I may be mistaken, but I think that Pannenberg doesn’t believe in the virgin birth. I’d like to be proven wrong. I don’t think you wasted your money, Bruce. I’ve enjoyed everything I have read by him and he appears to be a really nice guy, also. One of my professors spent a year studying with Herr Pannenberg several years ago, so when we were in Munich a little over a year ago (just 2 days), I looked up his address in the phonebook and it was in there. Since we were going to be back in Munich for one day after several in Regensburg, I wrote him a short note telling him that I was a student of Dr. Gutenson and that I would be back in a few days. I was hoping that he would send me a note to our hotel so that we could have coffee before we went back to Spain, but there was no word. Three months later I get a letter from him at school telling me that he was sorry he missed me. He’d never met me before. I thought that was cool, so he gets points in my book for that.

Michael, if I added a glossary of important terms to that guide to Revelation you wrote, would you let me use it? It looks like I’m going to get roped in to teaching it soon. Some one asked me tonight what I thought about Left Behind and after about ten minutes of ripping on it, they asked me to teach one. I should have kept my yapper shut.

I’ve never seen “ouk” used as “therefore”. I’d say that guy knows just enough Greek to be dangerous. Oh, wait, he referenced some guy who’s probably the leader of some weird sect and has his own gnostic Greek textbook.

A+ on the synopsis thingy. I love it.

Still looking for an answer to a question from a few days ago.

How does someone regain their salvation once it is lost, in light of Hebrews 6:6 ?

Can someone, BHTer, lurker, accidental reader, anyone at all please answer this question:

HOW CAN PEOPLE WHO WORSHIP A JEW BE ANTI-SEMITES?????

What is the freakin deal?

Anyone? At all? Hello?

I can tell you what I don’t recommend. Volume I of Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics. Blech. He really does not give the Trinity the treatment it deserves. I’ve not read a good modern treatment of the subject.

Couple of funnies from satire-hound, Iowahawk:

Stern: ‘Chill Wind Blowing All of Us”

New York – Radio personality Howard Stern today warned that “our fundamental American rights to speak out on anal and nasal sex are under attack” after his program was dropped by six stations owned by media giant Clear Channel Communications.

“First they came for the donkey shows and the retard drag pageants,” he said. “Then they came for the dwarf lesbian baked bean wrestling, and there was no one left to speak up for me.”

Jesusmania Sweeps Tinseltown

Expected strong box office for Mel Gibson’s controversial ‘Passion’ has prompted studio execs to greenlight a number of Jesus-themed TV and film projects, says a new report in Variety. Films already in pre-production include My Big Fat Last Supper, Galilee Road Trip, and Bring It On, Roman Chumps; TV pilots reported in casting include sitcom Magdalene’s Angels and reality series Disciple Island.

Just when I thought I’d heard it all. From the comment threads over at Challies- which is anti-Passion central. Was Mary even at the cross?

In three of the four gospel accounts she is not even mentioned as being at the cross. And her reference in John is a bad translation. The woman in Revelation 12 is Israel, who gives birth to Messiah. When Yeshua (Jesus) tells John, “Behold your mother,” he is looking over Jerusalem and referring to Israel, not Mary. I’m afraid many professing Christians do not know their Bibles and set themselves up to be deceived by false doctrines and teachers.

The correct Greek rendering reveals that only John was near the cross. Mary Magdalene and their acquaintances were at a distance. Let’s take a close look at verse 26, “When Jesus therefore saw his mother.” The word “therefore” in English is “oun” or “ouk” in Greek. “Ou” is a root which is an exclamation meaning “no” or “not.” It is a negative. The verse should not be translated as “therefore” in this context. It must be translated as “cannot” or “is not” or “did not,” as in Jesus did not see His mother. It would appear that this passage was mistranslated on purpose. The blessed mother was not even at the crucifixion site, which is harmony with the other gospels. Also in verse 26, the word “saw” or “see” is “idon” in Greek, meaning “I shall see” or “I do see.” He is referring to John, not Mary. The disciple says to Yeshua, “There is your mother.” Remember, they are on the Mount of Olives looking over the crowd and city, and Messiah says, “There is your mother.” Then He cries out, “Woman (the nation of Israel, which gave birth to Him), behold your Son.” In verse 27 He says to John, “Behold your mother!” Why would Yeshua give His mother to John when He had brothers and sisters who were capable to taking care of His mother if she needed it? It was Jewish custom and a Torah principle to take care of your immediate family. Yeshua is saying to John, “There is your mother,” referring to Israel. John also is a son of Judah, just as the Lord was. John became the chief disciple to Israel. He took up where Yeshua left off in ministering to the mother, Israel. Thanks to Peter Michas of Messengers of Messiah for his knowledge of Greek and interpretation of these passages.

Challies.com is a site with an entire forty day critical review of PDL. I mean day by day. Also, he has several reviews of The Passion (very negative) but one is a detailed scene by scene synopsis, which is certainly useful

Matthew: I guess if I were going to answer questions on the Atonement, I’d do the following things:
1) I would go to Refomation Ink and browse Contemporary articles, then Classic ones.
2) I would go to Monergism.com and find the section.
3) I would go to Mod Ref and search back issues.
4) I would read my Grudem Systematic Theology.
5) I’d search Sprugeon.org and find one good sermon
6) I’d go to Bible Bulletin Board and look for Macarthur articles.
7) I’d read Calvin
8) I’d read James Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith.
9) I’d read anything in C.S. Lewis, for good illustrations.
10) On this topic, I’d peruse my copy of Oden’s Systematic.
11) I’d look at the appropriate chapter in PDL.
12) I’d see if General Joyce Meyer had anything.
13) I’d teach the audience the hand motions.

Pardon me for not contributing much but all my mental energies go toward 18 hrs per week of seminary work plus my full time job. But I do read you guys every day. I wonder how well Josh S. views would have floated around the bar had he signed on under the pseudonym of Jaqueline Strodtbeck. We are all suckers for the fairer sex. And we think hitting girls is not nice (as opposed to hitting on girls which is … oh, forget it).

Anyway, the name Pannenburg caught my eye. Since I have both volumes of his Syst. Theo. can someone tell me if I wasted $100 or is this guy someone I should read someday. (The question is code for “Is he a Lutheran or what?”)

