Mike Benoit has penned this excellent response to my screed against Sigmund Freud. It’s a fine piece, and I profited greatly from reading it. I hang my head in shame. Here it is. I’ll try to get it up on IM later, if my fragile ego can take it. Thanks Mike. It’s good to have a shrink in the bar. Several of the OTHER FELLOWS need that sort of help :-)

Judson: Somehow, I think Jesus would drive a PT cruiser, so it will be OK. (Good grief.)

Geek/Nerd heaven. No, not a page of Liv Tyler in glasses and nothing else teaser pics. The Tolkien/LOTR Meta-F.A.Q. All the questions someone somewhere lays awake wondering about, answered by the experts who really need a life.

Phillip: I have two of these on the wall about 5 feet from me. Picked them up in Colonial Williamsburg many years ago.I should send you my bag of pipes I no longer smoke. I have some nice briars.

Now here is your pipe!

Russell: At some point I suspect this is going to become pretty severely off-topic, so I’ll open up comments on this post to carry on if needed.

I was looking at a local tobacconist whose online catalog doesn’t include nearly all that they sell. I’ve seen a bunch of good-looking pipes online, but I discovered that two pipes can look great, while one of them “feels” right in the hand and the other doesn’t. I like a bowl that is larger around and preferably a bit deep, too.

The pipe “expert” I talked to was simply saying that a churchwarden works best either indoors or in non-winter weather, because the long stem already cools things, and the cold wind cools them even more.

I am generally in awe of the Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds. One reason is that he’s a restrained and cautious commentator. So when Glenn let’s it fly, I listen. This post from earlier today is extraordinary. Reynolds says we have to treat the Palestinians as the enemies of America and civilization. He has some awful links to shock you if you need to be shocked. Read this one and consider….

I also don’t write about it much because the Palestinians, fundamentally, are the cannon fodder of other people who don’t like the United States, and the real way to resolve this problem is to deal with those other people. And so it’s those other people who get the bulk of my attention.

But the amount of pious crap spouted about the Palestinians is so vast that every once in a while I do feel the need to cut through it by pointing out the facts.

Philip W – where are you shopping for a churchwarden? Which one for $50? Whats the fairweather thing about?

I’m very pleased. Monday night somebody stole a bunch of CDs out of my truck, along with my garage door opener and — though I had forgotten them — a couple of Blockbuster DVDs. Fortunately, thanks to the Blockbuster DVDs, the cops were able to track me down when it was all recovered. Woohoo! Happy New Year to me!

Let me commend Bill for his article about spirituality. Talk about such a subject strikes me as utterly nebulous and quasi-Gnostic. Christian spirituality is always focussed upon the Holy Spirit and His things. Not human emotions or incorporeal metaphysical machinations of man. The idea that Christian spirituality boils down to personal piety is in no ways Scripturally sound.

Says Jonathan Edwards: “Thus Christians are called spiritual persons because they are born of the Spirit, and because of the indwelling and holy influences of the Spirit of God upon them.” (The Religious Affections, Part III.2) Not because they feel a certain way when songs are sung, or because they parse their one year Bible everyday.

Why is Willie Nelson supporting someone who would be likely to raise the taxes he isn’t paying? I guess it doesn’t matter…

Any news on the vigilantes of Clay Co.? Really, I’m not asking because there might be some books coming my way ;-)

On can only imagine what is going on at a Kucinich rally featuring Willie Nelson. What sort of high rollers, so to speak, would be at that event? My fear now is, if there is a backlash by Willie’s fans, will he pose naked on the cover of a magazine to win them back?

If you didn’t have roast goose for Christmas, Al Mohler serves up the Bishop John Bryson Chane recipe right here. The smell is filling the IM kitchen right now. Have a leg.

Internet Monk Publications- not to be left out in the world of great literature- completes our very own

Bill Mackinnon Trilogy.

First, there was God doesn’t talk to me.
Then, there was I can’t understand what other Christians are talking about.
Now, the third and certainly-not-last installment: I’m Not Spiritual.

(Editing suggestions on the comments thread please.)

Indeed, the Canadian House of Bishops should be stepping in here, but instead their actions have supported the liberal bishop. This situation in Vancouver has long been more serious than the ECUSA problem, but has obviously gotten less play here.

This same parish actually only lasted as long as it did because some parishioners happened to come along one evening to see someone fiddling with the front door. The bishop had ordered the locks changed, but the clergy was called in to sit inside the church and stop the operation from happening.

But hey, the problem is those nasty conservatives, you know?

In honor of 2003 turning into 2004… The lyrics and the translation…

by Rabbie Burns (1759-96)

Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And auld lang syne?

CHORUS:
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We’ll tak a cup of kindness yet,
For auld lang syne!

And surely ye’ll be your pint-stowp,
And surely I’ll be mine,
And we’ll tak a cup o kindness yet,
For auld lang syne!

We twa hae run about the braes,
And pou’d the gowans fine,
But we’ve wander’d monie a weary fit,
Sin auld lang syne.

We twa hae paidl’d in the burn
Frae morning sun till dine,
But seas between us braid hae roar’d
Sin auld lang syne.

And there’s a hand my trusty fiere,
And gie’s a hand o thine,
And we’ll tak a right guid-willie waught,
For auld lang syne

TRANSLATION

Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And old long ago (times gone by)?

CHORUS:
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We’ll tak a cup of kindness yet,
For auld lang syne!

And surely ye’ll be (pay) your pint-stowp (pint-tankard, mug for yer ale),
And surely I’ll be mine,
And we’ll tak a cup o kindness yet,
For auld lang syne!

We twa hae run about the braes (hills),
And pou’d (pulled) the gowans (daisies) fine,
But we’ve wander’d monie (many) a weary fit (foot),
Sin auld lang syne.

We twa hae paidl’d (paddled) in the burn (stream)
Frae morning sun (noon) till dine (dinner time),
But seas between us braid (broad) hae roar’d
Sin auld lang syne.

And there’s a hand my trusty fiere (friend),
And gie’s a hand o thine,
And we’ll tak a right guid-willie waught (good-will draught, good will drink),
For auld lang syne

Anglicans have a hierarchy don’t they? Can’t they undo what this nitwit bishop has done?

I’m not so sure about this but I think there is a difference between the Iranian refusal and the NY refusal. The Saudi prince held out the check while telling us this was our fault. Did the Israeli’s do that?

