Douglas, stay in the city, I bet you don’t eat dandilion greens either.

AAARRRGHH!!! FUNGUS!!! RUN AWAYYYYY!!!!!!

Bill, can you smell these frying in butter? Talk about ‘emergent’...

Well, whatever else you think of Armstrong’s article, he’s got this part dead on:

My solution to this problem is sacramental. It is not neo-orthodox, though some will say it is. And it is not irrational, or against logic. The fundamentalist spirit will insist on saying this too. By this means the spirit of fundamentalism will not have to deal with what I am actually saying. It can put a “label” on it. If you wish to oppose something this method will generally work, since it ends all discussion. You can almost always get people to agree with a label. Call a person, or position, liberal, or conservative in some cases, and there is no need to seriously ponder the arguments being made.

He couldn’t be more correct. Imagine a parishioner in a “Truly Reformed” church coming to his pastor with a book handed to him by a friend who highly recommended it. This parishioner is excited about the book, because he sees the excitement in his friend’s response. He wants to know what his TR pastor thinks of the book before diving into it.

The book is by N.T. Wright.

“Wright’s a postmodern,” the good TR pastor replies. “You don’t want to read the shoddy theology of a postmodern.” End of discussion, in many cases. The simple label is a catch-all defense against anything that doesn’t fit neatly into the TR theology.

That smell you smell is the big pile of kindling being lit in preparation for the roasting John Armstrong is going to receive over his latest weekly newsletter.

He’s gonna be in for it now. IMHO he does veer dangerously close to neo-orthodoxy, in terminology if not in spirit. And his harsh words for the “fundamentalists” are going to get him in deep kimchi. Watch your favorite local Totally Reformed weblogs for the gory details as they unfold…

Josh, do you believe it to be very important that people be punished for their misdeeds? If so, why?

I love the quote, I can relate to the quote.

My tenure as a believer could be described as a struggle between what I’ve learned to be true and what I prefer to believe. In counseling this is the struggle of counter-transference, the battle between what my client is actually like, and what I want them to be. I assume this is a factor in parenting, I know it’s a factor in marriage; it seems to me pretty much the case in theological studies/schools.

It’s kind of like the alcoholic that wants everyone to drink with him; he has a way that he prefers to view the world, and it affirms him every time he can get somebody to see the world the same way.

Today, I just found out on the news, is World No Tobacco Day.

In dishonor of the occasion, I shall sit out on my porch this evening and enjoy a big honkin’ bowlful of J. M. Boswell’s finest Mild English, with a good brew on the side.

Just doing my part for Christian liberty. :-}

Opening Disclaimer: I’ve been trying to find time to post this all day, so this is not me picking on Kent’s use of the word “prefer” in his post. I get where you’re coming from, Kent, and at least pragmatically, it seems like you can achieve (a) an optimistic view of God’s working for our salvation, and (b) the humility often absent from people operating from an us/them standpoint.

Anyway, on to the topic at hand. All this naming ourselves (Reformed, Baptist, Emergent, PoMo, whatever) can be frustrating. For a couple of years now, in the midst of all my frustrations with various theological debates, I’ve been thinking about developing my own little brand of theology. I call it “Preferred Theology.” This is a theology of what my preferences would be, if I didn’t have to deal with the tough questions. Here are some aspects of the theology if I could have it my way. Perhaps we can develop a whole liturgy and praxis to follow.

Once Saved Always Saved, not to be confused with all the perseverance stuff. Perseverance is hard. Signing a “go to heaven free” card and moving on with my life is preferable, for a sinful person.

Universalism, or at least annihilationism. Either of these are easier than that whole eternal damnation thing.

Pre-trib Rapture or Postmillenialism, ‘cause I either want to get out before it gets really bad, or I want us to win.

Feel free to contribute to the list of major points of Preferred Theology. Perhaps we can develop the CPTA (Church of Preferred Theology in America) if enough folks get on board.

Someone change the banner quote while I’m gone.

Since my universalistic tendencies have been well established (jn), it seems that a few sentences, maybe a paragraph of explanation are in order.

First, I prefer to think in a universalistic manner because if it were my choice nobody would be left behind, I love the idea that all things can be reconciled in Christ. Second, by thinking universalistically I’m able to comfortably talk to everyone I encounter as if they’re a believer. Third, since I talk to everyone as if they are a believer I have no need to categorize everyone I encounter in life; I don’t need to keep a list in my head of ‘who’s in’ and ‘who’s out’. This was always a tough thing for me, it caused a lot of stress, anger and sin (and I see that it causes a lot of stress, anger and sin in others). Fourth, I’ve come to believe (operationally) that salvation is God’s issue and task-at-hand, not mine.

This may be a reaction to my recent immersion in Capon’s writings. It wouldn’t be my first reaction to what I’m reading. As a final note I must acknowledge that what I prefer has not always aligned with what God prefers, which is of course the genuine test of reality and truth. I’ve never been able to get my head around monergism, I just know that I made some choices. The issue for me is that at some level of thinking about this kind of stuff my head starts making noises like it’s going to explode, and when that happens I realize that for all of us it truly becomes like Robert Duvall’s character in Secondhand Lions says: “Eventually, a man simply has to decide what he wants to believe.”

This may be why I’m likely PoMo, but that’s a subject for another post.

Rachel: I hope not, because I pray that prayer myself for more than a few people I love. I think, though, that what you’re doing when you pray is demonstrating that you share God’s desire for your father’s salvation. And if, as I believe, sanctification is the process of learning to see things the way that God does, then that’s a good thing for you, regardless. Not that I’m heartless enough to say that your father’s salvation shouldn’t matter to you (or to me, either).

Here is a site where people anonymously post their secrets (Examples: “People think I’ve stopped lying… but I’ve just gotten better at it” or “The meds don’t work. But I say they do. And no one knows” or “I lied [under] oath”). All the “confessions” are on postcards (mostly handmade). There must be a hundred of them. Some, as you might expect, are of a sexual nature but very few are prurient. Perhaps the largest category deals with dissapointment with life or with oneself. Secret fears are another big theme (Eg. “I still haven’t told my father that I have the same disease that killed my mother”). Some of these might be fake but most ring true.

The effect of reading them all – and it does make for riveting reading – is rather like eavesdropping at the confessional booth. Some of the cards are terribly sad and others quite funny. Some arouse compassion and help me look below the surface . A few of these remind me of myself, which is both a little unsettling as well as oddly comforting.