You won’t find me teaching the Bible very often without my Gospel Synopsis. Here’s an online version of the Gospel parallels. This stuff is pretty cool. You can do some great Bible studies with this, BUT people have to decide what they are going to do with the differing Gospel accounts. If you are bound and determined to not see the Gospels as literary creations, leave this sort of thing alone. It will give you a headache.

Today, after we read John 18 and 19 in Bible Study, Denise kept listing all the differences between John and Synoptics. Like did he talk nonstop or have nothing to say? Of course, you can resolve this sort of thing- or….you can get out your Old Testament and see what the silence means, or you can read John and see that Jesus is so unquestionably God standing in front of Pilate that the whole trial is a testimony to his divintiy. IOW- the Gospels WORK. They present Jesus; who he is and what he means. Resolving details is fine….but you can leave some of those details and enjoy the portraits as they are.

Ahh, the French. They seem to like censorship.

I have a couple of requests that are similar:
1) What are the best resources you have come across concerning Triune theism? I have the early church stuff on it. I’m primarily looking for more “modern” writings. I have v.1 of Pannenberg’s Systematic Theology which covers, I think, understanding God as Triune. T. Oden talks about it in v.1 of his ST series. What are some others that are helpful to you?

2) March 11, we might be answering a lot of questions about why Christ had to die. I do have Piper’s book, but that is not going to satisfy our crowd. If I flip pages in one book and give answers straight out of it I’ll get eaten alive. What are some good resources on atonement? I have a couple of places I am reading already about Christology and soteriology, but I need some more.

Looks like I’ve got a big couple of weeks coming up. I want to be overprepared.

Michael: The Boy Scouts were right to stand their ground.

Anti-Semitism: In France this has been growing for a number of years. And the level of violence against Jews has reached such an intensity that it is now reported that almost half of the Jewish population in France is considering immigration. I have read a number of articles on this subject that would make any person who loves freedom from violence – Jewish or otherwise – cringe with horror.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin: I saw a short interview he gave on TV last night. He essentially stated that if Serrano had the freedom of artistic expression to produce art called “piss christ”, then Mel Gibson should have the same freedom to produce a film honoring Christ. He also stated that, throughout history, the most common enemies of the Jewish peopleh have come from the ranks of “consciousless aggressive secularists” rather than committed Christians. ( I would agree with this and even point out that Adolf Hitler was considered by some to be neo-pagan rather than just secular). He did admit the problems Jewish people had with the medieval church, but then pointed out that you do not see this type of behavior with committed Christians in the U.S. He went on to point out that American Christians have been some ot the Jewish’s peoples strongest allies.

I wonder if the accusations of anti-Semitism would be as widespread if Gibson had quoted John 10:14 – 18 at some point in his movie: “14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. 15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 Therefore My Father loves Me because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from my father.”

Where is the anti-Semitism in Jesus voluntarily laying down His life for the lost sheep of the world. The Jews didn’t kill Jesus and neither did Pilate. He went to the cross because of His own desire to do so as a sacrifice for our sins. It was a one-sided decision. And the only side of that decision was His.

Wow. This is shocking. (JN)

I’m troubled after reading this column. I don’t know this woman’s, Jami Bernard, work so I don’t know if she’s a good film critic or not. I will say what needs to be said: those who wrote to her with words intending to hurt her do not know the Gospel. You are on Jesus’ left hand and had better repent (Matt. 25:41).

Amanda: Don’t listen to Kurt. He’s clearly deranged. Just look at his “South Park” picture.

Let’s all mutter a prayer for me: I have my 8 a.m. Apostle’s Creed class, 9 a.m. Worship for the students, 11 a.m. worship at church, then two “Red dot” i.e. high risk interviews. Then I’ll get that nap before I prepare tomorrow’s sermon. Meanwhile, Ravi Zacharias preaches the same sermon for the 8,000th time :-)

Amanda: I know you weren’t promoting super-hero Jesus. Your post simply made me think of it. I know alot of people who do.

I wasn’t trying to promote a ‘super-hero’ version of Jesus, just that I see quite a lot of violence in those scriptures talking about what happened before the crucifixion. Of course, I haven’t seen the movie and I’ll probably be going with a ‘devil’s advocate’ view and picking stuff out of the movie about which people have been talking.

The human body can be rather resilient.

Kurt has informed me that what I posted was a reiteration of stuff posted earlier. I admit to being quite behind the BHT postings and apologise for the redundancy.

I think another view we must be wary of is the “Jesus was a superhero” idea. ie: Jesus was faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings, etc, somehow more than a man in the physical sense. I don’t think the bible paints that picture. But I know that this is the picture many people have. When I pointed out to people (as the iMonk has) that Paul was beaten several times and survived, the response was. “Paul’s beating was not as severe because Jesus could take a lot more punishment than Paul could”. An interesting idea that has no basis in scripture.

Jim: It’s a provocative method, not a ridiculing one. In Between Noon and Three, he does this so effectively and offensively that it sends you through the roof, and he does make you examine your reaction. To Capon, if there isn’t some outrage in your reaction, if you aren’t arguing with him as you read, it’s not really worthwhile. Read it all. It kicks in good around page 65 or so, and roars to the end. Not his best or one of his 5 best, but a great way to get started. And full of quotables. I especially think it is wonderful on his view of sacrament vs. transaction.

Amanda: No one is wanting to minimize the sufferig of Jesus. Not at all, and not in any way. Certainly not me. About half my friends that have seen it are saying it’s excessive. And I know my NT texts well enough to know that in every case, Mel takes the extreme worst case scenario, and then runs it as far as he can. Which is his right because it’s art, not documentrary. All Bill and I are suggesting is that the mediation of Jesus- his substitution for us- is not made greater by the particular amounts or varieties of suffering he endured. He offered his life and body for us, but we cannot see the entirety of our sin or the entirety of the Father’s wrath. We see Jesus’ sufferings and death, whatever they were, and we see them through what the Bible tells us.

I told Denise this evening that I have been using a video for many years in my classes that was obviously made years before this movie. A Roman historian, a pain Dr., A medical examiner and a NT scholar walk through the last 24 hours. They build a compelling case for the death of Jesus that includes all the Biblical material, a reasonable and conservative view of the medical and historical facts, and still accounts for Jesus’ death in such a short time.

