I should be at work, but I’m not. I’ve got a free hour because I have been in town jinxing my daughter’s driving test. (Failed in attempt #2. Another illegal manuever.) Chapel is Vocational Awards, so I am free till lunch. I just installed a network card in the computer. The cable modem is sitting here next to me and the router is ready to go. I am itching to get all this on the road. I think I am going to spend a few extra bucks and get a bit faster connection than I planned. Life is short. Party hardy.

Bob and Sheri had a good one this morning: What creative words or phrases have you heard people use as a replacement for profanity? There were some really idiotic ones as well as some very good ones. Remember people saying “Judas Priest!!”?

The Dead Horse has come back to familiar territory. Since I am on the sidelines, I look forward to learning about Gregory’s long promised Via Media on this issue. I’ll clean up all broken glasses and plates. I would offer this question: Is it a matter of both positions being taught in scripture, or that we must reduce it to both positions in order to understand scripture? I believe only one position resolves all the data in scripture, but I can see that in communication, there may need to be some “both…and” at times.

My Greek class continues to be the best thing going. I actually do seem to have more talent in teaching Greek than I ever imagined. It is really funny because I did pretty average in Greek, and was clueless lots of the time because my teachers wouldn’t 1) explain terms 2) Give good illustrations or 3) use Biblical examples. I work hard at all three. Instead of just saying “memorize the the rule,” I am trying to get my students to see the concepts at work.

We really went round a couple of times with my son over the school dress code. He wants to buy some “skater” clothes that are probably just outside the dress code, or will at least attract the attention of some of the staff. I don’t want him to get hassled at a place where people never forget your mistakes, so I’ve said he can buy what he wants with his money, but I won’t let him wear the shirts at school. I even offered to take the shirt pics to the dean of students to see if they were illegal. Safe to say, nothing I am doing is working. It’s all stupid rules for the purpose of making a phoney impression of people to give money. Of course, I was so smart at 15, I know where he gets all this wisdom. He is not impressed that he couldn’t even wear t-shirts to half the PUBLIC schools in Ky because of the new dress codes.

Rob: Way to go! Unfortunately, that little’un may keep you away even more now! But for a terrific cause ;-)

Rob: Congratulations! I know you must be proud!

Alex: I agree. The Chomsky/Zinn LOTR link was hilarious. Chomsky is an educated idiot when it comes to politics and economics and “activism.” I absolutely love and agree with his work in linguistics, however. Without meaning to, his linguistic work offers more evidence of God-ordained order in the universe. As a grad student dreading taking linguistics, my whole view of language was suddenly and without warning awakened and changed, thanks to Chomsky. When I found out his other thinking was tunnel-visioned and moronic, I was very disappointed. Maybe he’s an idiot savant?

Alex: My trip to Mexico was great. The people are phenomenal and their enthusiasm and Christ centeredness really was impressive. The sermons were pretty solid but there were some brutal invitations. I have little confidence in responses made under those conditions.

Alex: ROFLMAO! Excellent link to the Chomsky and Zinn analysis.

Jim N: * throwing crockery ;-.* I am still not convinced that one must be 100% one or the other.

I found this transcript of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn “analyzing” The Fellowship of the Ring to be rather humorous.

I won’t even get started on the ol’ dead horse. Although I will say that my experience in Mexico a few weeks ago was moments of great fellowship and mission punctuated by chapel services filled with emotionalistic, unbiblical, man-centered “sermons,” including the invitation, the exhortation not to just “merely love” Jesus, but to be “deeply, passionately IN love with Jesus,” and the analogy between Jesus and one’s girl/boyfriend. Yucky…

I read Derbyshire’s article this morning and E-mailed him about it. He actually replied. He didn’t respond to anything I said, but he’s a busy man. In the course of his article Mr. Derbyshire used three examples of others’ kids and then he also talked about himself as a young man. I was struck by the absence of the terms “discipline” and “responsibility.” We’re going through a time with some friends who have a child who has turned into a POS. The dad was beaten severely as a child and so they have never disciplined their kids. This kid is living the Life because no one ever jerked a knot in the back of his head or put him in the corner, or, or, or, ad infinitum, ad nauseaum. I told Mr. Derbyshire that I was mad as hell that I didn’t learn responsibility and discipline until my mid-twenties. Why didn’t I learn it earlier? Permissive parenting. Now, my mother didn’t let me run wild, but I do suspect that she didn’t make me do some of the things I should have done because she felt sorry for me as a result of my parents’ divorce. Watch my kids not get the same. He thanked me for a voice from “the other side” which I take to mean the child side in this discussion.

I knew it!!!! I KNEW SHE WAS A CHUNK!!!

John Derbyshire has a wonderful- really insightful- column about raising children. I am in the midst of mega- parenting challenges with my son right now, and the article was good to read. Not really encouraging, just good to read that someone else is thinking about all this.

I am glad to see the dead horse rides again without my help. Every few months, I contemplate how wonderful it would be if I did not talk very much. If I could be one of those mostly silent people I know who seem happy to say very little. It really gets to me that my words- which are the way I make my living- are the source of just about every conflict and difficulty I have. From the time I was just a kid, I would wonder if I could take some sort of a vow of silence, and actually get used to being a largely silent person. As anyone who reads IM or the BHT can tell, I have completely failed. I am doomed to do more harm than good in the world by the incessant airing of my opinions. I’m not even nice, like Aaron Brown on CNN. So I am going to pour the drinks for you guys, and keep the darts going, and find a good station on the radio.

One of my college student correspondents wrote me last night about a brush with an “aggressive Calvinist” who was leading a Bible study and was laying down the rules about what could and could not be said from now on, in order to properly honor her belief that election WAS salvation. Judd, many of the same things you repeated, and I am glad to know that we can all agree the sovereignty of God in salvation is not threatened by the ignorance of men. What is heartbreaking is to know that the great assurance and blessing that the scriptures have for us in knowing that “salvation is of the Lord,” is denied by those who run wholesale away from any Biblical teaching on election. The great doctrine of election is one of the foundational frames of God’s covenant dealings with all human beings. To avoid it completely is to be deprived of a wonderful source of worship, praise and comfort. When I think of my sins, I think of Christ, and I think of the sovereign election of God, and the totality of that grace brings joy where there was only judgement and fear.