Rachel asks “Just how do we get to that stage of wanting?” Michael will have to forgive me a bit of pragmatism in my answer.

I could be a Good Reformed Thinker™ and say that it’s God’s sovereign particular grace, in the person of the Holy Spirit, reaching a person, placing and stirring within them the desire for God and the ability to understand and accept the Gospel. We could then fight a bit about when this happened (at birth, baptism, or some point of conversion), but it would be an in-house argument between people who basically agree. (Not that in-house arguments can’t get nasty, and end up with a bunch of broken dishes at times.)

Or, I could simply quote scripture, and throw out “faith comes by hearing” or “how shall they hear except someone preach” or some such, and point out that the bible itself makes salvation contingent on some action on someone’s part, and we could rehash Wretched Urgency a bit, just for fun.

But I think I’d rather answer with a question of my own. “What makes you love your spouse?” The question isn’t answerable, really, because no matter what answer one gives – and there are any number of explanations that work; psychology has innumerable theories alone, there are many workable genetic/biological/chemical models. We could hook you up to a SPECT scanner and watch the capillaries expand in your brain when you see your spouse, and measure the glucose consumption of your frontal lobe when you hear his/her voice etc. And no matter which we pick, the doctor or technician would be perfectly correct to point at their chart or printout or screen and say, “that’s what makes you love your spouse.” But of course, we would both know that they were wrong, or at least incomplete at some important level, because any measure of those things, anything observable in our behavior or bodies or whatever, in our world-view, at least is understood to be a response to “something else,” something transcendent and immeasurable within us that is “love.”

I’m willing, in other words, for the “why do I love God” question to remain a mystery, and just love him.

So, when I pray for God to open my Dad’s ears so that he clearly hears the gosple and to soften my Dad’s heart so that he accepts salvation, am I asking God to force my Dad to want him?

OK, maybe I need a pseudonym to post under so people don’t mistakenly think I’m being sarcastic when I’m not.

If one is a parent, and one’s kids are old enough to actively & deliberately refuse to do things that one want them to do, then unless one totally clueless, the distinction between

“I want my child to do what I tell them to do.”

and

“I want my child to want to do what I tell them to do.”

should be pretty obvious. The first can demonstrate compliance, but the second demonstrates love. God wants our love. He’s not interested in our compliance (outside of the context of love for Him,) because compliance can be forced.

Whether you believe everyone will be saved, I think even honest universalists (within the Christian faith, at least) would agree that:

1) God could force everyone to accept him, if he wanted them to, and

2) God doesn’t force everyone to accept him.

So, either

a) God will save even people who don’t accept him (which is universalism, reduced to the simplest terms), or

b) God will only save people who do some special thing (even if that special thing is only a mental acceptance of him on some level), which is justification by works, or

c) God is somehow less interested in whether we accept salvation than he is in something else.



In my view, the “something else” of c is “our love for God.” You can phrase that a number of ways – our recognition of our helplessness, our acknowledgment of his lordship, our gratitude for his love for us, His own glorification, or whatever else you like along those lines – and it still works.

I think the problem is that a lot of people – even Calvinists – believe that the ultimate point of everything in creation is “salvation for the elect” (however they define “elect”). God made the world, put people in it, and created the conditions under which men could fall, knowing that they would, just so he could save them? For no other reason? With no higher purpose?

So, Jim are you saying the real issue is that of total depravity?
“3. God wants to save all, and he could, but he wants us to want to be saved “more” than he wants to save us.”
That we can change our own hearts so that we accept? Are you saying that somehow we can come to that acceptance by our own “will power”. Or if we are bright enough or if someone preaches the right words to us or what.
Just how do we get to that stage of wanting?

we could offer a fourth alternative, espoused by the likes of Bishop Spong and Oolon Colluphid.

“Who is this God person anyway?”

Jim: That’ll make more sense once you pass that fattyboombatty.

Bill, since it’s Tuesday, and I’m not a universalist on Tuesdays, I can offer a third alternative:

3. God wants to save all, and he could, but he wants us to want to be saved “more” than he wants to save us.

I think the only safe label that you can use without getting heckled is “monergist” these days. ;)

Funny how I never see a “monergistic baptist church” around.

Bill, that is what it boils down to for me in spite of all the other things involved and I choose #1 “God could save all, but doesn’t choose to” .
So I guess that makes me a Calvinist of some sort whether I like the label or not.

As I said in my earlier post. I don’t particularly like the doctrine of election. And yes, you get some of the doctrine from Jesus Himself, but admittedly not all. No, I don’t know how unconditional election (OR conditional election, for that matter) squares with God’s love for all humanity. I agree that we shouldn’t necessarily preach election, but an invitation for all to be saved. But inevitably, the questions come up:

Why aren’t all people saved (unless, like Kent, you believe that they are)?
When we pray for someone to be saved; “What exactly are we asking God to do?”

Does it really boil down to these two alternatives? 1. God could save all, but doesn’t choose to. 2. God wants to save all, but can’t.

I only have time for a quickie post, but can we give this guy an honorary membership?

I am on the road for the next 2-3 days and won’t be posting. I trust someone will keep this place open.

Someone may stop in here today looking for some kind of drama involving a BHT poster “coming out” and being “celebrated” for doing so. Here’s what I have to say about that:

A person who very rarely posts on this blog did come out on his own blog, and acknowledged that here. There was no celebration here of any kind, and it is absolutely delusional to say so. Every responding post I read expressed the view that the Bible says sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong. The BHT being JUST A BAR, however, and not a CHURCH or a MINISTRY, we are not throwing this individual out of posting privileges. (why should we?) Nor are we gathering around with stones as if we are more righteous. Nor are we engaging in anti-gay rhetoric as if there’s not plenty of that around the Christian blogosphere. I’ve expressed my preference that the topic not be part of the BHT discussion, and I expect that will be honored. I don’t want to know about the sexual sins of BHT posters. I’ll talk about Jesus/the Gospel and let God sort out who got it and who didn’t. Sorry if that doesn’t suit someone out there who thinks the BHT is the church on the corner.

So Bill….

Do you ever have any doubts that, if you had followed Jesus around and watched him interact with crowds of people, listened to his teaching, learned the lessons that are there for us in the incarnation, you would still be completely and utterly convinced that Jesus endorsed the reformed doctrine of predestination, with regeneration totally dependent on sovereign election and salvation only for the elect?

As I study the Gospel of John with my adult class, it becomes increasingly difficult for me to say that three years with Jesus would have convinced me that Jesus came to be the messiah, in fact, for the elect only.