Also, we didn’t need the money. This may be sacrilege but I think that most of the good will money that was collected in an ad hoc fashion all around the country and sent to NYC was essentially poured down a rat hole.

The heavy hand of the liberal tyrants in the Anglican Church. Parrish closed for its opposition to homosexual marriages. (Very UnCanadian)

Let’s hope something like this effort in the U.S. succeeds and gives hope to the Episcopal Church.

Listening to all the Tin Foil around here today made me recall this Michael Novak column that goes to the heart, the core, of liberal objections to Bush. Some great quotes here.

On the subject of War and the Christian, Novak is crystal clear in his current column on America as a Spartan Athens.

Near my home, two cars bear the simple-minded bumper sticker, WAR IS NEVER THE ANSWER. I have to restrain myself every day from inserting with a thick red crayon a modifier: EXCEPT FOR SLAVERY, FASCISM, COMMUNISM, AND TERRORISM.

In other words: “Except for slavery in the U.S. in 1861-65, Hitler in Europe in 1941-45, the Japanese in the Pacific, the bloody USSR from 1917-1991, and now, terrorism.” All these have required war, and it would have been unjust to fail to conduct these wars.

Saint Augustine seems to have been correct in Book xviii of The City of God, that war will keep appearing as long as the City of Man rolls on. To do justice in this world, often enough war is necessary, despite its awful burdens and constraints. Not to fight a war so required would be a sin against justice. We speak of “just wars” because sometimes justice requires war.

Lurker Scott: I am not being dishonest. I am failing to quote you exactly, and that’s an error on my part.

SO everyone: I responded to Lurker Scott’s call to fire Rummy with a reference to jailing Rummy. My fault.
Also: I paraphrased Lurker Scott’s comments on 9-11. He said 9-11 doesn’t change everything. Again, my mistake.

Lurker Scott: Would you please get this vendetta against me over with as soon as possible?

(This is not Scott W 1 or 2)

Just for the record, last year, the Maha Scottie’s record went like this:

1. Pop Culture – check. Michael Jackson, etc.
2. War on Terror – check. Iraq folded like a bad accordion.
3. Anti-War protests – check.
4. Race Relations – thpt. Trent Lott folded like a bad accordion.
5. The Economy – check.
6. Faith – check. Two words: Rick Warren.
7. Health Trends – half check, half meh. I don’t know if anyone sued cigarette makers.
8. Technology – check. XBox. Ipod.
9. Environment – check.
10. Thpt. Still waiting on the BHT to be moved over to film, TV, cereal, etc.

So basically, I was 7 1/2 – 2 – 1/2. Beat that, Benny.

(The readers of the Boar’s Head Tavern wipe their collective foreheads as they scale the last few steps of the mountain. There! They can see their goal. A cheer raises from the crowd as they approach the large man sitting crosslegged, balanced on the tip of a pointy rock, eyes closed. Michael is the first to speak, but there is no movement. Finally, after seventeen minutes of silence, Angus climbs up to the crosslegged fat man and gives him a swat on the side of the head. The fat man, awakened from his slumber, blinks as his eyes focus in on the Scotsman, whose breath smells a bit like he’s been celebrating the year a bit early. He scans the crowd briefly, then smiles as he points to a small basket filled with bills and loose change, with a small sign with words printed in 48-pt Arial Font that reads “Donations Demanded”.

Since most of the crowd are ministers and teachers they quickly work up a plan. Phillip points off to the east and shouts, “Lo – there goeth Benny Hinn and Jack Chick riding ‘pon the Spitit-filled Jacket of Mystery.” The fat man turns long enough for Jim to reach into the basket for a fresh $5 bill. As the fat man’s focus returns to the group, Jim holds the bill, smiling proudly at his accomplishment. The fat man is not fooled, and snatches the bill from Jim’s hand. Still, the fat man’s little heart grew three sizes that day (mainly due to the fried chicken buckets that litter the area), and he began to speak…)

You have come seeking knowledge, and the Maha Scottie will provide… You seek predictions for the upcoming year, and predictions you shall have.

1. I see a great movement of people to select a leader. One is a fine leader who has lead his nation through a difficult time. The other is a farktard with a tinfoil beanie who is chosen after a long, difficult primary season. The people will choose the fine leader.

2. I see a large number of celebrities in court. I see their earnings from video rentals go up. I smell a conspiracy. Either that, or a rat died nearby and the buzzards missed it.

3. I see a better economy – but not as great as some predict. I see more people working and liberals whining about it.

4. I see a coward. He’s wearing a turban and he only comes out to make videotapes of himself calling for terrorist acts. Some of those terrorist acts happen, but I see the coward in the custody of the United States Freaking Military.

5. I see Santa Claus in a spider hole. He has shaved his beard and will be put on trial by his former subjects for killing a few hundred thousand of him. I see him swinging at the end of a rope by the end of the year. I see his former country slowly returning to stability over the next few years.

6. I see the Atlantic Coast Conference dominating the NCAA basketball rankings, with Duke, Carolina, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Maryland, Virgina, and Florida State vying for a place in the final 64. I do not see them winning the NCAA tournament.

7. I see the charges against the Moonwalker being tossed out. I smell someone getting richer off of it. I see that the Moonwalker will now try to find verses in the Koran to back up sleeping with children.

8. I see a Supreme Court Justice retiring before the election. I see another retiring after the election.

9. I predict that the Carolina Panthers will not win the Superbowl.

10. I predict that Survivor All Stars will be the best Survivor yet. I further predict that no one will know because no one will watch it.

11. I predict that the Democrats will spend much of 2004 (and 2005 and 2006) wondering what the heck happened. I predict that there will be a large movement within the party traditionalists who will try to block the farktard nomination, but it won’t suceed.

12. I see that wireless broadband access to the Internet and all its security issues will be the major technology issue of 2004.

13. I see more Chick Tracts. I see more Chick Tract Translations. I see that this is no coincidence.

14. I see that more left-wing activists will waste most of their waking time trying to convince conservatives from various websites, message boards, and blogs that they’re a bunch of mean, unintellegent jerks who love killing foreigners. I see the activists using conspiracy theories. I see conservatives using facts. I see the activists telling the conservatives that their facts are wrong because they’re from mean, unintellegent jerks who love killing foreigners. I see further invitations for activists to move to Europe or Canada.

15. I see that North Korea will continue to act like the drunk guy who think he’s Superman, challenging everyone he sees to a fistfight. I see China saying, “Seriously – we may be communist, but that guy’s a nutball”.