Maybe I shouldn’t be concerned, but I don’t want anything to take away from the fact that Jesus is always our mediator, that his life, death and resurrection are for our salvation, and that the NT does not present a gory depiction of the events, but an announcement of the facts and a call for faith, not shock.

peace, MSpencer :-)

Michael: Capon’s Mystery of Christ arrived yesterday, and I’m about 1/2 way through it. I generally am enjoying it, but let me ask you (and others who have read him) if you get the impression that he picks his settings (the adulterous relationship and the open homosexual) deliberately so as to be able to poke fun at those who disagree with his moral perspective on the “presenting” issues for getting hung up on them and missing his point. I think it detracts from the value, as it ultimately leaves him no better than those he criticizes; if I’m petty for getting hung up on seeing adultery and homosexuality as sins, what does that make Capon for looking down his nose at me for it?

Welcome back! I truly and very sincerely mean that! passes the pretzels and rootbeer

Bill:

The Bible gives us a pretty good idea of the severity of his beatings.

MARK 14:65 They all condemned him as worthy of death. Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him.

When you have several people spitting, yelling at you and striking with their fists, that’s pretty violent and I think gives us enough imagery to have an idea of what’s going on. Also, beating him usually constitutes lashing with things and/or fists multiple times, not just striking once or twice. If I think about it, it’s really very violent.

MARK 15:15 Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

To be flogged means that you get beaten severely with a cord or a rod. This means over and over again. Just imagine what happens when a rod or thick cord strikes your flesh multiple times.

MARK 15:17-20 They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.

MATTHEW 27:30-32 They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again. After they had mocked him, they took off the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him.

You’ve been pricked by thorns, right? They can really hurt. Jesus had a crown…an entire ring of thorns put on his head. The thing is, this wasn’t a game or anything, this crown wasn’t lightly placed upon his head. If you’re ready to kill someone, what are you going to do? I’d jam it down as hard as I could and cause as much pain as I could.

They beat him with a staff. Over and over. Again and again. Remember Rodney King? Within TWO minutes, he was given 56 baton blows and six kicks which caused 11 skull fractures, brain damage, and kidney damage. Yet, he survived.

It was also common for people not to survive the beatings they got previous to getting crucified, but some obviously did and Jesus was one of those. They wanted him dead, so whether it was by beating or crucifixion, I don’t think it mattered to them at the time. If those beatings were more than a human could withstand, we must remember that God had a purpose and a way He wanted this done, and anything, even surviving such horrendous beatings, is possible through Him. Jesus was human, yes, but He was also God.

(From World mag Blog and WT):The New York Times reports that 4% of the Catholic priests in the US—that would be one in twenty-five, 4,392 in all—were guilty of child abuse over the last 52 years. And the two studies that released their findings, one from the John Jay School of Criminal Justice and the other a blue-ribbon panel of Catholic experts, agreed that at the heart of the scandal is homosexual priests. The Washington Times says that 82% of those incidents were perpetrated by gay priests.

I’m not trying to get ugly here, but just how crazy were the Boy Scouts on that scoutmaster rule? Let’s get real, people. This is a correlation between homosexuality and same sex child abuse that can’t be ignored.

Powerline- written by an unbeliever- went to Passion to be impressed, and left very disappointed. And he agrees with you and me, Bill. The beating depicted would have been unsurvivable. Read “A Spaghetti Eastern.”

Moriarty at “Ain’t It Cool” just says it’s a bad film. No spiritual gripes or PC complaints. Just a bad movie. Great quote: “I don’t know… maybe it just disturbs me that MONTY PYTHON’S LIFE OF BRIAN offers a better, more complete and accurate view of the political and social structures against which the Christ story played out. ”

or did He simply relinquish His spirit when God’s wrath was appeased?

A few things to consider: He died more quickly than the authorities expected. Was this from the severity of his pre-crucifixion beating, as most would suggest?

Jesus own words: “It is finished” and “Father into your hands I commend my Spirit” Was He getting ready to relinquish His spirit voluntarily, or did He know that he only had a few moments left, like people in the movies always seem to?

I saw Passion today (as you might have guessed). I won’t post spoilers here but I will say (since it has been said already) that the beating Jesus receives in the movie is imo far more than a human could survive.

I have dared to suggest this even before seeing the movie. The response has been predictable (from people who hadn’t seen the movie). The Bible says He would be unrecognizable, therefore Mel has it exactly right. I point out that it wouldn’t take many blows to the face to make someone unrecognizable, but to no avail. In their theology, Jesus sacrifice only makes sense if He suffered more physical pain than any other human being, before or since. They will accept nothing less.

Welcome back, Josh. I really enjoyed the post. And especially the manner in which you shared it. I say that as a teacher/communicator/preacher who would love to have you in class and see you be able to take some of that fire and knowledge and channel it into something more than the usual internet war. Lutheran Shock Radio or something. I have always treasured the articulate laymen in my ministries, and you may one day be some good pastor’s right hand. I think your communicative gifts are formidable and I hope our dialog at the BHT can help all of us hear, speak and understand better.

Buy the man a drink. Or an IBC.

Don Whitney’s “Ten Questions to Ask About The Passion” is full of solid Biblical material that anyone might be prompted to share in a discussion of the meaning of the movie, and it can be downloaded as a .pdf for a bulletin insert.

Well, I definitely learned about something I needed to change: My website. Has it really been 2 years since I updated my age? So I’m really 22 now, old enough to drink, but I have the alcohol tolerance of a 5-year-old, so don’t expect me to drink anyone except a gerbil under the table.

Michael You said “But I cannot preach to 400 students that they should reject at the Lord’s Table those Christ has accepted. I cannot counsel my fellow Christian staff and believe, in my heart, that we cannot commune together. I cannot witness to Christ, and also believe that the only truthful thing I can offer these people after Christ is a particular Church communion. I can’t preach that. I can’t counsel that way. I can’t tell my children that is how it works. I can’t live that way.”