The philosophical tension that “If all could be saved, then why aren’t all saved?” doesn’t seem to trouble the writers of much of the New Testament. The issue, for me, is the bona fide notion of the invitations of Jesus. I heard Roger Nicole once preach on the reformed idea that Jesus invitation to any and all was still an endorsement of the election of only some. I sat there thinking, “Ok. Why do I feel like I’ve just been told that white can still be black if you just look at it right?” But I swallowed it for years, because reformed logic seems to make the case.

But now, I keep finding myself wondering if I really need someone to explain to me that passages like Matthew 11:25-30 are to be controlled by the doctrine of election in the first half, with the invitation of the second half actually being something other that what it sounds like. Something’s wrong with that approach to so plain an invitation to “all who are heavy laden.”

I find myself like Spurgeon, who seemed to always believe in election, but as he got older, quit talking about it and simply invited everyone to be saved.

[Moderator sez: I actually do feel better :) Now enjoy this :)]

Um…nope. nothin’ to say. congrats to the Sox on that one. dang, that hurts.

Bill, that about sums it up for me. I can’t get around those questions either. Of course, I haven’t read that article yet, so I’ll say nothing more till I get to it.

I can’t let it go. I understand the problems with Calvinism. I don’t have answers for them all, but I truly fail to see the difference between:

God sovereignly chooses to pass over some sinners (the Calvinist view)

and

God allows certain sinners to be born knowing in advance that they will never come to faith by their own free will but He’s sorry about it and it makes Him sad. It’s not what He wanted, even though He knew how it would be. (the Arminian view).

I don’t see the latter as any more loving (from God’s perspective) than the former. What am I missing?

If God truly loves all people the same way, and desires all of them to be saved, then why aren’t all of them saved? If God knows what it will take to bring a person to repentance, why doesn’t He do it? Jesus said a few miracles would have brought the people of Sodom to their knees in repentance. Why didn’t he do it? I’m not asking these questions rhetorically. I’m not trying to be smug. I really want to know.

Belief in God’s foreknowledge is what really blows it for me. I think only an Open Theist can truly reconcile God’s power, universal love, universal desire for all to be saved, and the fact that some aren’t saved. And I can’t buy Open Theism.

This keeps coming up in various places, and of course there is no hard evidence, because the darned emergent thing isn’t anything. What does Warren’s presence in a book like that mean?

-Someone at the publisher had a good idea how to sell more books. – The book is more of a PDC for twenty-somethings than an “Emergent” book, which is the case with a good bit of this.
-The guys know each other.
-Emergents are open to a lot of different kinds of input.
-It’s a different Rick Warren (jn)

I don’t think Warren is the Emergent anti-Christ, but go to an emergent convention or read emergent weblogs for a while and ask yourself if they are trying to build what Warren built out there? Ask if they would do the “survey to see what you don’t want in a church” thing. The emergents- in the majority- are not trying to build big churches, they are not trying to do the SBC church growth thing, they are not trying to preach acrostic pablum and they wouldn’t write that Ladies Home Journal piece.

One thing I have learned about Warren: He will present himself as anything. His famous interview with Michael Horton where he claimed to be a reformed Calvinist proved that.

So I don’t think he’s the enemy or its a reaction. In fact, Driscoll probably has a lot in common with some of Warren’s ideas, as do a lot of these guys starting their own churches. But emergent has a lot more going on than “let’s start a new church with a cool band.”

I don’t know if I’m so certain that emergents are all that ticked off at Warren and others. Dan Kimball’s book, The Emerging Church has a forward by Warren, quotes him a few times, and there’s a running Warren commentary (among others) in the book’s margin throughout. Is there concrete evidence I’m missing that Emergent is a reaction against Warren and the church growth folks?

About that Rowan Williams article… well, if this trend keeps up, if N.T. ever does become Archbishop of Cantebury, there may be no “Anglican Church” to be a head of – or at best only a rump. The Archbishop of Rwanda (or one of his peers) may become the real head of the worldwide Anglicans, while Wright gets to baby-sit the last tenders of the dying US/UK/CAN/AUS liberal Episcopalian flame.

Challie’s post referencing the books that most influence pastors was disturbing. But perhaps this is also a seminary problem. If pastors over 40 are more heavily influenced by Warrenism™, would older seminary professors (the vast majority) be equally as likely to buy into the church-growth model? I only had 1 professor that would summarily denounce the Purpose-Driven™ model as garbage. Others either wouldn’t take a stand or thought it had its place in American Christianity.

I’m not able to attend a truely Emergent church because I’m not artistic enough (semi-jn), but I understand 100% what they are reacting against. The fact that most pastors >40 like this garbage results in a lack of older men discipling the younger pastors. That’s why a lot of the Emergent folk are so negative, they don’t have enough older leaders to help channel the energy constructively, and why you have a bunch of young guys with no experience and no training becoming pastors.

Michael: I read the article on Calvinism, and I have to admit that I was not convinced by it – naturally, since I am still “calvinistic”. But I am also not really interested in debating it. God is loving, and God is sovereign. How these two work out is something I no longer desire to fight over, or have a claim to inspired insight on.

When I finished reading the article, I was reminded of a sermon by Spurgeon on I Tim 2:3-4, reprinted as the last chapter of Iain Murray’s book Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism. When I first read it, I hated it. The great Charles Spurgeon, Calvinist evangelist extraordinaire, thought that this passage was a MYSTERY!!! I thought, “Come on, Charles, show some guts! Remember that ‘all men’ cannot mean ‘all of humanity’, because the logic of the wider biblical context (hell, God’s sovereignty) demands it!” Etc etc etc.

Now, I begin to think that maybe Spurgeon was right. Some things in Scripture are mysteries, and we won’t see the final reconciliation until the end. And there are bigger theological and ecclesiological problems to be dealt with in America today.

I’m not saying that Calvin and Zwingli should have drowned anabaptists.

I knew we’d get to this eventually. Anabaptists had absolutely nothing in common with Calvin or Zwingli, and very little in common with the Particular Baptists in England. Everyone always screws those two up. Particular Baptists were far more like Reformed folk than they were like Anabaptists; in fact, the PBs tried to make very clear distinction betweem themselves and the Anabaptists (and in many cases, for good reason).

At least distinguish between the two in sorting all this out.

For the sake of not beating this to death, I’ll call myself a Reformation Baptist for now. How’s that sound? Everybody feel better?