Judd: I’ve been through the whole thing lately in our men’s group. God elects people for salvation. That is irrefutable. That’s why they are called the elect. The only argument is on what basis He elects them. Does He do it according to His good pleasure or our good pleasure?

Put another way: Does God try? The word “try” implies the possibility of failure. Is God trying to get people saved or is He saving them? If God is trying to save everyone then He is failing most of the time. Picture Jesus looking up at the Father in frustration and saying “I can’t do anything with them”.

Ah, I’ve missed the horse.

Judd, with appologies to Krauthammer, I propose “Nicholson’s Law,” to wit:

Arminians think Calvinists are evil. Calvinists think Arminians are stupid.

Gregory gets upset no matter which you call him.

Gregory: Sorry, but I thought the final paragraph would do. Guess, it was way too deep into the tirade.

Judson: I will agree with the idea that to be staunchly on either side of the argument is foolish (to the extent that you believe God must exist in your box). There are some core issues in Christianity that are harder to have a debate with anyone who is willing to objectively examine scripture, but this is not a hill I would choose to die on.

Ken: Next time, please issue a sarcasm alert. I was blindsided by that tornado. ;->

Matthew: I am a certified expert on Whataburgers. I graduated from Arkansas Tech University in 1985. Man, I lived on Feltner’s Whataburgers and Senior Bob burritos. A shame that Senior Bob went out of business in the mid 80’s.

Judd: Come on brother. Take off your “Calvin” glasses and see the truth. Don’t you know that Paul was confused when he wrote: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. Ephesian 1:4-6

Paul failed to properly interpret the Holy Spirit’s inspiration as he wrote this letter to the believers at Ephesus. What he really meant to write was the this so-called predestination unto adoption as children is really according to the good pleasure of “man’s” will, not God’s will. Paul got it all wrong in verse 5 where he said it was according to the good pleasure of his (God’s) will. Paul meant to write that a result of this that we make ourselves – even in spite of our wickedness and in spite of our being dead in trespasses and sin – accepted in the beloved. Surely not that he makes us accepted.

Anyone with half a brain knows that those babies that are fortunate to get adopted in the real world have the initial say, and the final say, in who gets to adopt them. That new-born baby girl delivered in a Ft. Smith hospital, whose mother was a transient from Texas, got final say – at less than a week old – got final say in whose home she got to live in. When the doctor called a family in a nearby town and said “do you want a baby girl?”, that family who had just lost a son to a birth defect, really didn’t determine that they wanted her. It was that newborn’s decision to live with them. Those parents just thought that they chose her. Everyone knows that is how adoptions work. The babies get to pick their parents !!!!

Judd, just agree with these guys, but be sure and tell them that Ephesians chapters 1 and 2, Romans 8 and 9, John 6 at a minimum has gotta come out of their Bibles. At the very least they need to take a black “Sharpie” and obliterate several verses from those chapters

Seriously, this discussion has come up in our Men’s Discipleship Training class several times over the past 6 or 8 years that I have been leading the class. I have used the analogy of “two sides of the same coin” with God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility to believe. I affirm and emphasize both when these discussions come up. I do not give in to those who deny God’s sovereignty in the salvation of sinners. I do affirm with Jonah, the reluctant prophet, that Salvation is of the Lord !

Gregory: Please re-read my comment about “how can a bible believing fundamentalist be staunchly against”. It was not derogatory. It was a genuine example of exasperation.

Example: For a person to be mildly offended by free will is probably just to be human. For them to be staunchly against free will, is for them to dismiss a lot of the bible. It is arrogant.

In the same- fair- manner-

For a person to be mildly offended by predestination is probably just to be human. For a person to be staunchly against predestination is for them to dismiss much of the bible. It is arrogant.

Gregory: I knew you wouldn’t be able to resist ;-)

Jim N: This might be the best link to read that I have found on Bloom.

Hey Ken, I’m moving to Russellville at the end of May. You ought to drive over and get a REAL Whattaburger.

I got this in one of those email chains (send to 1 million people or rot in hell reference removed ;->):
A young man who had been raised as an atheist was training to be an Olympic diver. The only religious influence in his life came from his outspoken Christian friend. The young diver never really paid much attention to his friend’s sermons, but he heard them often. One night the diver went to the indoor pool at the college he attended. The lights were all off, but as the pool had big skylights and the moon was bright, there was plenty of light to practice by. The young man climbed up to the highest diving board and as he turned his back to the pool on the edge of the board and extended his arms out, he saw his shadow on the wall. The shadow of his body was in the shape of a cross. Instead of diving, he knelt down and finally asked God to come into his life. As the young man stood, a maintenance man walked in and turned the lights on. The pool had been drained for repairs.

Judson: The bible is very vibrant on both sides of the dead horse, so it is very difficult for either side to say they have this locked. In general, most people on either side caricature the other and then attack that straw man.

As for the quotes:
“I’ll go to my grave believing that God does not predestine people to salvation.” – God has changed my mind on numerous things throughout my life. It is rather arrogant to think that God cannot change someone’s mind on this.

“If you ever doubt that you were saved, you never were saved. Once saved always saved.” – The argument of once saved, always saved, when looked at objectively, is more calvanistic than Baptist (oops, did I let a cat out of the bag?—assumption on the denomination of your group members). If God has predestined, you are saved, for all time. Looking at the broader picture, Paul has many warnings to hold onto the faith. Why warn if you cannot walk away?

“Predestination cannot be true. The bible says ‘whosoever’.” – Either this statement is rather dumb, or I am lost. But, each side of this debate has made dumb comments.

“Israel is still God’s chosen people.” – I would probably agree with this, based on the covenants of the Old Testament. Unless you believe those covenants are null and void due to the new covenant. But, this is a topic for another discussion. This is not uniquely Calvanistic or free will.

“If everybody is predestined, why go out and missionize them?” – I will agree with you 100% on this being a rather stupid statement. My answer: because Jesus said to do it (unless you believe the evangelistic words are all redaction, then why missionize at all). Whether our evangelizing leads people to Christ (via the Spirit, of course), or we are simply allowed to participate, we are commanded to make disciples of all nations (in a variety of words and passages, for those who believe the end of Matthew is tacked on).

All I want to know is this- how can a bible believing fundamentalist be staunchly against God predestining people, in His good pleasure, yet still retain the logical faculties to continue to exist without their heads exploding?: This comment is rather derogatory in nature, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt: There are many passages that explore the concept of Free Will that can be logically argued. As such, there is no lock on one side or the other. There are Calvanistic idiots, just like there are free will idiots. When you look at the word for predestined, you will find that it can also express the concept of foreknowing, which can be divided into knowing the person’s nature and knowing what he will do.