16. I see Libya trying to restore diplomatic ties with the US. I see it taking a longer time than just next year.

17. I see that relationships between the US and the snail-eating surrender monkeys will continue to be strained as evidence is discovered that they are responsible for providing Iraq with illegal materials between 1991 and 2003.

18. I see weapons of mass destruction being discovered in Iraq.

There you have it. The Maha Scottie has spoken.

Phillip: HWOSAU, in a comment thread, asks why the City of New York refused post 9-11 financial aid from a Saudi citizen? And is it any different from the Iranian refusal of Israeli aid?

I said that from what I know at this point, it was a stupid refusal. But maybe there is something I’m not seeing.

Of course. The inspiration of scripture doesn’t do away with the rules of literature. There are hundreds of false and evil statements in scripture made by foolish, mistaken and evil people. These statements are false, foolish and evil! And when the true meaning of a statement is that it’s Paul’s opinion, how could we honor the meaning of the text and disagree?

So here’s a question: When Paul specifically says that something is his opinion, and not from the Lord, can we treat it as his opinion and not binding, given what most believe about the inspiration of Scripture?

Predictions for 2004 by many readers over at Tim Blair’s blog.

Someone wanted a refutation of the Bible Codes thing. Here is one from a church, and it’s pretty tame so it won’t blow up anyone who buys this stuff. Maybe lurkers and Fellows can put other refuting sources in the comment thread. It also has a .pdf option. Here is another article on “Problems with the Bible Codes.”

Phillip: You will love this short column over at Lileks. Says it perfectly.

My point? Simple: we live in an era of non-contiguous information streams. I believe one thing; someone else believes another—and the bedrock assumptions are utterly contradictory. This is what drives me nuts about discussing current events with some people. It’s like discussing the Apollo program with people who think it was all faked, or discussing archeology with those who believe the world is six thousand years old. I think the Iraq Campaign was part of a broad war against Islamicist fascism and the states that enable it; others think it’s all about oil and Halliburton jerking the strings of a Jeebus puppet. No. Middle. Ground.

Greetings to my friend John L! It was great to hear from you again.

Jesse: If it followed the typical pattern, then the contentious group was whichever one wasn’t in the majority or in control. That is, if head-covering was common, then bare-heads advocates were contentious, and vice-versa.

Tim: No question, the virgin birth is a non-negotiable. Anybody who wants to say that the word can be used to describe any young woman, regardless of sexual purity, please line up to my left for a serious slap upside the head with, oh chapter after chapter of context. Thank you. For that matter, yes, the Trinity is perfectly well spelled out in Scripture. Of course, so is “Hear, O Israel, the LORD your God, the LORD is one.” Hence the council, to determine how to resolve them. Or rather, to collect the majority decision on how it had already been resolved.

Michael: I confess that I’m flummoxed by the logic that if you haven’t picked up a gun personally, or sent your son to do so, you cannot advocate for military response to a military threat. It’s a non sequitir, it just doesn’t compute. What’s the counter-point? That you cannot advocate for inaction unless you’re willing to hang out in cafes in Israel waiting for the next suicide bomber? Moonbats, that’s what I call people like Lurker Scott. Seriously crazy, but mercifully not in power. Woe to us if we elect a moonbat for President. And woe to those living wherever the terrorists will strike next.

Thanks, by the way, for the Prager column. I thought it was such a must-read that I posted it on my own site, as well, complete with a reference (though not by name or link) to moonbat Lurker Scott. The world is a crazy place, and I fear for my kids and trust in God, because I must. Well, trust in God with some reliance on the military of the United States of America, that is.

Also, on your statement, I would be careful to change the last sentence of the first paragraph to read: ...made American actions in going after Osama, the Taliban, Al Queda, Saddam and any other terrorists or their supporters or the countries that harbor them the best policy for the present.

This is a big deal, this terrorism thing. When you’ve got Iran refusing aid from Israel, you’re dealing with people who are not reasonable people. When a survey of Iraqis reveals a long list of perfectly reasonable poll results followed by a single outlier that says that all of the actions Saddam took against Israel were justified, you’re not dealing with rational people.

I want one. This isn’t methodology-driven theology, is it, Monk? Please say no! I want one! I want one!

It’s true. I saw it on the twilight zone. This woman tried to shove a tract and salvation at this guy and he threw her in front of a subway train.

Boteach sayeth:

If there is one seminal thing for which the year 2003 should be remembered it is this: The year that the normally amoral game of politics trumped the usually moral teachings of religion.

The way in which God has used this faithful idiot, George Bush, is absolutely riotous. Even more so are the purple-faced protestations of his detractors.

Anyone here care to comment? PLEASE? Oh, I forgot to add. If you’re not in the military, or you don’t have children, shut up, swine. (JN. Maybe.)

I AM. I HAVE.

Provoking you folks is a high honor. May your veins pop with “righteousness”. And may you continue to be “neutral”. Ha.

Thanks SW. You are correct. I was mistaken.

Just for the record, I think we should remember which Scott we’re talking to…

I will say this in his defense: I don’t think Lurker Scott was refering to the President as Hitler. I believe he was refering to Saddam Hussein as “The New Hitler”. It doesn’t make LS right, since at the time, the more troublesome enemy was Khomeini (who had actually taken action against the United States by taking hostages and supporting global terrorism), and the enemy of our enemy is our friend.

Was it shortsighted of us to support Saddam in the early and mid 80’s? Sure. But it was certainly better than the alternative, which was to allow Ayatollah K to control both Iran and Iraq and its large population of Shiites (who were basically fodder for his terrorist campaigns against the US and Israel). Supporting Saddam, at the time, seemed to be a better idea – especially since Saddam, early on, was a big supporter of Westernism. He was pretty tolerant to religions except Shiites and Kurds. He even gave big cash donations to churches in the US.

I’d like some comment on the following statement:

American foreign policy- under both Democratic and Republican administrations- has made many major errors in regard to terrorism and the Middle East. Despite these errors, 9-11 and the possibility of more state-sponsored terrorism, possibly and/or eventually using WMDs- made American actions in going after Osama, the Taliban, Al Queda, Saddam and any other terrorists or their supporters or the countries that harbor them the best policy for the present.

Disagreement with the actions of the President is healthy and appropriate. However, to interpret these errors, events like 9-11 and our subsequent actions PRIMARILY as a vast right wing conspiracy and political power grab by conservatives seeking world oil domination and the silencing of all politcal dissent is paranoid and irrational.