[Moderator sez: I actually do feel better :) Now enjoy this :)]

Ok. Rowan Williams says gay clergy can marry, but not have sex.

Uh….let me try that again. I said….Rowan Williams says gay clergy can marry, but not have sex.

Al Mohler is writing about “cults,” but check out the last few paragraphs of today’s piece, and you’ll see he’s really talking about something else.

Churches that surrender in the face of philosophical challenges, that reduce their doctrinal substance to minimal doctrines, and that fail to offer substantial theological arguments grounded in Scripture, leave their own members in a state of vulnerability to the cults and their arguments. Theological immaturity and doctrinal ambiguity represent an open invitation for cults old and new to proliferate. Beyond this, when Christians appear to be befuddled, embarrassed, or inept in the defense of the faith, the Church’s witness is inevitably weakened…A lack of theological maturity and doctrinal confidence leaves a legacy of missed opportunities. These “unpaid bills” demand to be paid.

I wonder if the “We need more doctrine” folks and the “We need authentic community” folks can ever talk to each other? Again, I have to wonder why Mohler has never blogged on Warren and the church growth pragmatists, who are the real cause of the shrinking importance of doctrine in American churches. McLaren, etc are Johnny come latelies to this party. For example, What are pastors reading these days? Is this the emergent church’s fault? Again, I ask: Why has Mohler never blogged on the PDC/PDL phenom? Did he read Warren’s Ladie’s Home Journal piece? If we are going to hound McLaren and a bunch of scruffy twenty-somethings playing guitars in dark storefronts as the reason things are in such shape, why are we skipping the problem in Southern Baptist’s own house? What was the #1 and #2 books for today’s pastors? Generous Orthodoxy? Give me a break.

A Nashville paper defined the Emergent Church as

“Emergent” folks are Christians who are impatient with rigid megachurch formulas and noisy doctrinal in-fighting. They want to nurture a “vintage Christianity” that promotes the love of Christ for the emerging (non-churchgoing) generation. They’re hammering out a theology that’s friendly to ancient faith practices (contemplative prayer, labyrinths, hospitality) in a postmodern world of quantum physics, 24/7 media and coffee-house culture.

ATS Profs Walls and Dongell have written “Why I Am Not A Calvinist.” Now here’s the abbreviated version. I’ve read the book and found Dongell’s sections pretty light-weight and Wall’s nothing I haven’t read in C.S. Lewis, but the shorter version has more punch. These aren’t all identical to my problems with Calvinism necessarily, but they are objections and issues that matter. (This bit on the incarnation is impressive, however.)

By subordinating love to will, Calvinism fails to glorify God as he has revealed himself in history and ultimately in the incarnation of his Son. The love of God as revealed in the incarnation is not a matter of mere words but of the Word made flesh who actively seeks the well-being of his fallen children. A love that truly and passionately promotes the well-being of the beloved, even when it is costly, is the sort of love that has existed from all eternity in the Trinity and was revealed in the life of Jesus. This is the kind of love, moreover, that God commands his children to demonstrate by following his example (I Jn 3:16-18). Because God loves all sinners in this fashion and actively works to promote their eternal well-being, there is rejoicing in heaven when one of them repents (Lk 15:7, 10). A God who commands this sort of love and who positively delights in the repentance of sinners surely has no need or desire to show his sovereign power by passing over some fallen humans, nor would he truly glorify himself by doing so.

Nobody can talk about race and culture like Thomas Sowell. And if this thesis is correct, the backwoods redneck racists here in Clay County are, ironically, the cause of the problem. And the current “rap” culture has deserted its true roots for something quite different. This is a powerful piece of social analysis.

Luminous Miseries has the kind of Catholic post that rouses the Church of Mackinnon.

Actually, after reading the article, it’s difficult to disagree with him, although I think his blaming Luther is a ploy to stir readership, since he isn’t really finding fault with Luther, but modern protestantism.

Those of you who follow Doug Wilson’t posts know that he is devoting a lot of ink to his conflicts with the liberal establishment in his community (Moscow, Idaho) and their efforts to harass the various ministries of Wilson’s church. It’s quite a read, and better than anything on TV.

(Let me say that while I sympathize with Wilson and support him, I am regularly stunned with some of the things Wilson and his supporters have been up to. Note the April Fool’s story in this post. And when you get to a discussion of the confederacy (and I have to deal with this here all the time), I just shake my head. Mentors, people. Mentors.

The latest installment is Wilson’s response to a 14 point presentation on why Wilson’s group is different from other conservative evangelicals. It’s a revealing read to see how one PBS liberal perceives evangelicals, and especially how a group of activitis Calvinists come off to the watching public.

Dan Allender’s new book is combining spiritual disciplines, counseling and writing. Very impressive idea for the kind of ministry we do here at OBI. Interestingly, Discerning Reader says the book is a “God centered alternative” to PDL.

Luminous Miseries has the kind of Catholic post that rouses the Church of Mackinnon.

Centuries after Luther and into the new millennium it is largely Luther we have to thank for the sola fide and sola scriptura which have made the way for the plethora of people from Hinn to Hanegraaff who believe that their interpretation of the infallible Word is the right one, one they have made independent of the need to hear from anyone else or, ironically, informed by the teachings of those who have gone before them in their particular, um, tradtion. More than simply having made a way for massive verities and vagrancy to occur more easily sola fide and sola scriptura intrinsically call for a protesting independence as inevitable. If I speak in extreme or hyperbole here what I am saying is no more exagerated than our Protestant faiths have become.

The continuing ministry of CCEL.

KFUO interviewed General Joyce on Monday, May 23 and did another program with the interview the next day. Only 15 minutes. Worth listening to, if only to hear the collision between an LCMS guy who likes to argue the fine points of Augsburg Evangelical theology (How am I doin’?) and a Word-Faith teacher who is really, really good at staying under the radar.

I fully support Josh’s efforts to reclaim the term evangelicals for Lutherans only. Should he succeed, it would throw the entire Christian world in chaos, with Rick Warren and many others forced to call themselves…???? I dunno. Somethin’.

I’ve called myself a “Reformed Baptist,” and I know bunches of them. Like most of them a lot. Take The Founder’s guys for instance. They go as far as the early SBC, and note that the SBC was originally populated with all kinds of characters with a Calvinistic view of salvation, i.e. the “Doctrines of Grace.” They admire the Puritans, but I’ve hear them critique them severely and often. They admire the mainstream Reformation, but they are well aware of covenant theology and the problems presented. They are Spurgeon-types, and no one was more generous than Spurgeon, or less concerned with claims to historic precedent. So the Founders don’t represent themselves as “THE truly reformed.” They claim the TULIP, and a reformation influence. They borrow a few things like elders, no invitation, etc. I always appreciated this approach, and I think Josh could go to a Founder’s Meeting and not feel the least like these guys were trying to claim they and they alone had the true reformation locked in a box at home, which is the problem with a pile of the truly reformed.

