowed because of industry and talent, not obtained through deceit and force. “I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree” (Psalm 37.35.)

The newspapers regularly testify to the fact that most persons in positions of political leadership do not have their selfish selves in suppression. Whether leading in a small sphere or in a big way, they marshal the factors together that they think will best promote their progress toward more rank and control. They observe what policies their higher-ups want them to push, and then they promote agitation from special interest groups in order to deceive, intimidate, and overrule the passive majority. The issues agitated for in the interest of control naturally diminish freedom in the populace. Increased control upon the lives of citizens narrows their liberty.

During the initial stages of narrowing the people on some issue or other, the policy pusher will promise that measures will go so far and no farther. Then, when the current of what he has begun is rapidly moving along, he becomes bolder, and speaks more plainly for increased control in spite of his former promise to narrow freedom only marginally. Like King Rehoboam who got intoxicated with his sudden gift of power, he is anxious to overpower the people by putting a heavier yoke upon them than they are accustomed to put up with. “My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s loins” (1 Kings 12.10.) And, believe it or not, being controlled and vexed by politicians and self-interest groups is ‘from the LORD’ on account of national disobedience and idolatry (1 Kings 11.33; 12.15.) That is how it works.

What does this have to do with paltry smoking bylaws? These unusual bylaws, and others like them, are signposts that spell ‘yield’ to our freedoms. They are signposts that spell the regression of freedoms to a people too busy idolizing to notice what is written on the signs. Blindness is how God ensures judgment.

But the main reason for posting these news clips is to show, on the heels of these remarks I just made, that with some knowledge of our post-modern times and the ancient Bible, what lies ahead around the corner from the drift we are in is often predictable. You don’t have to be a prophet to see around some of the corners.

Compare the news clips preceding my comments here with my letters at the bottom. The comparison shows that I was right, even years ago, about smoking bylaws being dictated to citizens far beyond reasonable bounds and far surpassing the restraint that was promised. Foresight through knowledge painstakingly attained, in distinction from listening to charismatic vanity prophesying, is how one may know something of where we are headed. And we should all strive to acquire as much foresight as we can in order to oppose the narrowing of our liberties. God is judging, no doubt, through dictatorial persons and groups. But we should expose dictatorships great and small because the scattering of darkness by light is what prevents the judgment of God being necessary.

Here are my letters concerning smoking bylaws.

Printed in the Stettler Independent on November 26^th, 2003:

Re: The ‘No Butts!’ Campaign.

Dear Editor:

I am severely allergic to cigarette smoke. What is the proper conduct for me to do then, about my social dealings about town? Proudly lobby to cancel the proprietor’s right to cater to a smoking clientele so I can press my nose into his business and breathe air without injury? Or humbly prevent injury to myself by going somewhere else, allowing the business owner his right? Smokers of Stettler, stand up and stare down this No Butts! nonsense, or this invasion of rights will not stop at your businesses. Let this kind of power trip continue, and your rights will be canceled in your home one day, and you will be partly to blame for letting it happen. (Read between the dubious but scary lines in the AADAC pamphlet, “22% of Canadian children under the age of 12 are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke in their home”—One day soon, you better quit or else.) Do not listen to promises of limitations. Power trips are unlimited—their intentions insidious. You know that the loss of rights runs downhill, all over your freedoms, pleasures, and favorite cigarettes—and it will be a hard climb back up to get what was taken away, especially with a smoker’s cough. It seems like everybody and his dog smokes in this town. What of it? Do not be content to have a non-smoking minority defend you. Defend yourselves too, and with more fervor, please, than your wheezing lungs take in air.

Printed in the Red Deer Express on May 2^nd, 2012:

Re: ‘Banning smoking in City.’

Dear Editor:

A headline like ‘Banning smoking in City’ [the article here criticized] should send chills down your Canadian spine. Let’s not go totalitarian on smoking like Edmonton just did. Back in 2003 (in the Stettler Independent) I predicted that anti-smoking campaigners would not stop at banning smoking in business establishments. These activists denied that they would push any further. But now look at what is being done! Imagine not being allowed to smoke on a dusty trail! That’s how far this ban will go. And it will go further still. It will go as far as the activists can take it and as far the citizens will permit.

I don’t smoke. And I don’t like smoke. But I support smoking. Here is why you should too. There is something even more insidious and threatening than the occasional gulp of secondhand smoke: the gradual loss of personal freedom. If legislators will ban smoking outside, you might think that is a wonderful victory for cleaner air. But think about the precedent this sets. If a ban like this goes forward, what comes next? Suppose that religion continues to be maligned as evil. And suppose that anti-religion activists get their way, just as the anti-smoking campaigners are getting theirs. Then certain religious books will be banned from your libraries, and then from your churches, your homes, your internet services, and your bedside tables. That’s how the regression of liberties can happen in free countries, item by and item and step by step.

It is ridiculous to be so worried about the effects of cigarette smoke outdoors when pollution by a passing car exceeds these effects by a thousand to one or more! From the nearsighted perspective, the ban is about noxious fumes and cancer. But what lurks behind the ban is a hatred of liberty and a lust for control. If you value your freedom to read and worship, you should support the liberty to smoke. For the sake of preserving liberty, let’s risk the sight and smell of smoke once in awhile. The occasional whiff of smoke will not hurt so much as a fly. When you see a smoker light up, be glad for what this act signifies: liberty.