I’m the opposite, the addition being that when I get backed into a corner in a disagreement, I grow teeth and claws. Sorry for unsheathing them lately. Now I could respond to what you said, but frankly, I don’t think that now is the time, because tempers are running pretty hot. About the most charitable thing I can say is that you’re in a situation opposite that of the LCMS—what do you do when unity has already been splintered? The LCMS (and the worldwide communion of which it is a part) is faced with preserving the unity we have. We currently have a “leadership” that is working hard to polarize the synod as much as possible, and it just might split the communion. Because of the diligent work of our Synodical President, I’m pretty much forced to align myself either with people who want to use Willow Creek as a ministry model or make myself look like a jerk. Well, I choose “jerk.” You, however, are faced with mustering some kind of unity where there is almost none. Frankly, I have no clue how to deal with that, which is why I’m in the denom I’m in. My opinion is that if evangelicalism wants to make something of itself, it’s going to have to pretty much rebuild from the ground up. If things are at the point where evangelicals are inviting Mormons to ministry seminars and non-Trinitarians aren’t considered heretics, then I’d say you’re at a crisis point. You’ve definitely taken upon yourself a task fraught with infinitely more perils than living in a massive church body with nicely codified doctrine. You genuinely have my best wishes in that endeavor.

And to be quite honest, the idea that I had to go through instruction and be taught and affirm the entire faith before joining the congregation in eucharistic fellowship was one of the first things about Lutheranism that actually made sense to me. It sure made a lot more sense than making people take classes to become members. I can’t see how you could exclude someone from “membership” that you would include at the Lord’s Table. But anyway, enough on that.

For future reference, I’m not really going to respond to anyone whining about closed communion. You can read what my denom has said here. I have little to add to any of these statements. If you’ve got problems with including the Real Presence in the Gospel, you can read this. But uh, I don’t really want this place to go up in flames, so I’m done with the topic. You can also e-mail me, chat with me online, or call me. But I’m NOT dealing with it here anymore, because it’s too sensitive an issue.

What else do I need to cover…?

Oh yeah. A “heresy” is a doctrine that contradicts the deposit of faith that Christ gave to the apostles, and the apostles passed on to the church. I think Luther’s Smaller Catechism is a pretty good outline of what that faith consists of. You could also read Ignatius’ epistles for something a little more comprehensive. And no, I don’t believe that believing a heretical opinion doesn’t automatically damn you; that contradicts justification by faith. But I do believe that heresy/false doctrine work against true faith, which is why I don’t make accomodations for it (remember, I don’t believe faith is imperishable). Although I will try to use less inflammatory language, I’m not going to ever affirm that certain doctrines are perfectly acceptable within the bounds of the apostolic faith. I really don’t believe that all the predestined agree on some kind of core nugget. Rather, I think that what divides us is precisely the fact that we disagree on what the core nugget is. Divisions in Christendom stem from disagreements on who Jesus was, what he did, what he has commanded, and how we are saved. Whitfield and Wesley had to part ways because they just couldn’t agree on the Gospel. Honestly, I think the first step toward resolving disagreement is realizing that you even have one, and it doesn’t feel very nice to say to someone you like “We’ve got a real, fundamental disagreement here.” Even disagreeing on which issues are fundamental is a fundamental disagreement, and until we face that, anything resembling “ecumenism” is basically a pipe dream.

Russell over at Coffeehouse has been working hard on his Passion review. I think this was worth the wait:

Finally – this may surprise you – I did not cry at this movie though I play the part of a sentimental slob at many other less-deserving films. I felt slightly distanced from The Passion; yet not because of its intensity, blood or brutality.

No.

Rather, this was a movie about Someone I know. And like any movie about a friend, let alone my Master, I couldn’t avoid comparing an actor with a real Person.

The Jesus I have known for thirty-plus years is far more awesome, far more amazing, far more wonderful, more tender and, yes, far tougher, than anything Gibson/Caviezel could convey.

I know this Man, you see. Really. He is alive. Compared to Him as He is, The Passion of Jesus Christ is a cartoon.

Compared to any other movie of Jesus ever made, it is a masterpiece.

Late Night with David Letterman’s Top Ten Things Heard Outside The New Mel Gibson Movie
10. “Hey—no shoving, Monsignor!”
9. “I don’t know why they added subtitles—everyone speaks Aramaic”
8. “I’m hoping my medium Mountain Dew will miraculously be changed into an extra large Mountain Dew”
7. “These ‘Lord of the Ring’ films are getting odder and odder”
6. “Was this really based on a book?”
5. “Twelve dollars for a movie ticket? Now that’s a sin, am I right, people?”
4. “The Pope loved it almost as much as “Barber Shop 2’”
3. “Uh…I don’t feel like dinner right now.”
2. “That was awesome when Trump fired Pontius Pilate”
1. “Don’t tell me the ending”

This is downright bizarre. I have watched the Zefirelli “Jesus” between 40 and 50 times. I know this movie inside and out. Yet Zefirelli says his version does not implicate the Jews in the death of Jesus.

The Italian director further stresses that, unlike Gibson’s life of Christ, his own 1977 film “Jesus of Nazareth” was written by the famed English author Anthony Burgess with Suso Cecchi D’Amico taking into account the principles laid down by the Second Vatican Council, “To render justice to Jews and unburden them of the accusation of Diocide.” Zeffirelli finished his article with a question: “And now where have we gone back to?”

And remember Zera, the Saduccee character you created (starring Ian Holm btw) who orchestrates the betrayal and killing of Jesus? What do Annas and company ask Pilate to do? What does Zera ask Pilate to do while he is looking for a way out? Who is that mob?

“Jesus of Nazareth” tells a great version of the story, and the Jewish religious leaders make it all happen. They turn Jesus over to Pilate without even a discussion.

Phillip: It’s true.

Re: The Passion: My brother tells me that nobody said, “Surely this man was the Son of God.” Can that be true? A single teardrop falls from heaven, but no Roman soldier pipes up? I mean, if John Wayne can say it, surely one of the soldiers can say it!

A church congregation decided to have four worship services each Sunday. There was one for those new to the faith. Another for those who liked traditional worship. One for those who’d lost their faith and would like to get it back. And another for those who had bad experiences with churches and were complaining about it. The church came up with names for each of the services: FINDERS, KEEPERS, LOSERS, WEEPERS.

In case anyone was concerned that Mel wouldn’t make cash on this movie…

Wednesday Gross: $26,556,573
Thursday Gross: $14,781,316
Friday Estimate: $23,240,000

Current est BoxOff in 3 days: $64,578,000

In Three Days.