This is one reason I am through with this Calvinism business, and will call myself a “Reformation Christian.” This whole game of hurling various forms of legal and historical claims to be the “real reformed” is not worth your time. Josh knows the “truly reformed” won’t surrender their claim to be “THE” Reformation no matter what evidence is presented. The hardcore, original Reformed Baptists (Al Martin, pope) are about as convinced they are the one, true church as any group of people since Baptist Landmarkers. Under the influence of The Founders, Piper, SGM, Begg, etc, that’s changing, but you all know first hand what it feels like when the game of “Will the REAL Reformed please yell louder than anyone else” gets going. Ugh.

Isn’t coming up with a canonical definition of the word “reformed” sort of like trying to define “evangelical” or “fundamentalist”? It sort of depends on what you base your definition on.

In more important news, check out the forget-me-not panties. Sure to big a big hit with patriarchs everywhere. Be sure and tell your buds on Pipertalk about this miracle. The testimonial page is especially “moving”.

Yes, it’s a joke. Duhr.

So terms are defined based on who would kill you? I really don’t think you can make the sins (radical intolerance) of the 16th and 17th centuries the determining factors in whether or not someone looks or is “reformed.” Because Calvin, Zwingli, or others would have killed me doesn’t mean they were correct in their judgment.

Eh, perhaps the term is more trouble than it’s worth. I’ll have to give it more thought later. Got to get back to this paper for now.

I’m having Church History II flashbacks – reformation, counter-reformation, English reformation….ahhhhhhhhhhhh!

Sorry, “Reformed Baptist” is an oxymoron. Maybe they’ve had a lot of influence on actual Reformed folk in corrupting their own self-understanding from the historic faith & practice, but if you look at the reality of Reformed history and doctrine, there’s no room for Baptists.

Sorry, but this demonstrates incredible (although typical) ignorance of Baptist history. There have been “Reformed Baptists” ever since the 1600s when the Baptists originated in England (being a bunch of Puritans and Separatists who came to credobaptist convictions). The first solid and somewhat successful Baptist denomination was the Particular Baptists, whose confession (1689 London) looks a whole lot like typical Reformed confessions, doesn’t it? “Reformed Baptist” is not a misnomer than some are trying to force on Baptists embracing a Calvinistic soteriology in the 21st century, but an attempted description of Baptist roots from the 17th century. I’ll admit that the term is difficult, but not impossible, and frequently misunderstood.

Filthy Cromwellians. Let’s hear it for Cranmer!!!!

One of the reasons you gotta love the Anglicans is that they don’t have a “cover all the bases” type of confession, but these 39 Articles that are quite eclectic and leave a lot to the individual. God bless them. Yeah, historically, they are very reformed, but the odd thing is most Anglicans aren’t into reformed theology, and very few Anglicans- even conservatives- want to identify themselves as Calvinistic in any regard. The whole Puritan thing was a fight within Anglicanism about how “reformed” they were going to be. So I left out Packer because, even though he is very reformed, he’s an anomoly. PW can speak to this, but he’s gone on vacation.

Stott is certainly not a TULIP guy, is he?

Would John Stott qualify as reformed? He has to be one of the good guys! You can always count on Uncle John being orthodox, generous and engaging. One of the finer examples of an evangelical social conscience. Loves giving books away to third world pastors (all royalties from his books go to this). How cool is that?

Hey, any mention of Reformed Good Guys (RGGs?) has gotta mention J.I. Packer. Sure, he’s kinda old now, and doesn’t speak too quickly, but he’s got a lot of good stuff, and managed to piss R.C. off about the whole Roman Catholic thing. Also, he’s British and genteel and whatnot, so that’s gotta count for something.

Alex: APIB (Amen, Preach It Brother).

I can say that living in CA has really brought home (pun intended) how vital real, embodied community is. The Lutheran church I attend on Sundays is great – good preaching, good people, weekly Eucharist. But my community – my home – is that small AMiA church in DC. I miss them terribly. Chatting on the Internet is a great way to network (techno buzzword!) with like-minded people, but it is no substitute for real face (and meal) time.

I think this tendency towards abstraction is what is doing in modern Reformed theologians. On another blog (which shall remain nameless to protect the guilty) the author (who is self-identified as Reformed) wrote that Reformed theology is essentially the TULIP – the abstract formulations of God’s sovereignty – and that any ideas about the efficacy of the sacraments are irrelevant (he also self-identifies with the far end of the Baptist non-sacramentalist end of the spectrum). He in essence said that therefore could be “Reformed” Salvation Army people – despite the fact that their ideas about the sacraments would have made Menno Simons blush.

This concentration on the abstract end of the theological spectrum, with a neglect of the “embodied” end of it, is partly the culprit. Also, it’s a lot easier to run-down people on-line than it is in person – but again, that’s also an abstracting/Gnostic tendency. The person is the words they type – no more…

Alex: I think the internet creates a particular kind of community. Varies enormously, is unpredictable and has many pitfalls. Since I am part of an online community, and live in a real 24/7 Christian community, I can see the difference. In some ways, the online community is better. (You all know far more about many of my thoughts and feelings than my co-workers.) In other ways, there is no comparison. Life isn’t a conversation; it is loving God and neighbor. The real world is much more of a stage for real life :) Plus, the net is full of people who think blog comments ARE the real world. Uh….go find some REAL people, folks. It’s different and fun!

Yes, the troll blog appears to have been deleted. I could tell you more, but you can AIM me or something. She/It has opened a “legit” blogspot blog, but I don’t have the address. I know you’re all disappointed.

For those of you who are still missing the point of the humorous jabs at certain quarters, I wanted to list the folks who are, in my experience, the Reformed Good Guys.

The Founders: If the Founders consider themselves the sheriffs of the reformation, I’ve sure missed it. They know what they are, they know what they aren’t. They have a broad, generous spirit, all the while being clearly conservative. Their conferences are positive, their books are pastoral and helpful. They present the best of the “reformed Baptist movement” and I am always grateful to them for their place in my own journey.

