Wonder why "institutions of learning" mess up so many minds?

The text: "The wicked strut about on every side When vileness is exalted among the sons of men" (Psalm 12:8 NAS)

A ton of illustrations (h-t JeanS at FR.)

"ABDUL RAHMAN TO BE RELEASED" -- if they can't get him killed first? (Scroll for updates)

Michelle Malkin has the best summary I've seen of the latest development in this case, on which I commented previously.

So, the judge is saying that there's "insufficient evidence" to convict him of conversion? Sounds like a very poor waffle-job, to ease international pressure. But it gets a bit worse. "Earlier Sunday he was moved to a notorious maximum-security prison outside Kabul that is also home to hundreds of Taliban and al-Qaida militants." Okay, now, correct me if I'm wrong -- but doesn't that mean he's been put in the middle of criminals compared to whom his would-be executioners are "moderates"?

So they can't convict him, but they don't release him. Instead, they put Rahman in with hardcores who think that the men who were going to behead him are lightweights.

It sure sounds to me as if the government is hoping that the prisoners will kill Rahman for them, and solve their little problem. Leave him in the yard with the others, guards turn their backs for five minutes then pick up the body, government expresses regret, US money and aid continue to pour in. Am I getting any part of this wrong?

Either way, there's no reform visibly going on.

Not upping my optimism-quotient.

Then note this sad observation: "...Rahman had also been begging his guards to provide him with a Bible."

Surely the media, who were all over the (false) story of American Koran-abuse, will be all over this denial.

Right.

"Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body" (Hebrews 13:3).

Do join me in praying that my fears are proven dead-wrong. Pray with me that this man's faith holds strong, that God's hand of blessing be on him and his testimony, that those about him be turned to Christ through it, and that he be released soon. God grant that we see His glory in this situation.

UPDATE: Mark Steyn clears his throat more eloquently than I write, and he has written on this (h-t Michelle, linked above).

UPDATE II: And now he's out, and he's vanished. I hope he's protected, and being hustled out of the country. Which brings us to another not-a-proud-moment-to-be-an-American:

Asked whether the U.S. government was doing anything to secure Rahman's safety after his release, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington that where he goes after being freed is "up to Mr. Rahman."

I can only hope this wimpy, waffly, spineless talking masks a whole lot of doing that we'll find out about later.

Meanwhile, Italy (whom we Americans have often mocked) offered him asylum. Did we do even that much? I haven't read so.

PCUSA = Ichabod, reason #3479

Check this.

Shh! Ooh... what's that?

Did I just hear J. Gresham Machen, up in Heaven, saying, "Yeah -- well, duh!"?

Book Review: "Help! Mom! Hollywood's in My Hamper!", by Katharine DeBrecht

Help! Mom! Hollywood's in My Hamper!

by Katharine DeBrecht; illustrated by Jim Hummel

World Ahead publishing; 2006; np

The truism runs that sequels are never as good as their predecessors. A number of movies have challenged that truism, as others have confirmed it. In this sequel to Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed! (reviewed here), Katharine DeBrecht has actually topped herself.

Hamper tells the story of two sisters, Janie and Sam, who want to save enough money to buy a special bike. They decide to earn the money through babysitting.

However, they do love their TV, and through it are aquainted with the world of Hollywood. Their "favorite TV show" is called "Stars Know Best." (Does the picture of Whoopi Goldberg leering out of the idiot-box qualify this as a horror story?)

Their plans start out all right -- until the first night. Their closet doors burst open, and they're invaded by Hollywood starlet "Daisy Smears," who looks an awful lot like another recent pop tart, who still makes occasional tabloid headlines. Daisy persuades them that her line of accessories are "all the rage," and gets them to buy an official Daisy Flowerpot Hat.

She takes all their money, leaves them with flowerpots, and heads off to be the special guest at the Boycott Velcro March. Why? "They need me because I am a STAR--which makes me an EXPERT on everything!"

This pattern repeats every night, as a different star pops out of their closet, sells them something they don't need so that they can be fashionable, and takes all their money. It's sort of a case of The Lyin', the Rich, and the Wardrobe. In the course, they disrespect the girls' upbringing, family, and values.

Every time, the star makes a sale, then exits to appear at some worthless cause. Each always point out that her presence at these events is necessary because she's a star, "and therefore an EXPERT." But as the girls' behavior (and dress) changes, they find babysitting jobs harder to come by. Finally, they dump the junk they'd been sold, and go out to play with a girl who had simply babysat, earned the money, kept it, and bought the cool bike.

I read this to my family of six, ranging in age from six to me. Everybody enjoyed, everyone laughed at some point or other. We all agreed that the humor was better-conceived and better-executed than the first book; and there was a lot of it. The title even fits the story this time! My youngest boys (6 and 10) loved it, wanted to read it again right away.