Lurker Scott: You misunderstand, and since you are obviously full of disgust at me personally, and took your comments to the personal side as soon as possible, I do not know why I am typing this.

If I were Prez and my son were a soldier, would I do what the Prez has done? Yes.
Would I be proud if my son enlisted and fought for what is right? Yes.
Despite my obvious grief, would I be proud if my son gave up life or limb in military service? Yes.
Would I personally fight for the liberation of other people? Yes.
Do I want my son discussed on the BHT by hostile, insulting lurkers, who think 9-11”makes no difference”? No.

Mentioning my son is not beyond the pale. YOU mentioning my son is beyond the pale.

And both Phillip and I have answered your rant about Rummy.

Trinity,
As I said to he who had no full time vowel, I am perplexed as to how anyone can believe they are a Christian without believing in the Trinity or even the virgin birth, which to me is basic (as I see it) to Jesus being the fulfillment of OT prophecy. You can go on about how the text was not intrepreted correctly, whatever, it light of who he is, the VB makes more sense than anything else (IMO).
The Trinity, well if He said His Father is in Heaven, and when He leaves he will send another.. aw crap y’all know this.. I am just stateing it again.

Peace to all

Celebrating 35 years of Baby Boomer tyranny.

Michael: If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that the appeal to culture is not universally invalid, but is misapplied in this case. The key is the positive sanction of heterosexual marriage, which is not culture-bound, and which excludes homosexuality as its contrapositive. I find this mostly agreeable. (I also agree withyou on the women-as-elders, mostly.)

BTW, I really think that the gay advocates are right about Sodom. It’s not about homosexuality, and you couldn’t think that it was from reading the Bible.

SW1, your explanation of 1 Cor 11 is familiar to me. I’m not completely happy with it, but I can’t formulate why right this moment. Out of curiosity, I wonder which group was the contentious one in Corinth, the head-coverers or the other group?

Oh my. Tin Foil for your early morning enjoyment.

Michael,
You’re white??? {:>)

Dennis Prager on one clear window into the soul of the middle east: Iran refuses earthquake aid from Israel. It is this sort of thing that portends dark times ahead, because the leaders of Islam cannot see the light of God in a cup of cold water, but only their own hatred. Sad.

Russell: I actually intended to buy a churchwarden with the gift certificate my wife gave me. In fact, she gave me that certificate because the shop was (“temporarily” they assured her) out of churchwardens. They’re still out, but the proprietor of the shop convinced me that a churchwarden is more of a fair-weather pipe anyway, so I’ll wait a couple of months. If I smoked indoors, I suppose I’d feel differently, but for now I’ll stick with a shorter-stemmed pipe.

I did see a churchwarden online that I liked reasonably well for just under $50.

Well, looks like the good cheer is running low out there in the lurker community.

Scott objects to my 11:12 a.m. quotation from the Corner about N.T. Wright calling Blair and Bush vigilante white boys, and works up the spine to call me a coward (my word not his) for supporting the Iraq war, standing on the sidelines while others die. He asks if there is a war to remove any other dictator I would support with my own life? (See the comments thread.)

Well, just about name your dictator, Scott. I’m ready to take down any of them who want to kill my children, and you can sign me up to do whatever they would let me do, including shoot Kim Jung Ill between the eyes or assassinate any number of Assads or Ayatollahs. And chanting the Psalms all the way home.

Then lurker Ed writes me last week to ask if I am bitter? He disagrees with me over the Seeker Sensitive Stuff, even though at the time he called me bitter he’d only read one nameless essay. We swap some letters, and he says I hold the opinions I do because I am white. IOWs, I’m a racist. Our conversation ended shortly thereafter, because I consider a discussion of skin color as it pertains to anything fundamentally irrational.

JS: One thing about I Corinthians 11 that always stuck out to me.

Now, while I am one of those who proudly wears the “no chick elders” badge, I’m not going to use this scripture to tell my fairer half that she needs to cover her noggin. Why? Context, people, context. Paul gives all these statements about covering the head and how women need to have long hair and men need to have short hair and how it’s a disgrace if either has either and then…

Verse 16:
“If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.”

Paul’s basically saying (from v. 2) that he’d really like for the people to be like him, and for chicks to wear coverings, etc. But v. 16 says to me that he’s aware that this is really just his opinion, and that if anyone wants to make a fuss about it – it’s not a big enough deal to split the congregation over.

SW1 “Check. Jesus died to give me an Xbox.”

I can dig that – Halo’s a great game. Mastery however is unattainable, especially with the crowd I play multiplayer with – they’re all experts at everything.

Not only do you need to run around telling people that God will give you an Xbox, you need to tell them that if they follow the steps, they will get an Xbox too. It’s like a well done MLM.

Phillip Winn I so desparately wish I could share a smoke with my pastor. My wife got me my first pipe for Christmas several years ago. Now I’m coveting a nice churchwarden, but I havn’t found one that fits the bill yet.

(Biblical Theology Weblog, Evangelical Outpost, Powerline and Relapsed Catholic are all good blogs featuring a lot of religion bits, and they have all been added to the sidebar for your enjoyment.)

But to the business at hand…

You may recall a few weeks ago I was upset about two cars- seemingly two abandoned cars- that had been left next to my house. (We live at a spot where the road widens for a 90 degree turn on to campus, plus there is a gift shop for the school next door, and several parking places next to our house and the shop.) I successfully griped and the cars were moved. One totally gone and the other about 30 yards away, in front of a new staff family’s house :)

In the process, I discovered that the green car belonged to two local and I emphasize, VERY LOCAL- young ladies living here in the village of Oneida. They were leaving it for our school mechanic to do some work. He is never in a hurry, and apparently secured the wrecked red car for parts. So, the green car moved down the street and has been there ever since. Awaiting the inevitable.

This morning, at 8:30 a.m. I noticed that the trunk of the green car was open, and I knew they car was probably stripped. In fact, that is what happened. All stereo equipment removed. Here in Crank and Meth country, a car left on the street is going to be stripped. And a car abandoned on the street for most of two months is definately going to be stripped.

So a few moments ago, the sister of the owner appears at my door, obviously beside herself. She is known for a temper- which I experienced first hand in class when she proceded to beat up another girl who “talked trash” about her- and she was ready to take a rifle and seek justice. She had a dozen or so questions for us, and I gently reminded her that the car had been there for quite a while (hint hint) and that we have no school security guard during breaks (hint hint). She let me know that there would be local justice for this wrong.