Michael Horton, Modern Reformation and the White Horse Inn: Michael Horton’s books, from the very beginning in “Mission Accomplished,” right down to today’s work on Covenant, have been incredibly helpful to me. Horton is the kind of person who combines evangelicalism, Reformed Christianity and an appreciation of Lutheranism into his own work. He’s consistently grown more Reformed, and more positively helpful, through the years. The magazine is excellent, his books are as well, and the radio show is kind of an inspiration for the BHT. A Baptist, two Reformed and a Lutheran sitting around talking theology. They interview all kinds of people like Will Willamon- and treat them like Christians, too. The Mod Ref crowd never seemed to have the problem of policing the Reformation like it was their personal back yard, even though they were right in the middle of The best evangelical reassertion of Reformed Theology I know of, The Cambridge Declaration.

I think these guys have inherited some of the generous, positive spirit of James Boice.. Boice had a positive kind of Calvinism that enabled him to be the editor of Christianity Today. (Can you imagine that with some of the characters policing the Reformed world today?) In fact, everything I’ve heard from Boice, Tenth Presbyterian and its current pastor, Phil Ryken seems intended to stay above the various “reformed war zones,” an on the Gospel. Their convictions are clear, but their spirit and attitude are refreshing. God bless
them.

In fact, let me just say there are many, many, many examples in the reformed wing of the PCUSA and the evangelical wing of the PCA that make me proud to be part of the “Reformation Christian family.” Too many to name. Craig Barnes. Tates Creek Presbyterian Church in Lexington. Earl Palmer. Doug Webster. Tim Keller (of course). John Sartelle (who I listened to years ago). There are just a vast number of reformed folks who I love and identify with deeply, and whose presentation of the faith is devoid of the kind of nastiness that’s more and more evident in the reformed blogosphere.

I have nothing but good to say about Ligonier Ministries. While I suspect that R.C. agrees with many of who find me apostate, I’ve listened to hundreds of hours of his work and been uniformly impressed with how loving, fair, even-handed and humble he is. (Sorry Matthew :) That’s been my experience with R.C.) Yes, he and Boice- were prime movers in the Chicago Statement, but I can’t find the hostility toward those who might not agree with all of it. He doesn’t chase rabbits. He’s not political or obsessed with the culture war. I know I disagree with him, but he is like a grandfather who I love and respect, even if I know we have differences. I recommend Tabletalk to anyone as the best devotional material out there. (I like a lot of his buddies, too. Sinclair Ferguson, etc.)

A whole lot of good people who keep their reformation theology positive, humble and helpful. Sovereign Grace Ministries. Alistair Begg. Iain Murray. Mark Driscoll. Mark Dever. Many others.

I have nothing but good to say about John Piper. I do not agree with every aspect of his theology, and I don’t agree with every aspect of his version of the Christian Life. But I have taken in enough of Piper in print, in person and by listening to tell you that when he comes to a place of contending for the Reformed faith as he sees it, he is not a jerk or bombastic or arrogant. He gets very focused. He knows this is controversial ground. He realizes many who listen to him and read him are not Calvinists. He goes to non-Calvinist events and venues all the time, and speaks with conviction AND humility. His intensity can take him down some side streets of Calvinistic debate that I don’t follow, but that does nothing to lessen my respect and appreciation for him, and especially for his vision and his ministry at BBC.

I’d love to make a list of people who are confessionally reformed, but hardly seem so at all. Try Eugene Peterson there. There are others, but that goes another direction.

There are a lot of “Reformed Good Guys” who I gladly identify with in my Christian journey. There is a discernible division in the Reformed Community right now, and it has nothing to do with the internet. Timothy Keller has written on it, and it is historically discernible. Much of it comes down to a “way of being reformed.” The manner in which the reformed faith is presented. I felt this tension from the first year I sojourned among Calvinists. It is an issue of charity, of personality type, of epistemology, of long-standing issues with catholicism, with “who speaks for the Reformed?”, etc. These tensions won’t vanish and they have little to do with IM/BHT.

Here’s a toast to the good guys. They mean a lot to me, and I thank God for them.

Some assorted comments:

The critics of the BHT should think about how Jesus is most known for his criticism of the Pharisees, the party to which he was probably the closest in terms of theology and/or belief. In the same way, I think that many BHT fellows’ dissatisfaction with certain Reformed types (and they do tend to be crazy credobaptists—that ought to bring Bill out) stems more from their dislike of basic attitudes than theology. I for one love, appreciate, and even agree with much Reformed theology, but sometimes wonder about the charity of its proponents. Learning how to disagree peaceably and charitably seems lost on some.

I have to disagree with Kent’s statement that the BHT is a community, mainly because I think that the BHT at best approximates a community. Perhaps this comment is more motivated by iMonk’slatest piece but I fear this nascent idea that the Internet somehow can supercede and replace real flesh-and-blood community. There is Gnosticism lurking in the background of the idea that asserts that true community (perhaps communion is a better word) is possible aside from bodily interactions.

My argument against this idea is couched in a theology of the Eucharist. The Eucharist, among other things, affirms the goodness of physicality in itself; moreover the Eucharist requires that people sit down together in the same space in close proximity to one another and eat. In my experience, there has been more community when my friends and I sit down for a meal than when we sit down to have an intellectual exchange.

Anyway, I seem to have rambled far off the beaten path from my original intention of criticizing Kent’s claim, so consider that more of a “jumping-off” point.

Josh, that’s something I’ve been wanting to make a comment on for a while. Isn’t it odd that the staunchest defenders of “truly reformed” theology seem to be Reformed Baptists? It’s even weirder, in that some of them combine reformed and dispensational theology. How anyone can put those things together “systematically” is beyond me. I’m sort of a reformed baptist myself, but I admit that makes me a bit of a theological schizophrenic on things like sacraments.

Josh: I’d prefer if you just stuck to [name deleted]. After all, my initials are “DB”, and I don’t want to get confused with somebody else. (JN)

As long as Phil’s weblog has been brought up, has anyone seen the commments sections of his second post? I am stunned. Literally stunned. I know that there are some nasty people out there, but good grief!!! Haven’t these people read what Jesus said about calling down fire on our enemies?

UPDATE: It appears some of the nastier ones have been culled.

I have all kinds of double-portion anointed, rhema revelation words to add to the current discussion, but I’m busy packing, so let me just ask for prayer for my interview Tuesday. This one looks really promising, and I think I have a good shot. I’ll be driving down to St. Louis tomorrow. Hopefully the BHT won’t get raided while I’m out.