The illustrations and caricatures were well-done, the likenesses unmistakable. The art had its own jokes, often aimed at older readers, in addition to what was in the text (Larry King scowling, Oprah running around with a copy of Toenailology for Tots). In this way, the book was a bit reminiscent of Pixar's wonderful productions like Toy Story, which works on many levels of maturity.

On the other hand, Hamper's very strength is one of its weaknesses. Topicality limits shelf-life. Hamper is a great read for kids now, and will be for a few years. However, it can't replace Hop on Pop, because the day isn't far off when kids won't know who Brittney Spears, Madonna, Barbra Streisand, or Hillary Clinton even are. (The sooner, the better.)

Another criticism: the denouement is not fully-realized. The girls just shrug off the glitzy paraphernalia, and go out to play. We're not sure exactly what they learned, or why, or what will change for them. Their biggest realization is that they have no good reason to want to try to look or act like the stars, and that they themselves are "experts" at being themselves.

But this is to replace one relativist value with another. The sisters had mentioned church in passing, once. But no one is on the scene to remind them of Jesus' probing question: "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?" (Mark 8:36).

In fact, this "value" that they embrace at the end is the very "value" that Hollywood constantly preaches: be true to yourself, above all else. If you really feel it deeply in your heart, do it, it's good, because you're good. Perhaps the glitterati are more shallow and openly destructive in their pursuit of the great god Self, but it is the same idol either way. Jesus singled out two commandments, and neither one was "Be yourself" (Matthew 22:34-40).

That message is absent from the book. The diagnosis, then, is pretty good; the prescription misses the ten-ring.

Still, one has to love the skewering that Hollywood gets in this book. The point can't be made often enough, nor in enough ways, that most "stars" get a soapbox through no personal qualities or achievements beyond their looks, and/or their ability to pretend to be other people, and say things others have written for them.

For instance, I loved The Lord of the Rings. But the idiot who very ably played Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) used his fame to go around trashing our country, the war, and our president. I thought at the time that Mortensen really should preface every appearance with the statement: "I am not a person of character, nobility, morals, or accomplishment -- but I play one in a movie; so...."

Here's another example, hot off the press. Carlos Santana uses the talent God gave him, and the freedom American soldiers died to safeguard for him -- to do what? To bash the President and our war against terror -- on foreign soil. What are his qualifications to speak on foreign policy? He's a rock star. That's it.

Santana uses that platform, his status as an expert because he's a celebrity, to extrude such profundities such as these:

I have wisdom. I feel love. I live in the present and I try to present a dimension that brings harmony and healing. My concept is the opposite of George W. Bush. ...There is more value in placing a flower in a rifle barrel than making war. ...As [noted expert-on-everything] Jimi Hendrix used to say, musical notes have more importance than bullets.

Yeah, see, you can't get insights like that just by playing a guitar, singing, and doing drugs. Well, okay, you can... but you can't get anyone to listen to them. Unless you're a Star. Then every misinformed, ill-conceived, idiotic bit of moronic burble that you emit is duly broadcast from pole to pole, as if it had value.

If you follow the news at all, you know that this is just one example of many that could be cited.

Back to the book. So insofar as Hamper makes the point that stars deserve no credibility or confidence, and makes it repeatedly, memorably, effectively and humorously, that's a good thing. Now every time some pretty face spouts off some nonsense, I could say, "...because I'm a star, and therefore an EXPERT!" -- and my kids will laugh, and get the point.

NOTE: I received this book as a gift from the publisher through Mind & Media.

Not making me feel any better about Iraq

Recently, I expressed my own personal worries about Iraq. The bottom line: I'm afraid that brother Bush's inadequately Biblical view of man has him overly optimistic. The idea that freedom and responsibility can thrive without a Biblical worldview... not likely.

And where did we go before Iraq? Who did we liberate? That would be Afghanistan, a genuine success story on many levels. The always-wrong Bush-hating mainstream media assured us that it could not be done, and we did it in fairly short order.

But what have we today? A man is on trial for his life. Why? What was his crime? Murder? No. What, then? Oh, it's an Islamic country. Was he -- gasp -- telling people the truth about Jesus, and themselves? Was he (cue dramatic music) proselytizing?

Nope. He's simply guilty of the "crime" of converting from Islam to Christ. Read Michelle about it.

So is that where Iraq is going? I said the only hope I saw was if genuine religious freedom allowed for the preaching of Christ. Is Afghanistan a model? If so, then I see no hope at all.

UPDATE: Two bending-over-backwards disclaimers. First, I do not know a great deal about Islam. Second, if the press reports on Islam as fairly, accurately, and impartially as it reports on Biblical Christianity, then those reports are never to be trusted.

Having said all that, how do you find a happy face for this?

"He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian," said Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque.

"The government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed."

"He is not mad. The government are playing games. The people will not be fooled," said Abdul Raoulf, cleric at Herati Mosque. "This is humiliating for Islam. ... Cut off his head."