As she was stepping out the door, her mother, another VERY LOCAL person, calls me with similar questions and threats to the criminals responsible. At the end of all this, I concluded that it is quite likely I willl be named a prime suspect and possibly carted off to jail for the holidays. If this happens, I am naming Matthew my heir, and I wish you all a happy 2004.

Now, if you will excuse me, I am going to load my rifle.

Another point of gay Bible interpretation was made once by Peter Gomes, the Harvard chaplain who happens to be homosexual. He believes that the Bible condemns people going against their nature; in other words, it’s a sin for heterosexuals to engage in homosexual activity, but it is not a sin for homosexuals to do likewise since that is their nature. That’s one of the more ridiculous bits of “interpretation” that I’ve heard. In other words, it was a sin for David Bowie to have gay sex in his early days because he turned out to be heterosexual, but it’s not a sin for Elton John. (Don’t know if he thinks it was a sin for Elton John to have sex with a woman, since that’s not his nature!!)

On the subject of Gay Biblical Interpretation:

Actually, they engage in a number of STUPID interpretative shenanigans throughout the Bible.

1) They appeal to biological determinism to say “God made us this way, just like he made Adam and Eve heterosexual.” Of course, this logic excuses EVERYTHING: sex with children, dead people, animals, Michael Moore. Everything that biology or genetics gives us an inclination to do is free from moral categories. (Apparently since I am inclined to have sex with large numbers of women, God approves.)

2) They appeal to a special cultural argument to say that all the denunciations of homosexuality in the NT have in mind sex between adults and minors (i.e. the greek preference for boys) and not the consensual relationships between adults that are the norm today.

3) They appeal to special circumstances to say that the denunciations of homosexuality in the OT (Like Leviticus 18) come from the same books that allow genocide, stoning of rebellious teenagers, witch dunking, etc. How can we pick and choose what parts of the OT we will enforce?

For example, Sodom is destroyed because of a lack of hospitality (or problems cited in other parts of the Bible, like greed.) The prominence of a proposed homosexual gang rape in the story is actually just a guise for a condemnation of their rudeness of Sodomites towards strangers.

4) They appeal to some notion of liberation theology to say that homosexuals are an oppressed minority and therefore, God is on their side, as he is with all minorities.

5) They appeal to their homemade idolatrous Jesus to say Jesus would never turn away anyone who wanted to follow him over an issue like the gender of the person they loved.

In fact, the Bible really is a back-burner issue with these people. They are just using it to gain legitimacy for their sexual proclivities.

The bar did a major debate of several weeks on this crucial interpretative crossroads, and I recommend the archives. I certainly can’t take another beating and remain in a good mood.

Our conversation was actually about ordaining women as elders, which I support and most on here do not. One of my contentions that the NT commands restricting leadership to males is a cultural issue is the passage you cite, and I challenge my friends to be consistent in their interpretations by insisting on head coverings.

The reason it is not the same as homosexuality is that the gay interpreters are ignoring male/female covenant relationship in marriage as part of God’s ordained created order. There is no interpretative room in Genesis for cultural variance from that pattern to accomodate homosexuality. Genesis 2 doesn’t teach a cultural variable.

On male headship, however, our readings of Genesis 2-3 vary WIDELY here on the blog. I do not see it (male headship/female subjection) until AFTER sin in Genesis 3. Other bloggers see it much earlier, in Genesis 2. (I believe Genesis 1:26-27 is explicit on this, and tend to see things like “God never spoke to Eve” etc, as weak. But I respect those who differ.)

Therefore I see the head-covering issue itself as a cultural expression. (The principle of headship being relating to God, Christ and marriage is not cultural. It’s just controversial in terms of how it is expressed in culture. I tend to think there can be various cultural expressions of the truth, some allowing females equality on all things without scandal to the Gospel, but others not accomodating female equality as easily.)

Archives please. There are dead horse possibilities here, so be restrained :-)

So this morning I read 1 Corinthians 11:2-10, the one where Paul says women ought to keep their heads covered in prayer. And I know all of the standard reasons why we don’t do this today: the culture is different, Paul was speaking to a specific situation, or Paul was misinformed (or just plain wrong). But I am disturbed, because I see that this is exactly the same line of thought that is used by gay theology advocates. When reading Romans 1, they also say that the culture was different, Paul was speaking to a specific situation, or Paul was misinformed (or just plain wrong). How can we sidestep Paul on the one issue but cry heresy when the same tact is used on the other? This isn’t an assertion of my position, but a question. I’m stumped and puzzled. What does the bar think?

Tom: I generally agree with your various assertions about Trinitarianism, but unless we are choosing to promote Christianity as individualistic spirituality, and not as the church, then I will continue to assert that I am correct regarding what we must do in regard to this as a pastoral/ecclesiastical issue. The church must read the NT and come to a conclusion about what it TEACHES, not about the various stages of doctrinal development that might be found in its pages. Fully formed Trinitarianism is the truth of the scripture, but it took controversy and reflection for the church to see that truth. But finally, there is a point at which the church must CONFESS its faith, and that faith must be a Trinitarian faith.

If someone hasn’t come to that faith, we evangelize and teach them. If someone denies that faith, we dialog or correct. If necessary we exclude, even if we do so in hope of salvation (which ought to be the point of all church discipline.)

I still like N.T. Wright’s work on Jesus, especially since I will be looking forward to having him as an ally in my NT class in the spring, which is being taught by a Jesus Seminar fellow (Brandon Scott). As long as someone has a good, reasoned opinion against the war (not saying stupid things like “We’re ashamed the president is from Texas” or being personally vindictive and hateful) I don’t begrudge them that. I’ve had questions about the war myself, although I’m glad we got Saddam’s butt in a sling. I will remain unsatisfied until we get Osama. Remember, when a theologian attempts to speak “prophetically” to the current world situation, they may come down on a different side than you do. Hopefully, they’re coming down on the same side as God, but sometimes that’s a tricky proposition.

About the Trinity, I don’t believe that belief in the Trinity is essential for salvation. If I did, even most of the Christians of the first 300 years of Christianity would be burning in hell right now. Remember that the NT was not canonized for hundreds of years, so all the early believers had to go on was the OT and a collection of writings, many of which never made it into the NT. It is questionable that any single writer of the NT had a fully developed view of the Trinity. Even John, who was explicit about the divinity of Jesus in John 1, was not explictly a Trinitarian. I do believe in the Trinity, but I think when I get to heaven I’ll actually find some Oneness Pentecostals there, too.