Calvanists can put God in a box just as readily as Arminians (and those who fall in between). Saying God must have total control over our lives or He is not sovereign, is a box. God can give us the power to do what we will and still be God Almighty. As neither side has a lock on this issue, it is best to leave the horse dead from now on.

Our church began revival services yesterday, with an emphasis on “healthy churches”. These meeting are sponsored by the Ark. Baptist State Convention. There are 5 churches from our Association that are having five meetings, two Sunday, then Monday thru Wed. nights. Five different speakers rotate among the five churches. Novel idea.

The speaker Sunday morning (yesterday) preached on the benefits of Christianity. He compared Peter and the rich young ruler (RYR). Part of his message was that the RYR was not saved because he was not willing to give up his riches. He never clarified this emphasis, but stated several times that had the RYR given up his possessions, he would have been saved. As I listened to this sermon, I could not help but think what an unbeliever would have thought was necessary for eternal life. According to this employee of the Ark. Baptist Evangelism Dept., you must give up your earthly riches to be saved. That’s what I heard.

I thought the Jesus’ comment to the RYR about his riches, was because the RYR said he had kept the commandments related to others, i.e. do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, do not murder, do not covet your neighbor possession. And yet, he had failed the first two commands, to have no other gods and to worship no false images, for he loved his riches more than he loved Jehovah.

Anyone ever encountered this “doctrine” of salvation before? Give it all up and you will be saved. No mention of our sin offending a just and holy God. No mention that salvation is by God’s grace appropriate to undeserving sinners. No believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. No, that if you confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead and you will be saved. No, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Just give it all up to Jesus and ask Him into your heart.

WARNING- smell of rotting equine flesh ahead.

I love my brothers at work. We get together for bible study 3 nights a week, when we can (although we all work different shifts). It is the highlight of my week- getting together with the people of God, in order to consider the scriptures together. And, I tell them all that. (They all kind of look at me funny when I do.)

Last night, we started Ephesians. I am the sole Calvinist, in a group of 8. Needless to say, I was quiet as a mouse for most of the time.

Sigh. I suppose this is what I get. I had it coming. God give me the grace to live with it.

Verbatim quotes:

“I’ll go to my grave believing that God does not predestine people to salvation.”

This, despite bible verses describing predestination outnumbering those describing human effort by four to one. You’d think, based on such crude criteria, one would be able to convince a bible-believing fundamentalist. No. It’s easier to deny reams scripture in order to preserve your egotistical vision, than it is to bow to the truth of Almighty God.

“If you ever doubt that you were saved, you never were saved. Once saved always saved.”

Lovely. So now, human faculty is trustworthy enough to objectively determine salvation? Great. I’m happy to know that my emotions are more trustworthy than Almighty God. What a comfort.

“Predestination cannot be true. The bible says ‘whosoever’.”

Terrific! A bible-believing fundamentalist has just uttered a completely universalistic statement, without realizing the implications of it.

“Israel is still God’s chosen people.”

Wonderful. Millions of Jews, who rejected Christ, are in hell right now. Yet, they are still God’s chosen people. Hold on a second, let me tell them that. Oh, wait! There is this huge gulf between me and them right now, even with me just on earth. Sorry. I need a hell megaphone. Hey, guess what guys. You’re God’s chosen people!

“If everybody is predestined, why go out and missionize them?”

Super! Dozens of the most zealous missionaries in history were staunch believers in predestination- suddenly, their efforts were in vain, their motives suspect.

All I want to know is this- how can a bible believing fundamentalist be staunchly against God predestining people, in His good pleasure, yet still retain the logical faculties to continue to exist without their heads exploding? Doesn’t it feel a little, I don’t know, WIERD, to claim to believe in the inerrancy of the bible, yet adamantly deny predestination?

Phillip: Brother, it is so wonderful to have the blessed hope of the return of our Lord, Christ. I just pray we don’t get so soft that we pooh-pooh all sin- because that hope is not available to those who feel no need to repent. I want those sinful people to join me in that hope.

Judd: I hear you, man, and like I said, it bothers me. I don’t view my position as the Christian one, but as the best one given the depravity of humankind. That is, the society with the power to regulate X within my home also has the power to regulate Bible ownership or whatever. While it might be nice to live in a society based on God’s law (though I’m actually not su sure, all things considered), even Israel never did to well, spending very short periods of time ruled by Godly people between long stretches of national enslavement. Overall, I honestly think that this is just one more area where being an American conflicts with being a Christian. One of many. 8^)

Jake: Van Morrison’s Greatest Hits, Vols. I and II and/or Astral Weeks; John Piper’s “For Whom did Jesus Taste Death?”; audio copy of Keruoac’s On The Road (it’s actually more of a love letter to America than people give it credit for, in their rush to lump Keruoac in with the worst of the beat generation).
Michael: Great Chandler quote. It’s going on my door.
Judd: Welcome to the joy of Flannery O’Connor. I typed a long post in response to yours on Friday, but Blogger ate it, and I was in no mood to retype, being that I was in the dregs of an upper-respiratory infection which has somewhat receded. Anyway, I know the exact feeling about the not being able to finish nonfiction thing, even when the book in question is a great book. I think, for me, the problem is that I crave plot. Fiction first got me interested in reading, and until I got interested in education, that was all I read. Nonfiction just doesn’t have that rising action, climax, and denouement that I seem to need in a book. I can finish nonfiction, obviously, or I wouldn’t have finished my education—but it takes discipline.

Bill MacK (and anyone else who wants to know): For a good Pop-Up Stopper, try the Pop-Up Manager. I used to use a program that blocked ALL new windows, even the ones I wanted, unless I used a hotkey combination. Pop-Up Manager seems to be pretty intellegent, and it integrates nicely into IE. It doesn’t work for anything but IE for the PC, tho.

Here is my nightmare scenario. If, at the end of this, you have the idea that I have something against homosexuals, you just don’t get it.

Let me illustrate the consequences when a society decides to abandon God’s law.

First, we decide that whether 2 people “consent” is more important than what God wants. We base this on pragmatic, social reasons which sound noble, but cannot be construed in any way to be holy.