(Puts on former movie theater manager hat) I predict that it will make 20-25 million on Saturday and 15-20 million on Sunday. Expect estimates Monday to be in the 55-70 million range for the 3-day weekend. “Hannibal” is going down as the top February earner, and “The Ten Commandments” has already gone down as the top Biblical film of all time. Expect final BO to be in the 150-200 million dollar range, domestically. Probably in the 400-600 million range worldwide.

My complete predictions for Sunday Night:

I predict that Hollywood will have yet another self-congradulatory spasm involving left-wing politics and… Oh.. you mean THOSE predictions… OK.

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
Will Win: Sean Penn – MYSTIC RIVER
Should Win: Bill Murray – LOST IN TRANSLATION

Sean’s got a lot of coverage here and should win. Bill M may be able to pull out an upset.

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Will win: Tim Robbins – MYSTIC RIVER
Should Win: Ken Watanabe – THE LAST SAMURAI

Tim will win. Ken should. Amazing performance.

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Will and Should Win: Charlize Theron – MONSTER

Best performance of the year. Neurotic, sexual chicks often win this… Halle Berry anyone?

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Will Win: Renée Zellweger – COLD MOUNTAIN
Should Win: Marcia Gay Harden – MYSTIC RIVER

Rene… she’s really cute, but I can’t forgive her for Chicago.

ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
Will and Should Win: FINDING NEMO

Hands down. Triplets of Bellville may pull out an upset, but I’m going with the juggernaut.

ART DIRECTION
Will and Should: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING

Yep.

CINEMATOGRAPHY
Will Win: SEABISCUIT
Should Win: MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD

Seabiscuit was pretty, but MAC:TFSOTW was phenomenal.

COSTUME DESIGN
Can’t Decide Between:
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
SEABISCUIT

Uh… I’d prefer MAC, but all three were so well done, I can’t decide.

DIRECTING
Will and Should Win: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
Honorable Mention: LOST IN TRANSLATION

LOTR should finally win. Lost may be a dark horse.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Will and Should Win: THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS

Yup.

MAKEUP
Will and Should: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING

Uh-huh.

MUSIC (SCORE)
Will and Should: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
Honorable Mentions: BIG FISH, FINDING NEMO

LOTR will probably take this, but BF and FN were both beautiful scores that no one should overlook.

MUSIC (SONG)
Will and Should Win: “Into the West” – THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
Honorable Mention: “You Will Be My Ain True Love” – COLD MOUNTAIN

LOTR…

BEST PICTURE
Will and Should: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
Dark Horse: LOST IN TRANSLATION

Lost has a lot of momentum, but it trying to beat LOTR is kinda like putting a Honda Civic in front of a locomotive.

SHORT FILM (ANIMATED)
Will and Should Win: DESTINO

Man, I hope this wins… Walt and Roy Disney work with The Man, The Myth, The Legend of the art world: Salvadore Dali. Sat unfinished for 60 years…

VISUAL EFFECTS
Will and Should: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING

LOTR

WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY)
Will and Should Win: MYSTIC RIVER

I know a lot of LOTR fans want this, but MR was just a better adaptation.

WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)
Will and Should: LOST IN TRANSLATION

Should be the biggest award for Lost in the evening.

I was already prepping myself not to indulge in popcorn when I go to “The Passion” Monday, but that comment gets me thinking…

Well, probably not. SO, I’m just going to eat a double batch Sunday!

How about an Oscar roll, anyone?

Best Actor/Supporting
Best Actress/Supporting
Best Director/Film… if ROTK doesn’t win it will be an emmense shocker
Best whatever else intersts you :O) Score, Animation, Screenplay…

Any takers?

Matt Labash- who usually writes a provocative movie review- goes to The Passion, and ruminates on some of the overlooked issues:

But there are other important concerns in the Avalon Theatre on opening night, such as what to eat? Attending what is perhaps the most violent non-snuff film ever made, it seems inappropriate to down a greasy tub of popcorn while watching our Lord and Savior get tortured for two hours. (When I voiced this concern, a colleague slipped me a “Bible Bar,” which contains “the seven foods of Deuteronomy,” such as figs and pomegranates.) When I buy a Diet Coke, the concessions girl tells me business is way down for the aforementioned reason. But it doesn’t bother Norm Linsky, happily munching popcorn in the lobby. “A movie without popcorn is not a movie,” Linsky says, unapologetically.

Are we cynical or what? I just ordered the Passion Hymn CD. I can’t wait. I listened to a few of the excerpts that they had on there.

Michael,

You have hit one of my hot buttons and brought out the domestic diva in me.

Our family of seven spends currently $650 a month on food. I drive 45 minutes to go to the only discount market in Green Bay and it still is a strech for us to make it. We eat red meat two times a month as a splurge. I have even written a thank you note recently to our local grocer because he has “Dole Salad” bags as a loss leader consistantly offered at 2/$1 (usually $2.50 a bag) and this enables our family to even be able to afford salad regularly.

It kills me when I work so terribly hard to make this work to feed our family well and I see (a number of times) individuals pulling out food stamps to buy one premade deli sandiwhich, bag of chip chips and some kind of desert for the amount of money it takes to feed the entire family a healthy dinner (I routinely calculate the cost of the meal as we are finishing up and annouce it to give myself brownie budget points) It drives me nuts.

But God help me that I maintain compassion, these folk need to be educated, and unfortunately the nutritionists in the schools (or at WIC) can only do so much.

I guess Bickle can give the latest weird gnostic dream inspired recently Paul Cain decoded word from god from those even the Vineyard excommunicated (Take that!) And Cameron is clearly lobbying to be the lead in “The Passion II: The Early Years.” Or maybe he’s just signing LB DVDs. Or leading “Rapture Practice.”

That’s the kind of stuff that drives me nuts, although in a different direction around here. I get the feeling that that catholic priest around here isn’t really welcomed with open arms to the local minister’s thingy, but the UPC guy is involved (I think I have my facts straight. If I don’t, I will repent). I’d much rather have the RC priest than a Trinity denying heretic any day of the week. In fact, I’d rather have the priest than most of the tract delivering Baptists.

That’s the same Bickle and it is disappointing.

I’m not much of a CCM guy anymore, but I do enjoy listening to 3rd Day sing the songs that come from the Psalms. I don’t get that nearly enough. I absolutely cannot wait to buy this CD. This is something I have been waiting for ever since I heard Chris Tomlin do “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross”. I’ve been playing the hymns from the RUF songbook for a while now. “A Mighty Fortress” is awesome.