Al Mohler on the Christian Counter-Revolution. For those of us who revel in grace, Mohler does a good job of putting the Sermon on the Mount in its place in the Christian life.

If you’ve got $20 of Christmas money and want to put something in your library that will challenge, feed and help you for YEARS to come, get Martyn Lloyd-Jones newly republished Sermon on the Mount messages. A++ Bible study.

Mike Potema at The Corner makes the following note about N.T. Wright’s dumb comments on Bush/Blair/Iraq. One thing I notice in Wright’s theology is a certain arrogance regarding how the Lordship of Jesus over the world is applied in the world of realpolitik. MikeP says it perfectly:

While we’re on the subject of religion, let me call attention to the offensive and silly comments of the Anglican Bishop of Durham, England, about Tony Blair and the Iraq war. The Guardian reports that Bishop Tom Wright said the following: “For Bush and Blair to go into Iraq together was like a bunch of white vigilantes going into Brixton to stop drug dealing. This is not to deny there’s a problem to be sorted, just that they are not credible people to deal with it.” Point One: There was, before Bush and Blair acted, a conspicuous lack of action by any people—”credible” or otherwise—to depose the dictator and thus relieve the torment of the oppressed Iraqi people. Point Two: A bishop should not need to be reminded about original sin, and the fallible nature of all human beings. Whatever moral or political baggage Wright wishes to impute to Bush and Blair should not be counted against what they did—which remains morally correct, indeed courageous, and a major contribution to the well-being of mankind. Point Three: Bishop Wright is the author of one of the very best books of the year a learned and engaging exposition of the rational grounds for belief in the Resurrection of Christ. His foray into geopolitics is embarrassing; he should leave this kind of left-wing twaddle to its natural propagators—which is to say, clergymen who have nothing interesting to say about religion.

On the Trinity thing: I looked at this discussion pastorally, and in terms of the visible church. if God is accepting Oneness types into heaven, I couldn’t be happier. But there simply is NO WAY to accept them into the visible church—or to fellowship with them formally—based on any kind of sensible use of scripture and historic confessions. The same would go for church discipline or qualifications for leadership. Denying the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity would be a reason to remove an elder or not ordain. But what about the private opinion that someone in error may still have saving faith, though mistaken on the Trinity? That’s a closer call, and I would not react the same way to the opinion as I would to ANY venue where the official teaching or approval of the church was implicated in any version of Arianism. But I certainly believe we can have bad theology and be saved. Look at Jim for goodness sake. (JN)

Should auld acquaintance be forgot and never brought to…

The Chick Tract Translator
Here it is, ladies and gents… The final Translation of 2003. It’s been an exciting year here at Translation Industries, as our Translation Engine moved from its original Beta Version up to 3.2 Service Pack 6a. Things just keep getting better and better as we’ve expanded from just Jack Chick to all manner of goofy things. And since we’ve got an election year, you can be certain to see Translations of popular candidates and movements.

But first…. I gotta take a whiz.

But even before that… we have one more translation yet to do, and this week’s recipient of Translationary Joy is yet again that bastion of Faith Movement Goofiness, The Believer’s Voice of Victory. Specifically, Gloria Copeland’s article in the upcoming January 2004 issue on “True Prosperity”.

Our article opens with that Doctor of Divinity herself, Mrs. Copeland, informing us that if we are to be prosperous, we must have a prosperous soul. This, ladies and gentlemen, disheartens me a bit. I’d like to be super-prosperous, but my soul doesn’t even have a checking account. To date, I’ve never received a credit card junk mailer for “Scott Ward’s Soul”. Of course, even though “Bart Simpson’s Soul” got some media attention a while back, I’m not sure financial institutions are in favor of setting up accounts for people’s souls. Of course, I may just have a rotten accountant.

But wait! Gloria quickly adds in a statement that I honestly never thought I’d see in BVOV: “God’s prosperity isn’t just financial blessings”. Wow. I mean…. wow. After two years of the Prayer of Jabez and the Lamentation of Jehubezel and the Cash Cow of Bill Wilkinson, I’m honestly shocked to hear a prosperity faith-movement preacher actually say that God’s blessings aren’t limited to cold, hard cash. Still, I have this sinking feeling that this ain’t gonna last. OK… pain in my chest has subsided… time to move on to the next sentence.

“It also includes healing, protection, favor, wisdom, success, well-being and every good thing you could possibly need—all the good things Jesus paid for you to have.”

Check. Jesus died to give me an XBox.

Fortunately, my path to XBox ownership and, dare I say… mastery… is easily attainable through a step-by-step process. Of course, it’s a seven-step process because seven is God’s perfect number, and Gloria is obviously close to the heart of God if she has a seven-step list.

First Step: Walking in Truth. Gloria gives us an illustration of walking in truth by telling us about her wedding. Two-buck veil. Handmade dress. Married at a friend’s house. Borrowed cash for a honeymoon. I don’t know about you, but I can see the connection between walking in truth and Kenneth’s cheap approach to marital bliss already. Fortunately, Gloria doesn’t just rely on bragging about how much cash she has now – she’s quick to add that you’ve got to follow the WHOLE Bible, not just the parts about God’s 7-point plan to getting rich.

Second and Third Steps: Faithfulness and Diligence. Gloria’s combined these two because they’re attached. Of course, she couldn’t combine them in her list o’ seven steps to mammonland because that would break the lucky-seven pattern. Gloria tells us that being faithful and diligent will force God to bless you. Step one: be faithful to God. Don’t go off worshipping Zeus or Thor or Oprah. Step Two: When the Bible says God will bless you, don’t go believing that God won’t give you that XBox – because God may have already given it to you, and if you don’t believe, God, in all his infinite power and blessing can’t give it to you because he’s got a little remote control receiver attached to his forehead connected to you. Remember: You control God. Hey, Gloria, since you control God, could you get him to get me a glass of milk while he’s up? Thanks.

Fourth and Fifth Steps: Tithing and Sowing. Of course, you know tithing would come into this. God won’t bless you if you’re not tithing. Tithing is like the batteries in the remote control that switches the channels on God. Stick in you AA-sized Tithe and watch the blessings flow. Of course, Gloria prints every verse she can think of on tithing and blessing, which of course, doesn’t include Deutoronomy. But it doesn’t matter. Just make your tithe payable to Cash, and slide it on over to Gloria and Kenneth. Don’t worry about filling in the dollar amount – they can do that for ya!