This forces us to conjure up and impose a magical, cross-cultural “age of consent”. If anyone breaks it, whether they are a husband and wife or not, they commit non-consensual pedophilia.

Meanwhile, we decide that human beings have some magical “right to privacy”. We base this on “do unto your neighbor”, which sounds noble.

However, this magical belief logically forces us to say that human beings should not care about the filthy ways in which other human beings are degrading themselves. Therefore, the biblical pretense flies out the window. We don’t really care about our neighbor. He can commit fecal filth, and it’s his business.

Since we have now invented to ungodly rules, by definition they will come into conflict with one another, since we are the authors of confusion, not God.

Therefore, in a pinch, we decide that “consent” overrules “the right to privacy”, to the point that the magistrate gets to interfere in anyone’s affairs if there is a suspicion of non-consent. But, we want it the other way, too. We want people to be able to get as nutty as they want, as long as there is consent. We want people to butt out of each other’s business.

The paradoxical implications make the head spin.

The gospel nature with which our society views “consent” has brought us to the bizarre point at which anything goes as long as two people agree about it. Last time I checked, murder, war and mayhem were group-sanctioned activities. What the hell is wrong with us?

Meanwhile, those of us who believe the bible increasingly are made to feel that our natural disgust for sexual filth is some kind of horrid aberration for which we should be ashamed. We are told, rightly, that “you don’t want to become like that Fred Phelps.”

So, being good, fair-minded folk, we half-heartedly attempt to defend ourselves. But we don’t really believe it. In this area of our lives, we begin to suspect that our aversion to buggery is not something put in place by a loving God, but really is an outdated more which puts us in danger of being unloving Pharisees.

Furthermore, steeped in our own sin, we begin to think how nice it would be if people would be as easy on us as we are supposed to be easy on the homos. We begin finding creative ways to chip away at the meaning of the word ABOMINATION, because we’re not that keen on facing up to our own filth.

Someone points out that we tend to wink at hetero misbehavior in our churches. We look sheepish and admit it. Then we promise we will be kinder to the homos. We congratulate ourselves on our fair-mindedness and tolerance. We are Corinthians, through and through.

At the pleasure of the advocates, we play word games. People who decide to place themselves in a new category of human being force us to use a new word to describe them every week. Homosexuals one week. Gays the next. Transgendered. Bi. Good-naturedly, we go along, because we don’t want to be mean.

All because “society doesn’t have an interest in prohibiting behaviors as long as they are consensual”. Hogwash. If society has an interest in preventing me from viewing pornography, or from being too rough in my bedroom, it damned sure has an interest in preventing other people from degrading themselves with each other, or in preventing me from paying the medical bills for people who destroy their bodies “consensually”.

The more statist we become, not only do we forget that God invented “the state”—we forget that “the state” is us.

Finally, after reading a rant like this, someone accuses us of wanting to be “theocrats” and locking up all the homos. With our tail between our legs, we ignore this blatant false witness against us, whimper, apologize, and go back to figuring out creative ways to excuse ourselves from our filth, and creative ways of excusing it in others. Proud of our tolerant state, which knows better than God, we continue on our merry way.

The laughable thing in all this is that the sodomy laws have been on the books for decades and haven’t resulted in any kind of measurable persecution. In fact, our criminal justice system rightly spends 100 times effort at prosecuting gay-bashers than it does prosecuting gays. Yet, we still think they are outdated and immoral. We laugh at the idea that God might actually like those laws on the books, because, to tell the truth, some of those other laws rub us the wrong way, and we’d rather they go away, too.

Numb to the consequences of our own degradation, we sail off into the waters of tolerance, where nobody has an interest in what anybody else is doing. And we call it loving.

Folks, help me out with this one. I caught part of the president’s remarks at the White House Correspondents Dinner over the weekend, and I’m looking for a transcript. Why? Well, among other things, GWB’s tribute remarks about David Bloom (bio not updated with his obit, an oversight that MSNBC needs to correct) gave a very explicit praise for Bloom’s faith. Bush actually mentioning Jesus by name; you’d think the 1st ammendment crowd would be blowing up all over the place..

I didn’t see any of Bloom’s coverage from Iraq – we pretty much watched the war on C-SPAN, with occasional forrays over to FNC (at times beating a hasty retreat from the over-bearing browbeating of O’Reilly and Hannity,) but everything I’ve heard about David Bloom indicates he was one of the good guys. Anybody else heard anything about this?

This may be old news to some, but if you don’t like popups, and don’t want to purchase a popup blocker, download the Mozilla browswer. It has popup blocker settings and seems to work well. Most of my homicidal urges have faded significantly. I’m a big fan of IE but the popups were driving me crazy. I may find some downsides with Mozilla but haven’t yet.

This is David Hardy’s complete, scene by scene, autopsy of the piece of crap that is Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine. Hardy has a campaign to revoke the Oscar. If you haven’t read this, read it and be even more amazed than before. It is absolutely chilling.

PWInn, it’s funny how our thoughts intersect. I was preparing a post on the Santorum stuff, talking about how difficult it is to discuss the issue with my friends on the left. It’s not that they disagree with me so much, it’s that they get really PO’d when I point out that they keep switching back and forth between legal and moral statements whenever they start to lose the argument….

We are having a good day in Baghdad.


An errie silence in Hollywood.

Michael: I guess after blabbing a bit on Christians who hyper-focus on certain sins, I forgot to actually include my thoughts on Santorum specifically. I’ve addressed them at some length on another group blog in which I participate, and forgot. I, too, hope that the GOP sticks with Santorum. It has been much argued of late that he defined homosexuality as “equivalent” to various other acts, some of them truly too perverse to mention here. It is obvious from reading the whole interview that he described them not as “morally equivalent” but as “legally equivalent,” which is the important point here. I, too, started out on this by responding with some horror, and actually found (I thought) a single point on which I actually agreed with my arch-rival at Blogcritics.org. On further reflection I realized that he was speaking legally and not morally, at least until he was asked to clarify, so I let him off the hook.