As a public service to our readers, the BHT Bartenders will be providing a constant monitoring of the BHT “threat level” in the Reformed Blogosphere. The current threat level is “Irritating.” Readers are advised to check all doctrinal statements at the BHT with an authorized systematic theologian or his official representatives. If any pomo theology has been ingested, antidotes are available from the League of Truly Refomed Bloggers or the Calvinist Youth Movement.

Should the BHT’s threat level rise to “Appalling,” readers should immediately go to a major Reformed web site and seek shelter.

The current BHT threat level is posted daily at Pyromaniac.

Stumbled across this essay linked on Slashdot today. It’s entitled Why Smart People Defend Bad Ideas. It’s not too long, and it’s a very interesting read. It is geared, mostly towards people working on computer relating projects (cuz, y’know, that’s where the smart people are), but I wonder…could that which is applied to computer scientists, be applied to theologians?

That said, the more homogeneous a group of people are in their thinking, the narrower the range of ideas that the group will openly consider. The more open minded, creative, and courageous, a group is, the wider the pool of ideas they’ll be capable of exploring.

In keeping of the spirit of things, I’m changing from Non-Cessationist back to Charismatic.

Shomolomolangadangdingdong snuffaluffugus GLORYYYYY!!!!!!!

Imagine, Sheriffs of the Internet, if some local yokel starts a nightly theological bull session at a local bar, and before long it’s populated by an assortment of oddballs, personality disorders, quirks, undersocialized geniuses, angry young men and spectators, I fail to see why you or anyone would care. What was that definition of a puritan: “A person who is angry that someone, somewhere, is having a good time?” Do you really believe we are a threat to the spread of the reformed faith by happy campers like yourselves? But, OK. You do care….let’s go with it.

Just for fun (gasp), let’s assume that another group of theological hobbyists- who have deemed themselves professionals, by the way- send a spy to the bar for a listen. Oh my!! What they would hear!! What they would see!!
-Spencer talks too much! He thinks he’s the freakin’ pope! He doesn’t believe in inerrancy! He kissed a nun! He recommended John Piper…but then he recommended Robert Capon! Someone go tell [name deleted] what he said!
-Kent’s a universalist! He doesn’t go to church!
-Jim cussed! And he’s crazy! Did you hear what he said? He’s a blasphemer!
-Phillip cussed, too! He told one guy off and laughed at him! He’s mean!
-Kurt says he’s a PCA Calvinist….but he just sits there….laughing! He won’t baptize his baby! Hypocrite!
-Alex is some kind of philosopher. I didn’t understand what he said!
-That J.S. guy is defending Orthodoxy!
-That Richard character is too nice to be in here! What’s his deal?
-Josh cussed! He hit a guy! He called Calvinists a name! He hurt my feelings!
-That Judson guy said something awful! He sounds like he doesn’t care!
-Bill dared Josh to a fight….then sprayed him with a super soaker! This is outrageous!
-Matthew cussed! He’s Arminian! And said he’s entirely sanctified! He likes N.T. Wright! A bunch of them like N.T. Wright!
-Scott made fun of fundamentalists! He laughed at Chick tracts!
-That Joel guy is pomo! He’s an egghead!
-What did Jack say! COVER YOUR EARS!
-Tom Hinkle poured his beer down Spencer’s pants! I like him!
-What’s that Dave Rattigan doing here! ARRRRGGGH!
-Get the women out of here! Most of these guys aren’t even Calvinists!!
-They’re laughing at us!! They’re laughing at us!! Nooooooooooooooo!
(Apologies to the rest of the BHT. You can belch and throw things.)

Now….let’s assume that our visiting group, having been properly outraged (because you are going to hear some pretty outrageous things in a bar, y’know), decides to warn the world of what is going on in that bar. They print up flyers. They make phone calls. They appeal to local pastors to allow them to come to church and warn various youth groups, etc to avoid the bar at all costs.

“The bar is evil. True Christians won’t attend. The atmosphere is irreverent and unholy. True doctrine isn’t treated with respect. Terrible things are said and done. We must keep a close watch on the bar. We must warn those who might enter of the danger that lies within.”

Soon, ministers all over town have received information about the bar. Some have devoted parts of sermons to the bar. One prominent local apologist takes several days to dissect a speech overheard in the bar. Letters are written to employers and churches of those frequenting the bar. Groups form to discuss the various evils that go on in the bar.

The Taverners are stunned. They shut the doors to the public and spend time talking to one another. There is much soul searching and debate. Has the bar become, as the world is being told, a blasphemous, pomo threat to the thinking and devotion of the public?

The world looks on. What will the taverners do? Will they disband in despair? Will they submit themselves to the teaching of those they have previously spurned? Will they recognize their errors and seek to teach true doctrine? The world waits.

When I first encountered BHT in my pre-fellow days, I was refreshed because I found it to simply be a conversation about God and theology and culture and…all in the ‘theme’ of a neighborhood tavern. Which I understood and appreciated and desired. This BTW is what I so enjoy about the emergent movement (go ahead and classify me), they are ‘into’ conversation…talking and listening, not just talking. Just like the Tavern.

It’s rowdy, irreverent, humerous, satirical, offensive, noisy, off-the-wall, irritating, enlightening, challenging, entertaining, annoying, interesting, silly, sarcastic and full of sinful men and (some) women trying to work out just what their salvation means. It’s a place to be ‘me’ in a way I can’t be ‘me’ in most other places. I’ve been encouraged, offended, surprised and educated.

This is community.

If your idea of community is static, stay away…don’t come into the tavern.

I’ve been amazed in my one year and some months of fellowship here how many people can’t quite ‘grok’ the spirit and culture of a tavern. In my fifteenish years of being a follower of Jesus I have learned that in the church uniformity trumps community. Neighborhood taverns aren’t like that. This is one of the few places on the web (or anywhere) that I can listen in on and sometimes participate in conversations with thoughtful people, fellow believers in Jesus, about pretty much everything.

Did I just ‘rant’ or ‘vent’? To some extent, yes. So what. This is a bar, not an agenda.

Eric (and Aaron Adams),

>It really is becoming a rant blog community…trying to say things that we know will get under the skin of those evil Reformed Christians.

>In fact, he’s (Aaron Adams) called pretty much all of us out.

I can’t speak for anyone else on here, but the only person who qualifies as coming anywhere near making the BHT a “rant” community is me. So let’s give the rest of the blog a break. I stated on this blog last week that I had whined too much and was done with it. If Mr. Adams has an example of the BHT as a “rant” community devoted to opposing the “evil” reformed since (or before) that apology, I would be interested in seeing it.