Sixth and Seventh: Believing and Saying. Of course, these have absolutely nothing to do with being faithful and diligent. They’re completely different. Now that you have faith that God can provide you, not only with an XBox, but also with copies of HALO, Dead or Alive Volleyball (With Naked Chicks), and Madden 2004, you’re ready to believe it. And while you’re at it, be sure to run around to all your friends and tell them how God’s gonna give you that XBox. Before you know it, your friends will buy you a used XBox from a pawn shop just to shut you the heck up, proving again how God meant for you to have an XBox.

Of course, none of Gloria’s plan for financial blessing explains Bill Gates – who, last time I checked wasn’t exactly on the Charismatic/Fundy List O’ Heroes. But that’s just splitting hairs. Jan Crouch’s hairs, to be exact.

Well, fair readers, that’s it for 2003! So sit back, have a sip o’ Scotch, and enjoy your new year celebrations. Feliz Nuevo Ano! Ariba! Yeehah! Yay. Yippee. Zippee. Skippie.

Meh.

Josh: Your response reminds me why it is that I don’t argue with you. I’ll ask you one last time to stop mis-characterizing my intentions (“Inclusive and tolerant?” You clearly don’t know me at all), and point out one last time that I’m not ignorant. I mentioned Arius, I’m familiar with Nicea, and I specifically made the points that Christ is divine and that a disbelief in the Trinity is wrong. Whatever else you think of me or my statements is fortunately irrelevant, as is your determination (or mine) of who is saved. Feel free to continue to assume anti-Trinitarianism is always an anti-Christ’s Divinity view if you want. I’m done.

I already know what Michael thinks of my bedtime reading, but I’m going to go out on a limb here for the purpose of discussion because I think it has implications for the continuing Trinity discussion. Ok, so last night I was lying in bed, wife in one arm, a intro to NT textual criticism in the other (Heather said it was weird that I feel contentment in that situation; I replied that it’s because I understand NT textual criticism more than I understand her ;-). I came to a part in the book that discusses John 3:13. I’ll present it to you in the ESV and KJV:
ESV John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

KJV John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

It appears that the editors of the UBS4 and NA27 Greek New Testaments thought that omitting “which is in heaven” was the better textual choice, but, using the guidelines that these editors use in selecting texts, the better text is the one that says “which is in heaven.”

For discussion sake, what does, “which (who) is in heaven” mean in this context and what, if any, implications does it have for our evangelical christologies and trinitarian theologies?

This is what I think about when I go to sleep. No wonder I am wide awake at 4:45am.

I’m not always a big fan of David Brooks, but he writes an interesting NY Times editorial today. “Churches compete for congregants.” Ugh, he’s right. “If George Bush and Howard Dean met each other on a political platform, they would fight and feud. If they met in a Bible study group and talked about their eternal souls, they’d probably embrace.” I would hope so.

Phillip: I’d been a regular reader of this site for at least a year before I joined, and I’m quite well aware of all the arguments that the doctrine of the Trinity is a non-essential. Despite the fact that the arguments make the arguer feel inclusive and tolerant, they’re still wrong. Read up on the Council of Nicea: The Nicene Creed is the confession of the divinity of the Son (in its original form, it ended with “and in the Holy Spirit).

One heresy begets another, and while it is certainly possible for an individual to err with his lips and still have true faith, it is impossible for a church to rightly preach the Gospel and teach such errors. Oneness Pentecostals, for example, fall into heresy after heresy in their attempt to read the singularity of God into the Bible, right down to having Christ’s “human nature” pray to his “divine nature” (I put them in quotes because doing such turns the natures into hypostases). I had a long talk with a Oneness seminary (oops, they call them “Bible schools”) student, and he most certainly denied that God suffered and died for our sins, because only the “human nature” died on the cross while the “divine nature” turned his back on him. There is no salvation in the death of a man alone, no matter how close a relationship he has with God. Anti-trinitarianism has always brought with it a denial of the Gospel. That’s why the Church continues to refuse fellowship to those who refuse to confess and teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each true God, that there is one God, that the the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit is not the Father, and that each person stands in unique relation to the other two. A person puts his faith (and therefore salvation if you believe in justification by faith) in extreme jeopardy when he refuses to believe in the Trinity.

Despite that fact that some of you think I’m a raving political liberal, like Jesse (), I must say that I delight in reading James Lileks every single day. Today is no exception. I’m also very happy that Best of the Web is back. So yes, I visit a few liberal sites as well (no links, lest some of you hurt yourselves), but these two sites are simply fantastic.

And yes, Jesse, I consider you very reasonable, not all a raving nutjob.

Michael: I got a pipe for Christmas (yay to my wife!), and when I mentioned the same to my pastor, he made two suggestions: The first was that he was delighted to have someone with whom to smoke, and the second was to note how liberal I am compared with my parents. The things I allow that my parents never did — it is amazing. Of course, whether that is good or bad, I’ll never know, but it seems clear from your experience and others, I’ll never get any credit for them.

Beer: The Credenda guys need to open their eyes and look a little further than Moscow, Idaho, or wherever they are these days. While they poke fun at the local Presbyterian pastor, I’ve got a wide variety of brews available to me here. Take a field trip to Portland or Denver, boys, they’ve got brews aplenty. If you get your brews at a small-town Albertson’s, then you’re stuck with donkey-water. And if you think our German brethren are picking up the weekend supply of beer at Aufvertscon’s (I hope that phonetic transliteration doesn’t mean anything bad in German), you’re even more crazy than your economist leanings would indicate!

Russell over at Coffeehouse says that Peggy Noonan’s article on religious pluralism in the public square may be flirting with “national polytheism” or something like that. Hmmmmmm….what’s in the coffee in Spokane today, dude? (JN) I think Peg is, as always, squarely right on target.

Apparently, I am a repressive parent because I consider a nearly 600 mile (!) round trip to a New Year’s Eve party frivolous. (sigh) My dad wouldn’t let me go across the street, but I’m the bad guy because I am reluctant to endorse going across the state! Your time is comin’ boys! (O to be given credit for the things you do allow, and not hoisted to scaffold for the times you say no! :-)

Wow, my extra verse was immortalized in an IM piece! I’m so honored!