As it happens, I’m all for taking essentially all “moral” laws off the books. That statement can obviously be interpreted a million different ways, and it would take a book to spell it out clearly, so all readers should understand that I’m not talking about all laws which have a moral basis, just the ones that regulate truly private behavior and don’t directly harm non-consenting people. I think such laws set a dangerous precedent and have various other harms. Given that civil society interferes with personal lives to the extent that they actually regulate marriage, I’m not even totally against the idea of some sort of “civil union” or whatever they want to call it, so long as it isn’t called “marriage.” I’m not happy about the idea, understand, but I wouldn’t fight it, even knowing it could be a foot in the door. This is yet another case in which my Christian beliefs conflict with my American propensity toward freedom, and in this instance at least, my American soul wins, for a variety of reasons. I wish it were not so, truly, but the consequences of the alternative are tough for me to contemplate.

As far as the “I was born that way” argument goes, my wife has never accepted the biological evidence that I’m genetically inclined to attempt to procreate with nearly every woman I meet as an excuse for acting on that genetic predetermination, and I suspect most couples similarly expect a vow of fidelity to trump any genetic predisposition. So I likewise firmly reject the idea that even if a genetic inclination is found to exist (with more evidence than the very bad science that has been done to date) it somehow validates the moral rightness of any activity. Hey, we still punish murdering sociopaths, at least most of the time.

On worship: I’ve encountered essentially every variety of worship from RPW to laughing and barking. The Rodney Howard Browne “holy laughter” stuff was the wierdest of all, and I can’t say that I saw anything honoring God on those occasions (sadly, more than one). I’m an extremely generous guy, as people here have probably already figured out, and believe me, I tried, but that was simply childish acting out, no worship at all. People raising hands is a bit different. I’ve seen people do that sort of thing at secular concerts and sporting events, so I can’t say it should be expressly forbidden necessarily (not to start a 1:1 parallel, obviously, just saying that the behavior may not be uniquely a charismatic invention). I’m a little taken aback (and usually downright rebellious) when a church leader “instructs” the members of the congregation to raise their hands en masse, as all of the teaching I’ve had pounded into me about submission to authority wars with my non-demonstrative personality.

For that matter, there are definitely at times I can appreciate how excellent musicianship helps to create an environment in which I can more easily put other things aside mentally and focus on the Creator, but there are also times when I have a mental image of the Wizard of Oz standing behind a curtain pulling levels and pumping bellows to keep the big show going to distract people from the truth. Based on that, you might almost think I’d go for an acapella hymn setup, but that’s a tough nut for me to crack on a regular basis as well. I like it in small doses, but it ends up interfering with my ability to worship as well.

I’m just picky, I guess.

P.S. I’d like to get a hold of the jackmonkeys that hacked NRO. They would surrender.

That’s just underbearing and overhanded. I’m going to pray that God gets all over you. Well, maybe I should wait until I feel led to pray. I just finished watching a 60 minutes piece in which people were whining because companies with friends in high places (i.e. Halliburton) are getting all these great gov’t contracts for rebuilding Iraq. They’re saying it’s not fair. Boo-frickin-hoo!!!! 60 minutes also noted that no contracts went to European companies. So what? Hopefully some Brit companies will get some sub-contracts, but I wouldn’t give a scrap to France or Germany.

Michael, I’ll have you know that I’m firmly against the trend toward chicken-style arm-flapping in the PC-USA. In fact, I get a creepy feeling whenever people start raising their hands during worship. If I were leading, I’d stop the music at that point, and point to each and say, “Ok, you all can go to the bathroom, but one at a time.”

Kurt: Hmmmm. I think it was #7. (Kurt references a briefly posted piece of bitterness in which I created shorthand codes for frequent criticisms of the Monk. I may repost someday.)

Sure I feel for the guy. He was a victim of crime. But I am not ready to say that we should all be willing to go out and accost strangers with our religious views and be willing to be shot in order to prove what great Christians we are. (See Wretched Urgency and my whole fundy upbringing which would have LOVED this story.) I am just saying this guy will be held up as a hero. Christian publishers will be after him and he will be at every Baptist evangelism conference and youth rally in America by next year. I just don’t see what is heroic here. I will back off ridicule, because he doesn’t deserve it. I know a lot of simple people with great zeal who are way ahead of me in the race. But I feel about this guy kinda like I do about the Afghanistan girls who spent three months in prison. What is the difference between heroism, bravery and foolishness? And why do we turn foolishness into heroism when he gets shot? (BTW- I am betting there is more to this story. It kinda has a strange feel to it.)

Here in Eastern Ky, if you go door knocking, you are probably going to be threatened, and if you go to the right house, they will shoot at you. (Not shoot you, but AT you, as a warning.) I just could not tell my church members or young people that the really “Christian” thing to do is ignore reality and go cold knocking stranger’s houses to show they love God.

Axis of Evil Member #2 is smelling the coffee.

The kind of good news the immoral Left entirely ignores. God bless these guys. What incredible things are happening.

Michael: Which number was it again for “you are being mean”? ;-) Ah, forget it. I can’t say I’m big on the street witnessing scene, but I find it hard to fault a kid for wanting to talk to people honestly about Christ. I agree about the whole “from the heart” thing, though. So…praise the kid for his zeal and teach him some better doctrine and uh, buy him a stungun.

However, on a lighter note, scroll down to the bottom of that story and find this link. Yes, ladies and gentlement, you too can unlock the SECRETS and MYSTERIES of the Torah for a mere $59.95. How can you argue with a guy named Rabbi Elijah ben-Solomon, aka the “Genius of Vilna.”

Oh, and if you liked that, let me sell you a set of immortality rings!

Phillip: On Homosexuality and Sen. Santorum. I think this statement, as originally reported, sounded pretty awful, and it shocked me a bit. Then I read the interview. Ahem. First, I think it is a stretch for the Left to think they have a takedown on Santorum here. It was an interview about legal issues, the question was about legal precedent and consequences, the answer was in a legal context and in a familiar legal method, i.e. logical legal consequences. This was not about shooting the queer next door before he nabs yer kids. Lifting this out of context is “Gotcha!” journalism, but in this case, fairly ineffective. Second, Santorum is a practicing Catholic and there should be no surprise here on his moral view that homosexuality is wrong. That’s about as newsworthy as Robert Byrd saying the “N” word. Third, while I completely agree with you regarding the Christian obsession with sexual sins of all kinds and their hypocritical overlooking of other sins, we have to acknowledge that there is an organized, political force in the culture that wants to use homosexuality to transform society into its image. The Senator was exactly right in his argument about the implications socially and legally of this agenda, and I have used similar logic for years, warning my students that if we redefine marriage we are opening a Pandora’s box. In fact, the argument that homosexuality is moral because some people are homosexually inclined from birth will apply to all sorts of sexual proclivities, such as pedophilia. I hope the GOP sticks with the Senator.