I have clearly said in my post and in personal correspondence to Josh that I am not booting anyone. I can try harder. So can he. For example, I promise not to say Lutheran bullsxxx on my blog.

This is making the rounds, and it probably will never get traction, but if it’s true, it should. It’s bizarre. Just plain bizarre. Basically it says Rick Warren is accepting Mormons and New Age “churches” at his pastor’s training events. I guess there are two sides to this, but it’s another indication that Warren isn’t quite what he appears to be.

I know that I have recently re-upped, but I actively lurked when Josh joined the BHT and I became of the opinion that this man is a smart cookie and that he was a grand addition to the roll. He knows his stuff and as serves for me as an encouragement to press on intellectually, loving God with all of my mind.

I did read the “about me” page at his blog awhile back and just gasped seeing his age. Goodness! Well, as Luther has been adopted as the “patron saint”
perhaps maybe his fiery spirit might just flare up the BHT at times; especially considering Josh is the devout Lutheran ;) here.

Yet, it’s Michael’s blog, let him do what he wants :O).

Mike Bickle as in Kansas City Prophets? Very disappointing. Kirk Cameron, who many folks say virtually ruined One Day with his weak little talk. Let’s get a celebrity. Looks like finding someone to hammer in the lessons of Christ crucified at a most opportune time didn’t make the program. I’d rather have Campolo.

I was thinking about trying to go to Ichthus this year if only to make a trip up to Wilmore again to see my friends. The bands don’t look too bad, but then I looked at the speaker list. Mike Bickle? C’mon. Kirk Cameron? I’m definitely not going this year, even if Michael’s favorite band, Third Day, peforming ;-)

Richard Corliss at TIME, a card carrying liberal, writes a fine essay on liberal hypocrisy about movies, particularly The Passion. You don’t read this often.

Kentucky is the second, or third, poorest state in America. I live in the 119th poorest of Kentucky’s 120 counties. I see poverty- and its reasons- every day. So when I open my new copy of Brennan Manning’s book, and the first sentence my eyes light upon is some statement that 1 in 5 children in America goes to bed hungry, you may be surprised at my reaction.

About 40% of the children in our county live in what someone calls “poverty,” which even in the worse cases includes several cars, air conditioning, cable, and lots of free food. I watch our county’s poor buy food at the local market with their food stamps, and our ministry donates lots of food to locals as well. Most churches donate food around here. Food for the Children, World Vision, CAP and others have projects here. The “poor” come in bunches to pick up what we donate….mostly to resell. Same with most all of what we donate in clothes and food.

One in five kids may be going to bed having eaten chips and Twinkies all day. One in five may miss 2 days of school or more a week because mom won’t get up. One in five may be without some reasonable part of health care that a normal parent would provide. But one in five are most definately NOT going to bed hungry in this part of America. Not one in ten. Not one in twenty. And the one that is, isn’t going to bed hungry because food isn’t available or assitance isn’t available. It’s because their parent is a meth head or a total mental case or a criminal or choosing to live like a bum.

It isn’t my fault, nor is it America’s fault or the church’s fault that Clay County is awash in white trash poverty. It’s the fault of a culture that prefers this kind of life over jobs, work and the work ethic. Drugs, welfare, ignorance, laziness: it’s a chosen way of life. People come to this county to move into the backwoods and live like this!

So I love Brennan, but I don’t like this knee jerk quoting of liberal tear jerk lines so many Christians engage in to make their point. Come and see for yourselves people- if you can stand having reality intrude on the platitudes.

Then Jesus took the bread, broke it, and gave thanks, saying “This is my body broken for you. Only eat of this bread among people of the same denomination as you.” Peter asked, “What is a denomination, Lord?” Jesus replied, “That is not for you to know now, Peter. This is for people many, many years in the future. I have only chosen one denomination as the true church, but I will not say now which it is. That way, each denomination will believe they are the only true church, and therefore will only partake of my body among those of their particular beliefs.” Peter said, “What the **** are you talking about?” Jesus said, “Shut up, Simon bar-Jonah, and let me finish.”

Then Jesus took the cup after supper saying, “Drink of it, all of you. This is the new covenant in my blood. Just be aware that you had better not drink this outside our little group, because if you drink it among others, even if they claim to be believers, you are saying, in effect, that you agree with every jot and tittle of their doctrine, even the parts that are wrong.” Peter said, “But Lord, what does that have to do with your body and blood?” Jesus said, “Nothing, I’m just trying to please the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.” Peter replied, “Um, okay, Lord, I have no idea what you are talking about. Uhhhh, look, I think I might have left the stove on at home. I’m need to go back a check. See you later!” And Peter departed, puzzled. Then John asked, “Lord, what’s a stove?”

Russell, not if you’re visiting the clubs so you can hand out Chick tracts about the evils of booze and dancing.

Russell: Sssshhhh. Richard is Scott’s imaginary friend. We just play along. Okay.

Scott Ward: Who’s Richard?

Richard: It depends. Who’re you clubbin’? Are you using wooden clubs or aluminum baseball bats? If you’re using wood, are there any nails in it? If you’re using aluminum, are they sanctioned by Major League Baseball.

These are all fine points, Richard… and they will all help you to determine whether your senseless act of random violence is truly evil or good.

Oh – and in case it’s not immediately obvious… (SW)

Hey guys, is clubbin’ a sin?

Jesus died for our sins…
No greater love than for a man to give up his life for his friends…
It is accomplished…

I got to see it tonight, and for all the hoopla, controversy, and discussion… Mel Gibson has made an outstanding work of art.

It’s manipulative and hurtful… probably the most abusive film I’ve ever encountered. Probably 90% of it came directly from Scripture, the rest coming from history, some legend, some tradition, and artistic license… I guess it’s best to break it down…

The Good: An absolute masterpiece of art. Mel’s atmospheric directing, combined with flawless cinematography and a perfect musical score have produced one of the finest films of our age, Christian or secular. It is absolutely good art. The acting is as close to perfect as it gets – with only Herod sticking out like a sore thumb. The performance of the actress playing Satan was just plain creepy – although the “Mini-Me” thing with the midget did get a quiet, inappropriate chuckle from me…

The Bad: There’s not really anything bad I can say. We don’t get a solid idea of exactly who Christ is, but that’s not really Mel’s point. The film is trying to portray the Passion – the suffering of the Christ, and does so extremely well. The Resurrection lasted only a minute or so, but still… Mel told in a single minute what other filmmakers have struggled to tell in 20 (Ahem… “In Search of Historic Jesus” and “The Judas Project” – I’m lookin’ at you).