I was just thinking: could “I Can Only Imagine” be the anti-”Imagine” (as in John Lennon’s?) I’m wondering if the author was thinking about that song when he wrote it. Instead of “Imagine there’s no heaven” he writes a whole song about how there is one and that he’s going there! I guess the juxtaposition breaks down since Lennon’s song covers a myriad of subjects while “I Can Only…” is just about heaven.

One thing that chaps me about Lennon’s “Imagine”—the guy wrote many, many great tunes and that’s the one he’s remembered for the most (at least as a solo artist). I remembered almost getting sick to my stomach several years ago at the closing ceremonies of the Olympics (I think it was the Winter Olympics when it was in Norway, forgot the name of the town) and everyone joyfully sang “Imagine,” all the athletes joining in together. I wondered if there were any Christians among the whole group that would refuse to sing such BS, but I didn’t see any holdouts. Unity in the name of anti-Christianity and anti-religion: it won’t freakin’ happen, John. I’d rather remember him for his great Beatle tunes like “Help”, “In My Life”, “Strawberry Fields Forever”, or his solo songs like “Mind Games”, “Mother”, “Just Like Starting Over,” heck, even “Instant Karma.”

As Larry Norman once said “Dear John: Who’s more popular now?”

Normally I like Credenda, but I’m awarding them a Tin Foil Hat for this: How Feminism Stole Beer. It turns out and women’s suffrage was just a ploy to give us weak beer. And they evidently don’t have feminism in Europe, where the beer is still good.

Evening, gentlemen and ladies. Just stopping by for a brief drink. Up here in the frozen northland of Fergus Falls, MN, the internet hours are few and far between and conducted over a tremendously slow dialup modem. It makes it hard on a brand-new college graduate who’s grown used to the firehose of high-speed access in Seattle, but I’m getting by. Christmas was good: LOTS of family, lots of eating, lots of playing cards, and I got my copy of this.

I won’t be by much in the next several months, but I hope to come by at least a few times to say hi. In the meantime, this might amuse you: of course LOTR is racist. If you want to understand the real way that Middle Earth works, you have to read Chomsky’s interpretation of the movie (JN).

While we were home for Christmas, we saw Cold Mountain. Out of a possible five stars, I would give it 3.95 at least. It was a very enjoyable movie. I enjoy civil war (sorry Jack) films, and the battle scenes at the beginning are quite impressive, outdoing anything in Ron Maxwell’s films, which I like very much. The story of separated lovers dealing with the war-ruined South, and the overall template of the Odyssey, were both carried out very well. Nicole Kidman and Jude Law are wonderful when they are meeting and while apart- which is most of the film. I think Jude Law is a wonderful actor in these kinds of roles, as I enjoyed Enemy at the Gates very much. When the sweethearts finally are reunited, I felt things were a bit clumsy, but then…..they were! The last 20 minutes of the film doesn’t seem as sure footed as the rest, and the ending had some plausibility issues, but this didn’t ruin the film by any means. It is still a movie that will satisfy any woman’s desire to see a great romance and any man’s desire to see a great historical adventure. A perfect date movie, iow.

The strange characters Jude Law meets on his way home are quite entertaining, but Nicole Kidman’s plight of nearly starving to death back in Cold Mountain was the better part of the film. Renee Zellweiger’s character was the spice that made the whole movie work. The “bad guys” were the Southern Guard who were supposed to be watching out for the women back home, but were in fact terrorizing the neighborhood. I also loved the music in the film, which was more bluegrass than civil war era, but who could complain? (Odd to see rocker Jack White in one small role.)

Don’t miss this one by going to 5 showings of ROTK. It is excellent.

I want to see Peter Pan, as I am reading some very interesting reviews. If you haven’t read Josh’s latest post on the whining of ROTK geeks, you are missing a good one.

You may not know that Crachitt was clearly incompetent.

Thanks for the corrections and compliments on the IM piece. You’ve all been helpful and kind.

I enjoy the Trinity talk, I’ve nothing to add, so I will sit, watch and learn.

One cool thing about being a musician is to take a song I write and play it in many different forms and arrangements and keys, trying to see which works best to deliver what I wanted from the song. I record lots of them, but in the end I usually only let one version be heard except to a very few people. Speaking from a pure Creative mindset, it’s a blast to take the same song and do a country version, jazz, blues, folk ..whatever, but I do not think others (listeners) feel the same way.

People get comfortable with a version and then they hear a new one and makes them think, and thinking is not good. How often have you rented a movie on DVD and there is an alternate ending that so changes the movie that it makes you mad you watched it in the first place. I want to see one version and decide on those merits.
I feel the same about music except if it’s my own, but then I do that only for me.

I’m sorry. LOTR isn’t racist. It’s gay. Or at least those huggin’ hobbits seem to have something goin’ on.

Denise and I have been editing this IM piece for 3+ hours. If you guys find any mistakes, please e-mail them to me. I’ll appreciate it. Or better, just put it in this comment thread.

Michael: In fairness to Democratic Underground, it is a completely open forum, and anyone can post anything there without representing anything like the mainstream view of even that site. I’ve seen some pretty kooky quotes on there that have been soundly jumped on even by the other DU members. Of course, it does seem like the Democratic party is a bit desperate these days, and suffering it about as well — maybe worse, maybe not — as the Republican party faithful did under President Clinton’s tenure. The candidates, for example, are generally struggling, with the exception of Lieberman, who should be doing better in the polls than he is.

Anyway, I guess what I’m saying is that while some of the DU people are very vocal and prolific, I don’t think that they even represent the mainstream view on DU, let alone Democrats in general. I know some Democrats, and none of them are that freakin’ crazy.

Michael: Fantastic bit on I Can Only Imagine. Knowing that more editing is due, of course.

I faced much the same question today with regard to Bruce Almighty, and you frame it in a different way than I had considered. On my own website I had decided that while Bruce Almighty didn’t present the gospel, it did a pretty good job of representing the choice every person must make aside from that most crucial fact. I couldn’t decide whether it was a good thing or a bad thing, and from your essay I think I now realize why.

For the Christian, who understands the full story, Bruce Almighty (and ICOI) are pretty good. Even great, if you don’t mind the musical style or over-the-top antics. For the non-Christian, each falls short of presenting the full story, and might be dangerous in that lack. It isn’t the job of each and every song or each and every movie to cover every aspect of doctrine, of course. But it still doesn’t help things when people see an essentially gnostic movie and confuse it with Christ