Ye Newe York Times reports on postwar difficulties following victory at Yorktown.

Here’s America’s latest Christian hero. A 19 year old kid who decided to do some cold calls on strangers in an Fairview, Alaska bike park. They listened, then punched him out and shot him in the arm. Maybe they couldn’t stand all the clarity. “I feel like I’ve got to let people know there’s hope,” Cunning told his local paper. “It’s like this feeling you get inside. ... It comes from the heart.” I am not sure we can count this guy as a Christian martyr with this understanding of the gospel. I hate street witnessing, but I would be tempted to punch the guy out too if he started talking to me about this feelin’ in yer heart, and stuff.

Cal Thomas says Touched By An Angel will be missed. Not by me. I never watched an episode. Not enough violence. I shouldn’t be so mean. It was a rarity in our secular wasteland and I appreciate the people who made it a success, but it never worked for me. Guess I am a bad Christian.

“Inarguably, anyone who views flying planes into the World Trade Center as a matter of religious devotion is going to have to get a new religion.” – Ann Coulter

Jeff McCain over at Relevant ( a place I like less and less) has this article about the effect of a David Ruis Vineyard worship conference on his understanding of worship. When I read stuff like this, all I can think of is “Be afraid. Be very afraid.” It’s not just that McCain winds up saying that preaching need not have any really essential place in worship. (Oh, the dilemma of whether to stop that gooooooooood worship music and allow some preaching.) Can’t this poor snuck see that when he writes sentences like “Ruis’ ability to incorporate dark “Euro” drum loops with live instruments is really fascinating and lent itself to a very powerful atmosphere” he is buying into the manipulation of atmospherics, not worship? And if I hear this phrase one more time I going to hurl: “Maybe the good majority of Ontario’s churches aren’t interested in taking their worship to the next level or maybe they’re not even ready?” Arf. What is the “the next level” if not some gnostic perversion of the church into “us” and “them”? McCain is one of these people who can’t wait to see what would happen if you let the emotion manipulators just go go go till everyone was laid out on the floor shaking. THEN we would have had such an AWESOME worship experience. It’s all just waiting for us on the other side of the door….if we would only go through.

I used to lead worship with this guy who was pretty much into all this, because he had formerly been part of a Charismatic cult- though to his credit he also loved the Word of God and valued preaching- but he always used to talk about this worship service where people started uh….throwing up. And to him, this was great, because it was the Holy Spirit cleaning out the demonic, etc. I have another word for all this: fanaticism. Gussied up and complete with light show and sound system, but it’s fanaticism. Dangerous. These are people enamored with the potential effect of music on a crowd. The weirder, then the more there is of Gawd about it. Worship leaders orchestrate the band and then “sense” the Spirit in the headphones and direct us all in what gymnastics to do next. When you worship with these guys, the thrill is that no one knows what is going to happen in this servic? Will we all take our clothes off? Will Brother Nicholson flap his arms like a chicken? How many people will pass out? That’s GAWD all over them people on the floor. “I love our church because I never know what the Spirit is going to do next.” Barfing Sunday?Yak.

Here’s my prediction. Displace preaching and teaching with this malarkey and pretty soon you will be morphed into something so far out of Christian orthodoxy you will make the JWs look good. The culture, and its manipulation skills, will become your idol, and the book of I Corinthians will start to soon like a normal, healthy church to you.

NRO hacked? Reports are starting to come in. Apparently, the guy was French. I’m tracking what I hear about it at XMLHead

Here’s next week’s cover of Entertainment Weekly!

Here’s some more from your friends at Fark.

Nope, it’s not me. I didn’t switch from tightie whities to plaid boxers until I got married. I like the Bill Mac hypothesis.

I have heard it said that Rigney bears a remarkable resemblance to Drew Carey, but I cannot help but think that the picture is of a young Rigney on a fishing trip in high school. Note the look on his face. It says, “Hey jack-hole, give me that camera before we both get kicked out of Oneida!”

Judd: That McSweeney’s commentary was excellent. I laugh, I cried, I posted a link a blogcritics.org. And Helen of Troy was good, too. I finally watched it late last night.

Jake: Several years when I went on a 27 hour road trip, I bought a 50-disc CD changer. It sat in my trunk and gave me a wide variety of music for the whole trip. And back again, for that matter. But then I found that it was exceedingly overkill for around-town junkets. Fortunately, the car was later rear-ended, destroying the changer, so I got a cash settlement and didn’t bother to replace. Now when I’m not listening to NPR (and if you sign up for $35 a year, you can get a WIMPR map – Where Is My Public Radio?), I listen to MP3-CDs, which provide roughly 12 albums on a single disc. It’s like a 12-disc CD changer on each disc! Anyway, I’m probably no help. I’ve definitely been considering that LotR CD set…

On Santorum: The appropriate Christian response to homosexuality seems slightly fuzzy to me, actually. That is, it does seem that Christians spend a lot of time focusing on that one sin while completely ignoring sins that actually make the top ten list in God’s book but happen every day in every church around America. The Bible is clear (in 1 Cor 6:9-10, to name but one example) that homosexuality is sin, but note the other things listed along with it in 9b and 10: ”[N]either the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” I’ve been in multiple churches pastored by people who hit one or more items on this list, and the list considered as a whole covers a pretty hefty percentage of Christians I know. That’s no excuse, of course, but it is curious to me that we get far more worked up about the one than the others.

Michael: I know people who trot out the “God told me” on a regular basis, and it seems people do it for different reasons. Please note first of all that I don’t reject the idea that God can literally speak in an audible voice to people today. I’m not a cessationist, though I think the vast majority of what passes for God moving in the earth today is nonsense. Anyway, there are a few who seem to honestly believe themselves, but many don’t really seem too. That is, if God ever spoke to me and I knew. it, I would write it down, read it every day, and generally be hugely impressed with the whole thing. These people have God speak to them thrice daily and can’t even remember what the Big Guy told them to have for breakfast yesterday. I was actually at a meeting once where the preacher paused while preaching and then said, “Yes, God, I’ll do that later” and continued on like nothing had happened. What a crock of crap!