The Ugly: While it doesn’t deserve the NC-17 many reviewers call for (Saving Private Ryan was MUCH gorier), it is easily the most brutal treatment of a single character onscreen – ever. It is absolutely inappropriate for young kids – whatever the message.

I can’t help it… “Return of the King” was my first four-star film since “Schindler’s List”. “The Passion” doesn’t have to wait as long for its due and just reward.

• (out of 4)

A few responses to comments…

Michael: Scott…is there any way to add anyone else? Be truthful…

Yes. However – it will be a week or so before I can do it. I’m off to Charlotte for training next week and won’t have access to my files. But I can add people with a fair amount of ease.

I’ll tell you what… when I get back on the 8th, I’ll re-open the photo submission for a couple more days. That should give a chance both to those who couldn’t meet the deadline AND to those of us who may be staying away for a few days… (Josh: if you re-join the blog, let me know through e-mail).

And yes, I have noticed that there’s a lot of goatees around here. So far, Denise doesn’t have one, but I’m not sure if Noel got her genes on the subject from D or Michael… I guess we’ll have to see.

On the opening day for “The Passion” I went to a 6 year old’s birthday party at the rollerskating rink. Lest that make no sense, understand that the rink is right NEXT to the theater.

And there was a mobile trailer out front of the theater with a big sign on it that said “WHY JESUS?” Now, some people might read that as in “Why Jesus, compared to other options you may have.” Not me. I read it as a prayer. And a whiney one at that. “WHYYYYY Jesus? Can you please tell me why these people are sitting in a trailer with a big sign on it in front of a movie theater?”

Yeah. It was fun. You can read about the roller skating thing.

I’ll surprise you all by saying that I vote for Josh staying, too. You wouldn’t know it to read my repeated invitations for him to leave, but remember please that those were preceded by quite a few attempts to discuss things rationally with him. Only after giving up on those attempts, and most importantly, only after seeing how Josh’s continued actions were dragging the iMonk into the doldrums, did I unleash with both barrels. Remember how easy-going I was/am with Kynn and others, and know that is the real me. The me you’ve seen recently is concerned primarily with restoring the iMonk’s comfort with his own blog.

Please, everybody remember that – this is Michael’s bar and we’re all guests. And if he is the barkeeper, call me the bouncer, because I don’t like to see the bartender depressed.

When Michael started offering to stay away from the BHT to avoid certain discussions and certain discussion styles, that’s when I hit the panic button.

I think that there are many depths to the RP discussion and open/closed communion in general that we could have. I’d love to have them, because I’m intrigued by both ideas. Discussions, however, don’t usually involve accusations of things that have been known to get people’s bodies exhumed so that they could be burned.

I can be passionate about what I believe, too. I’ve gone toe-to-toe with Michael before, too, and probably will again. But I hope my statements never cause him to want to quit blogging here, and I hope everybody else has the same attitude.

I don’t even care that I’ve been misrepresented and misquoted on Josh’s blog. That’s fine. I was acting out and it isn’t natural to me, so I’m not surprised I went overboard. I should have left the ranting and raving to Angus, who has much more skill with it.

Note to Josh: Please consider the possibility that the single common factor to all of your dysfunctional relationships is you. Frankly speaking, I hope you grow out of it. Not because I want to you to lose the passion of your beliefs, but because I want you to see that beliefs are held by people, and people are worth loving as Christ loves. It’s hard to say, “I’m willing to die for you because I love you so much, but you’re a heretic who believes a false gospel,” regardless of the definitions you assign to the words. It isn’t the clear and direct statements so much (though they have been offensive, too), it’s the attitude.

Also to Josh; Thank you. Denise asked for revealing examples of depravity the other day, and I’ll tell you mine. My reaction to what I see as Josh disrespectfully provoking Michael revealed things about me I didn’t want to know. It turns out that my highly treasured compassion and patience have a limit, and the drop-off is severe and ugly. There is no point in trying to hide the ugliness of my passion — you’ve all seen it. So I truly do thank you, Josh, for pointing out an area of my life which I need to submit to the Holy Spirit to see His fruit.

And if you can engage your mind long enough to keep your heart in check, I was serious about the apparent priority of fellowship over grace. Or maybe I just misunderstood.

Has anyone read Josh’s About Me page? Anybody here remember being 20 years old and feeling like that? I do.

I say give the kid a break.

I remember when I was 21 and met the man who would disciple me for the next several years. He had seen more and done more than 12 of me would ever do, but he listened to me talk, almost never corrected me, and lived out a practical walk with God right there in front of me. One of the important lessons I learned from him was that I could be wrong for all the right reasons, and that being right meant very little in the Kingdom of God.

I think Josh is wrong for all the right reasons. And I thank God that my friend Homer didn’t tell me to hit the trail when I was young and fervent and right.

Give the kid a break. He’s not even old enough to drink.

Hey, if you boot Josh, you might have to boot me.

Because, after a few more Sundays and a few more sips of Thunderbird and a few more crackers, I’m going to start having the subjective revelation which happens to Lutherans, and I’m going to be on the bandwagon.

What’s more, I’m going to stop believing in logic. Watch out. In a few weeks, I’ll be exchanging Lutheran high-fives with Josh (so don’t boot him).

I’m not kidding. Don’t you all want to see this? Won’t it make the tavern a lot more interesting?

I’m really not kidding. I think the LCMS rocks and I’m glad I joined it. It just might be the truest church on the planet. It’s insistence on eucharistic discipline is evidene of that.

The only reason I gave Josh such a hard time is because he reminds me of me several years ago. Heck, I’m still like that a lot of the time. I like to flip out and have meta-conversations, rather than conversations, too. (You people can vouch for me, you’ve seen it, right here.) Anything I accused him of, I’m probably doubly guilty of. And I had about 5% of the knowledge to work on than he did!

I’m not promising anything. I might get more mild instead of more raving. But hopefully not.

NO JN!