(I am not speaking for Josh or his recent comments about the reformed. Josh’s views on the reformed are well known. Like his criticisms or not- and I largely don’t agree- he brings up more substance than I ever attempt. Another fellow- Kurt- spoke to Josh on this blog saying he thought he was wrong in the spirit of his assessment. I’ve had all the words with Josh over the Lutheran/Reformed thing and his personal style that I intend to have. The nice thing about the BHT is that when someone is a jerk, someone else usually tells you so. Again, an example of how the diversity of the BHT is incomprehensible to one segment of the blogosphere.)

Yes, IM/BHT has taken critical shots at Fundamentalists, Charismatics, Pentecostals, Baptists, Catholics, Emergents, Warreninnies, Seeker-types, CCM artists, Atheists, Lutherans, the Reformed, the Truly Reformed, Presuppositionalists (The Bible is True!), the Crazies, Evangelicals, Jack Chick and most of all, ourselves. We will continue to do so. We have always been the primary example of a diverse community of free-speaking Christians maintaining a blog community anywhere on the web. But it’s a bar, and will remain so. Skewering and the freedom to say what’s on your mind has been part of this bar since day one. Out of all the various groups who’ve been skewered, only one group has reacted differently than all the others. Only one group- from discussions of inerrancy to defense of James White- has responded with particular, personal, vicious lies and hostility to any criticism. Only one group has applauded me for posting against Osteen and written letters to my employers for saying I accept Catholics as Christians. Only one group considers participation in discussions of Biblical issues to be blasphemy if the results aren’t predestin….uh, predetermined. Only one..

That’s entirely their perogative and their right. The internet is about free speech and I would invite Aaron Adams to tell the world that the BHT is a bad influence that should be avoided by all serious Christians, and to name my errors in particular. I’ll post it right here on BHT if he wants an audience. In fact, I would be delighted if several dozen of the current daily readers of this blog would stop reading it. Perhaps he can convince them to do so.

But I’d also like to buy the critics of this blog a copy of Serrated Edge by Douglas Wilson. Scripture uses sarcasm. Scripture uses cartoonish portrayals. Scripture uses blunt criticism. Scripture names names. Scripture tweaks the Pharisees till they say “ouch.” Jesus did it. The Prophets did it. Paul did it. Revelation does it. The reaction of the truly reformed to any criticism of their certainties demonstrates why they, all the more, need to be tweaked…and will be tweaked on this blog. Not threatened, or excommunicated, or cursed at, or hounded with lies to their publishers- but tweaked and skewered frequently. Not told they should die or their children should be ashamed. But deservedly skewered.

Eric: I am not surprised that anyone who is sincerely reformed and your friend would tell you to disassociate with me and this web site. I am sure he has your spiritual well-being and future ministry in mind, and since he knows you far better than I do, you should probably consider his advice as being wise and sound. If you choose to leave, it’s been good to have you, and God’s blessings on you in the future. We’ve enjoyed having you with us. You are always welcome here.

Mr. Adams: Since you’ve publically accused this blog- collectively- of committing blasphemy, I’m calling upon you to put your accusations in print. (You can email me at michaelATinternmonkDOTcom) Right here, in this space, promptly. Since such blasphemy in a public forum could potentially end the ministries/church memberships of BHT members, I expect you’ll be specific. Be sure and include how an open discussion among bloggers in a cyber bar is accountable to someone somewhere for our theological opinions. Maybe you can include your understanding of what we are doing here. That should be interesting.

Eric:
Being irreverant is part of what the BHT is. Seriously.

This has never been anything other than a bar full of rowdies, and I mean that in the best way. The BHT has been a place where its members can bring whatever they want to the table and kick it around. Do we have serious discussions at times? Sure we do. Sometimes though, we just get drunk and laugh.

I think it is safe to say that the BHT has come under attack from external sources more in the last few months than in its entire existance. People worried about the doctrinal purity that the bar is (or isn’t) promoting, or the dangerous ideas that we espouse, or the “camp” that we’re harboring (btw, Camp Spencer has an awesome cafeteria).

If we pick on the “Truly Reformed”, it is only because some of them still don’t get it. This isn’t a place where Calvin 101 is going to be lifted high as the doctrinal standard. This isn’t a place where we enforce doctrine at all. Doctrine is enforced by our churches, where most of us are held accountable. This isn’t a para-chuch blog, it is a bar-blog. Some people just don’t get that. And, well, after explaining it a million times, you’ve just got to chuckle a bit. Really, for folks that are disturbed by the BHT, the message we’re trying to get across is: read something else. Surely there are tons of blogs out there that are approved and monitored by the league of the truly {insert theological preference here}.

Aaron: Brother, I prayed for you, and while I’m glad you’re moving into another area of ministry, I’m sorry you have to say goodbye. I hate those too, and I pray for a smooth transition for you and for the two congregations affected by your move. The Lord’s deepest blessings to you!!

Now to the difficult part…

To the whole Tavern: I know I’ve been pretty inactive in the Tavern at large (though I’ve tried to e-mail a few of you personally recently), but I want you to know that it’s for a good reason. Recently a dear friend of mine (and long-time lurker) has called me out for being way too much of a hothead (and if/when you read this, Aaron Adams, I’m talking about you) and being a bit too irreverent. In fact, he’s called pretty much all of us out.

While I don’t think he is entirely right in every respect of his rebuke/concern, he has noticed, especially since the fiasco with James White, that we have turned much more towards an “us vs. them” blog, the “them” being the “Truly Reformed” brand of Christianity. I speak as chief of sinners, as evidenced here.

I love all y’all, and as much as it hurts my pride to say it, to a large degree Aaron speaks the truth. It really is becoming a rant blog community, and many of us seem to be trying to say things that we know will get under the skin of those evil Reformed Christians. Don’t take this as an attack aimed at any one of you specifically. As I said, I love all of you, and I am chief of sinners, right here, in the flesh, and I deserve his rebuke. But I ask you please to consider what it means to do as Hebrews 12:14 says and try to live at peace with others, not to stir up controversy in what we say. Let us do all things, in word or deed in the name of Christ (Col 3:17). Let us give the answer for our hope with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15-16). I know we’ll disagree quite a bit (and Josh and I will be right more often than the rest of you—jn… sorta…), but saying things just to be shocking just isn’t diplomatic, respectful, or gentle.

Somebody, please tell me if you think I’m w