I think that some people flat-out make it up so they won’t feel left out. I believe others mistake their own internal thought processes for God. Others, who knows? As far as the kids go, I thinks it’s a symptom of the general trend toward disrespect for God, frankly. People focus on the Abba Father aspect of Jesus’ relationship with God and push it to the point where Jesus is “Buddy Christ,” available for a performance boost during sports events, help during an exam, and important words every day about what to wear and where to eat.

Or maybe I’m just bitter because God has never spoken to me. That’s been suggested, too. No matter how many times I point out that the total number of people the Bible records as having heard God’s voice during something like 4000-11000 years of human history is very very low compared to the number of people who claim to hear it daily just in your average charismatic megachurch, I’m just trying to say something sacreligious. Whatever.

The written word is all that stands between memory and oblivion. Without
books as our anchors, we are cast adrift neither teaching, nor
learning. They are windows on the past, mirrors on the present, and prisms
reflecting all possible futures. Books are lighthouses erected in the dark
sea of time. —Brynne Chandler

This is a sure sign I am getting old. We just took this picture tonight. Noel Spencer and Ryan Young at our Senior Banquet. (Doesn’t he have that mafia look down? A good young man.)

The photo is that of a young Bill M., after one beer too many, deciding to show off his “Scottish Heritage” boxer shorts. From then on, he has adopted a preference for boxer-briefs, and has sworn off beer…

I say it is a young Judd Heartsill, showing up for his prom date, 8:37 a.m. the morning after the prom.

This photo could be associated with someone at the BHT. Does anyone have any speculation who it is, when the photo was taken and what is going on here?

Thanks, Michael and Matthew, for the comments. Glad someone is visiting. I’ve promised several folks (some from BHT) that I’ll post a substantial article on blogging technology Real Soon Now. Hopefully, that will be within the next few days.

Boy, yesterday was weird. First thing in the morning, I made a comment to Linda about how it was only a matter of time before things started going wrong and I self-destructed. Then I proceeded to do just that; work, which had been hectic but going well, got really stinky. Pray for me; I’m in a pit, and part of it is from my own digging.

I was going to comment on the discussion about the HS leading us, but G Zuss appeared in the suds at the bottom of my glass and told me to keep out of it. Someday, I’ll write “Experiencing God through Weissbeer.”

The ESV people should be paying Michael for his billboard over there to the left.

MS is right. XMLhead does look good. I’m intensely jealous. My attempts at this whole html gig have turned up some real stinkers.

The root cause of the “God told me phenomenon” is, pure and simple, idolatry of the self mixed in with pagan divination. I come up with an agenda, and then stamp God’s name on it to legitimize it.

Get ready brother. You’re in trouble now. Not with me, though. You are right on the money.

This is all about a Christian spirituality that hinges on the narcissism of our time. We are all Moses at the Burning Bush. We are all Samuel hearing God’s voice. We are all getting dreams and receiving signs. It’s the Christian version of New Age spirituality, where we are all the focus of a candy store of spiritual phenomenon.

I’ve tried to explain this before and didn’t do too well, but the “God told me” gang is basically saying just another version of the idea of “two levels of Christians.” Here we have Christians who hear from God all the time and are therefore unassailable and impregnable to common sense criticism, and the rest of us, who just muddle by. I am thoroughly convinced that when we turn Christian experience into something that is not basically the same for all Christians, we are just inventing new religions, all pretty gnostic. (BTW- Jim’s critique the other night that suggested there were some gnostic tendencies to an over emphasis on the original languages- is close but not quite correct, because a knowledge of the original languages does not change Christian experience. It only enhances the knowledge of the Bible that any person can have.)

I will go you one more, Alex. The vast majority of people I hear using this have ample egos. They are the people who need to be smarter, more spiritual, closer to God, etc than the rest of us. It is a prerequisite to being a leader in many Christian circles to have a head that won’t fit through a normal door, and be certain God is talking to you.

And as for this business of “the HS giving a sign,” is there a rule book available for this? Is we are talking about the doctrine of providence, then I am fine. But if we are saying, “OK, God, if you want me to take this job have my cousin in San Diego mail me a gift certificate for a new Porsche,” then I am real confused. Again, this is about ego. It is about being able to say “I will do as I please,” without taking responsibility for those choices.

I work with lots of these people. God told them one thing last week and another this week. It is really odd how God’s voice always seems to send them in the direction they really want to go.

The whole “God told me” phenomenon is something that really gets my blood boiling. People casually say that “God spoke to me that X;” me being ever the skeptic then ask them, “How do you know that God told you X?” Oftentimes the answer is, “well, I just feel like this is where God is leading me.” What the heck is that supposed to mean? I guess some of my anger is motivated partly by the fear that maybe what they say is true, and that I am jealous that God has never “spoken” to me, in any sense of the term, other than through the written Word and the sacraments.

Fears aside, I think the root cause is not necessarily the fantastical notions of Henry Blackaby or Benny Hinn. It goes deeper than merely bad and errant theology. The root cause of the “God told me phenomenon” is, pure and simple, idolatry of the self mixed in with pagan divination. I come up with an agenda, and then stamp God’s name on it to legitimize it. Either that, or, through some sort of ritual (i.e. opening up the Bible randomly and pointing) I divine what God’s will is. I am of the persuasion that God is not going to reveal His specific will for my life; nor is it my responsibility to find out all the details. Paul says this when he says that we look through a dark glass and only see imperfectly; my life is not to be dictated so much why what I see or experience, but rather by what God HAS revealed in His Word. I walk by faith, not by sight. This obsession with “finding God’s will,” and deciphering “what God says to me,” is an idolatrous and pagan notion.

I have developed criteria of my own in helping me walk by faith when I come to some momentous decision.

1) I always consult God’s Word (the Bible) first. If I am given the choice between flipping hamburgers or becoming a thief, it does me no good to ignore God’s proscriptions of stealing and say, “well, God told me to become a professional thief.”

2) If there is no explicit condemnation or commandment regarding my choice in the Bible, then I turn to the counsel of my elders, who I take and trust to be wiser than I. I ask my parents, my pastors, my mentors and various respected people in the church what THEY think I should do (not what they think God is telling me to do).

3) If I want, I then consult my peer group, and weigh their advice accordingly.

4) Then I make a choice, and deliver it into God’s hands.

JimN: XMLhead is looking good. I am very impressed.

I just put up some pictures of our recent flood.