I would rather see a topic dead-horsed than have someone leave, although I don’t think either is necessary.

Let me say, first of all, that I don’t think lying is part of the situation. That’s entirely my view, and I wouldn’t have brought it up. I’ve never considered that to be on the map here.

I’ll be happy to dead horse the subject of the Real Presence and the Lord’s Supper if we can find a way to deal with the reality I will describe below.

I have not supported any of the requests to boot anyone for rule 9- yet. While decisions to boot are mine to make alone, I don’t make that decision without some communication with other long time posters. This instance is no different. I’m not booting anyone at this point. From those I have talked with, the room seems pretty evenly divided on that issue. But we are upset, and we can do better. We can all be friends. But we are going to have to face some facts about one another. I’m pretty good at hanging my laundry out for everyone to see, and I’ve done it frequently. Why I react strongly shouldn’t be a mystery to anyone who can say “Hall St. Baptist Church.”

I respect and appreciate those who are supporting Josh as a learning opportunity at the BHT. You all have options. None of us has to interact with anyone. I’ve chosen to not interact with posters on a number of occaisons for various periods of time. I think that is an intelligent and often compassionate option.

I want to personally apologize for characterizing the LCMS as being represented entirely by what Josh posted. I’ve received three letters from lurkers saying that the “Confessionalists” in the LCMS shouldn’t be viewed as the only voice of Lutheranism, and each letter urged me to not see the LCMS through the lenses of one person. I hear that, and I do apologize for that rash characterization. I know better from my own reading and experiences.

I have also had a learning experience today. I spent the last part of an hour reading the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on “Heresy.” I was clearly wrong to say all heresy is damnable, and I want to apologize to Josh for using that characterization, though, as I will say later, there are still real questions about this. What I have learned is that Josh could fairly characterize what I call “errors” as “heresy” and not mean that any of them are damnable. It doesn’t exclude that apparently, but it doesn’t automatically require it. If Josh decided to post again, he might shed some light on differences between his use of the term and the article I referenced.

So I want to say clearly that my reaction to the term “heresy” was based on my own impressions of what that meant, and I was not aware of some of the subtlety that would make the term error more appropriate. My fault. I am an ignorant and unlearned person, and I am glad to learn.

But when all of these interactions are put in context, there is a continuing problem. I don’t want to sound like a 47 year old evangelical softee, but I do work with young people, and I am not unfamiliar with how zeal and certainty tend to dwell in younger people differently than it does it me. Zealots freak me out. I’m immediately uncomfortable. I easily doubt myself. Nothing is quite as discomforting as being in the presence of that guy who has more information than I do, understands the issues on deeper levels that I do, and is darn certain that he’s right. I’m not all that darned certain about anything. Remember?

Somewhere between heresy, “another Gospel,” “stupid crap” and various things said about empty symbols and denying the incarnation, we’ve gotten into Galatians 1 territory:

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

“Christ may accept you, but I would excommunicate you.”

“What you believe is another Gospel.” And we can all read the passage above easier than we can read that article on heresy.

The trouble here, for me at least, is entirely personal. And I know Josh doesn’t need to hear this, because the mongrel environment in which I minister is the antithesis of his own faith journey, and I deeply respect that journey.

But I cannot preach to 400 students that they should reject at the Lord’s Table those Christ has accepted. I cannot counsel my fellow Christian staff and believe, in my heart, that we cannot commune together. I cannot witness to Christ, and also believe that the only truthful thing I can offer these people after Christ is a particular Church communion. I can’t preach that. I can’t counsel that way. I can’t tell my children that is how it works. I can’t live that way. Theology be damned.

I believe in one body, one Lord, one baptism and one communion of saints. Of course, as an evangelical, it is not possible for me to believe what I believe about these things without being a heretic, i.e. in error. As a person who has no options for true, non-heretical, church fellowship, it’s difficult to talk too long about these things and not feel uncomfortable. (JN) If I learned correctly, heresy means to be in open rebellion against the authority of “the church.” To affirm the faith that I believe in my heart, is to be heretical.

Like the Reformed Baptist Elder who once told me I was not a true minister if I pastored a church without elders, Josh has raised the crucial issue: If you can’t believe that your faith is true, then why believe in it at all? That is precisely my problem.

I am more than prepared to repent of my stubbornness with Josh if he will do a couple of things. Easy things:

1) Try to understand us. I know we are obnoxious theologically. But we are fellow pilgrims. That is the more important thing. And we will endeavor to understand him, and Lutherans too. :)
2) If you are to help us learn, do it compassionately. You are a teacher. But this isn’t math. And we aren’t that bright. :)
3) Don’t excerpt us at your blog as examples of error. I know you were once part of the communions we are all in now (or many of us) and that means you left because we were wrong! :-) But stilll..have mercy!

I met you. I liked you. I still do. I want you in the picture, and I want you in the bar IF we can work this out. If not, so be it.

Hmm, let’s see if i’m banned yet. I’ll try to post:

I was going to suggest dead-horsing communion policy and the Lord’s Supper until PW decided I needed to be banned. I think the consensus around here is that I need to go, so nevermind.

Ah, the babies were born by C-Section. Ignore my previous post.

Scott: Might not be so bad. Having them so closely together wouldn’t allow for the , er, opening, to retract. Babies 2-6 probably shot outta there like crap through a goose.

OK… thanks to everyone that got me their photos…

Thanks to the incredible skills of the guy who wrote the program… a little JASC Paint Shop Pro… and a big honkin’ project at work that’s on hold while management figures some stuff out… I present to you…

The BHT / SP Group Photo... complete with names!

As a special bonus, I’ve even included our illustrious Patron Saint of the BHT.

Ouch

Phillip: So if someone converts from being an ardent Moslem to being an ardent Hindu to being an ardent atheist to being an ardent Christian, his faith is completely questionable, and he might as well brand himself a fool and leave the religion. I don’t really see a difference.

If heresy has always meant that whoever believes it will be damned, then why are there canonized saints who were part of the Nestorian church? Neither the Eastern nor the Roman churches have changed their verbiage and continue to call Nestorianism a “heresy.” The Nestorian churches and other non-Chalcedonian churches are still regarded by “heretical” sects by Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, yet they’ve produced writers, theologians, prayers, and liturgies that are considered very Christian and very useful by them.

Guess who invented the word “heresy?” They did.

“Gos