I just made the change to Charter Cable and Internet. All the Network/Cable modem stuff has shipped. The new computer has shipped. The birthday is next Thursday. The cable guys show up Friday, May 2. I’m nervous. I am contemplating how to keep some kind of very limited super cheap dial up account (limited hours) so I can update my laptop files and use my computer at work. I am just messed up about losing DirectTV. I have rarely been as happy with a product.

Greg K said: Yes, the Holy Spirit is our teacher, but that means He illuminates what’s already there. All teachers work from a body of information, clarifying it and passing it on. The Holy Spirit does not give new information not in the inspired words. The curriculum, so to speak, is then standardized for all Christians. Every person has equal access to the meaning. There are no private messages in Scripture.

God took pains to give us an objective revelation in the words of the Bible to protect us from subjectivism. When Christians opt for an anointed “reading between the lines” instead of sound exegesis, it actually shows disrespect for God’s objective revelation.

Ronald: I believe Charismatic/Pentecostals are picking this up from the Charismatic/Pentecostal media and from the increasing focus on prophecy as some kind of personal prediction service. (Not a psychic…not a psychic….that would be BAD.) And TBN, etc is the showcase for these people.

But my little Southern Baptist kids aren’t watching TBN. They are listening to youth ministries and CCM. And I think they are hearing Experiencing God, filtered down through these sources. Blackaby believes that the normal Christian life is full of God speaking to you about all sorts of things. If you hae a “love relationship with God,” you get to “hear God’s voice” all the time. When that is filtered down to the kids, it turns into “I asked God for a sign about whether I should take Algebra II or Drama next year.”

Just look at this mess. The Hearing God’s Voice conference! HB continues to promote gnosticism and young people are getting the message that REAL SPIRITUAL Christians are always hearing God’s voice and playing that trump card on the rest of us.

Greg Koukl has done the good work on Experiencing God, and I am always glad to post it.
GK’s basic review of EG.
Additional material by GK on EG.
Common Questions. (These are very good.)

Bill asked a question off blog which I would like to post about. Let me apologize in advance for everything I am going to screw up and everyone I am going to offend in this endeavor. (JN) I welcome your corrections.

Bill’s question was “Is prophecy in the NT the same as preaching today, or is it something different?” First, some texts:

Romans 12:6 6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith;

1 Corinthians 14:22 … while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. ...24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all,

1 Timothy 4:14 14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you.

2 Timothy 4:1-2 ESV 2 Timothy 4:1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.

1 Timothy 5:17 17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

Romans 10:14 14 And how are they to hear without someone preaching?

Acts 6:2 2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.

1 Corinthians 12:28 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:29 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.

Ephesians 4:11-12 11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

Titus 1:9 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

OK- Several things are obvious from these texts. Ephesians 4:11 makes it clear that the ministry of a “prophet” and the ministry of a “pastor” were separate. I Cor 14 is clear that there was more than one. Third, I Timothy indicates that prophecy could involve some sort of pronouncement about a person, or that person’s future ministry. From these texts, I am not in any quarrel with those who say that there is a ministry for the “prophet” in the NT church, though I myself am not convinced it is required or even normative.

Next: there does seem to be a general equation between prophecy and the act of preaching. The difference seems to be that preachers are told to Preach “The Word” or “The Gospel.” Preaching is often evangelism. Jesus preached, but was generally considered a “prophet. (Matthew 21:11 And the crowds said, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee.” ) In fact, using the Gospels, we would see the preacher and the prophet as being very much the same. In I Cor, I think the admission that “all” may prophesy, indicates that any Christian may “proclaim” or “announce” or “preach.” To me, we are talking here about what we might call “lay” preaching, exhortation, testimony, a general witness. We are NOT talking about the ministry of pastoral teaching that is in the later NT.

The connection between preaching and teaching is plain in Eph 4 and I Tim 5 and I Cor 12. I think there is ample evidence in the Pastoral letters and elsewhere that the pastor is to do several things:
1) He is to preach the Gospel
2) He is to evangelize everyone
3) He is to speak prophetically (that is with exhortation, application and testimony)
In these duties, he is doing what every Christian should do, as appropriate to their own gifts and callings.
4) He should Teach doctrine. This is a specific pastoral DUTY, and is not the duty of just anyone, but the duty of those who have been set aside for pastoral ministry. In fact, the pastoral letters make it clear that the guarding and teaching of the doctrinal heritage/treasure of the church is an important part of pastoral faithfulness.

Note how Titus 1:9 implies a teaching ministry and an exhorting/rebuking function. To me, this is the “teaching/prophecy” distinction I am endorsing. I admit that Dr. Macarthur’s views have been impressive to me at this point.

In summary, I believe pastors are to be prophetic in a general sense, but their most important “speaking” duty in the church is to teach the scriptures. The ministry of a prophet is a ministry of general exhortation, which may or may not be a continuing church office. The weight of the evidence convinces me that in cultures where the idea of a prophet is understood (such as Israel and the Greek world) there may be a place for a prophetic ministry of exhortation. But such a ministry is not the same as pastoral preaching, and is not required.

Not: I reject the charismatic notion of prophecy as 1) prediction 2) in addition to or similar to the inspiration of the scriptures 3) authoritative, first person messages. There is really a mess coming in Christianity with this. TBN is now full of people saying that prophecy is the HS preaching Christ that is within us and so on. Just awful denials of the unique authority of scripture. The ministry of the prophet and the teacher must be scripture honoring and scripture bounded. Once the fence is crossed, there is trouble in River City.

Michael: More and more average, non-charismatic kids are saying “God told me” and “the Holy Spirit gave me a sign” as reasons for common, ordinary decisions. Where are they picking this up?

Either
a) They have been hanging around charismatics
b) They have been reading charismatic material
c) The Holy Spirit gave them a sign

Well, the original USA network production “Helen of Troy” was fantastic. And a little intriguing.

It’s been ages since I’ve read the Iliad, or my good old Edith Hamilton. However, based on what I dimly remember, the narrative license was kept to a very bare minimum. No Peter Jackson-style revisions here.

Rufus Sewell is a brilliant actor. His Agamemnon was chilling. John Rhys-Davies was an excellent Priam. Paris and Helen were terrific, and the rest of the supporting cast were well chosen.

The Greek sense of tragedy was very well preserved. This was a very grown-up Iliad. It had all the glory of war- loyalty, brotherhood, patriotism- while at the same time brutally depicting the horror of war when it is prosecuted by those whose sense of avarice outweighs their love of