I heard the one Muslim I know -- a genuinely nice and completely likable guy, for all I can tell -- complaining that the press distorts things. But you know, and I know, that if any Christian said anything like this, every other Christian with access to a microphone, telephone, or keyboard would be everywhere denouncing him as a dangerous nutcase, and disowning him from head to toe.

Labels, traditions -- a sloppy pre-reflection

Some time I'm going to write a disciplined, well-thought-out post on how useful but imprecise labels are; on how traditionalistically hidebound we "Reformed" people can be -- when we're the last who should be; and on how glorious it is to be a Biblical Christian not chained to repeating the mistakes of the past. I may even throw in some of my thoughts on what is really terrific, and really bad, about denominations.

This isn't that post. In fact, that will probably be three or more posts, won't it?

Over at Pyromaniacs, I just posted an essay titled The laziness of unbelief. In doing some reading on Matthew 11 and Luke 7, I came to find that older commentators seemed to have a different "take" on the question John the Immerser asked Jesus via his students. I was actually a bit startled to find a respected commentator take the line that John wasn't asking for his own benefit; he was actually asking for the disciples' sake. So Jesus' answer was directed to them, not John.

In fact, I found that our man Calvin seemingly took that line as well.

Now, if we were Romanists, and Calvin our magisterium, I'd have to choose between Calvin and my lying eyes. I'd have to explain away the context, explain away how Jesus directs His answer to John (not the students), explain away how He then talks about John (not the students), explain away how the students are barely mentioned, and then only in passing....

But I don't have to do any of that, because I agree with Luther: my conscience is bound to the Word.

But sometimes we "Protestants" have to remind ourselves that sola Scriptura means more than just that we're not bound to the Roman magisterium; we're not strictly bound to the "Reformed" magisterium either. With us, it's pretty well a "duh" -- thank God -- that we're not chained to repeating the mistakes of the Roman past. It's somewhat less of a "duh" that we're equally not bound to repeating the mistakes of the "Reformed" past, either. Calvin, Owen, various Hodges, Warfield, Spurgeon, Edwards, Machen -- all wonderful men, all heroes, all exemplary, all probably our betters, all our teachers, all being dead yet speak, true true true.

But all men, and not masters. They help, they help direct, they inform our faith. But they don't and shouldn't lord it over our faith.

Too many seem to see no middle ground between unquestioning thralldom to history on the one hand, and arrogant indifference to it on the other. Seems to me that there is only one cognitive source to which I owe absolute submission: God's Word. Wisdom lies somewhere betwixt the two extremes.

(I have some more thoughts on this in Mapping the path towards Biblical Christianity.)

Machen quotation question

It just occurred to me that, with my native readers and those who come over from Pyromaniacs, some pretty smart folks frequent these pages. Smarter than I, in a great many ways!

Maybe you can end a search I've had for decades.

I could swear that I read, at some point, J. Gresham Machen saying that for a pastor not to know Greek makes about as much sense as a professor of French literature not knowing French. But I've never been able to source that quotation; and, as I mean to write at some time, I'm a bit obsessive about not using quotations I can't source.

Does anyone know where that's from?

My chief worry about Iraq

As I read about police in Iraq finding 87 bodies from execution-style slayings in the last 24 hours, I've decided the share the concern that's been nagging at me since we liberated Iraq. (Disclaimer: it's an Associated Press story, so it might be totally wrong; but no one denies that there has been a steady drone of violence and mayhem here and there in Iraq.)

Most of the objections to the war strike me as simply silly, childish, or deliberately perverse. However there is one reservation I don't recall ever hearing, and it is the one that keeps troubling me.

It's doctrinal. Specifically, it's with President Bush's theology.

Let me hasten to say that I've no personal doubt that the man is a Christian. But he's a Methodist Christian. While that can mean a lot of things today, in the President's case, it seems to mean at least one troubling thing.

President Bush doesn't seem to grasp the nature of man Biblically. He speaks of the human spirit's universal longing for freedom. He seemed to believe that if we just were to take Saddam Hussein's boot of off the Iraqi people's necks, all would be well. After all, Islam is a religion of peace -- President Bush told us.

I'm no expert on Islam, but I do know a bit about the human heart. Brother Bush's notions about the human heart seem to reflect a liberal, slushy optimism, rather than open-eyed, steely Biblical realism. Left to himself, man will not find the right way -- he will go astray (Psalm 10:2-3; Romans 3:10-19). People are not innocent, let alone good at heart; they're dead in sin, and getting deader (Ephesians 2:1f.). Without Biblical revelation, a people will run wild (Proverbs 29:18, ESV or HCSB).

That is what we see in Iraq, and while I hope and pray for better, I know no reason to expect it.

But democracy worked in America, didn't it?

Well, no. Democracy was the last thing the Founding Fathers wanted. They wanted to create a Republic. Most of the Signers were Biblical Christians, and all of the signers had great respect for the Bible. They knew that the tendency of the human heart is to evil, it is to lust for power and possession, it is to tyranny. They had the moral framework to build a nation of liberty within law, with checks and balances built in, informed by a Biblical worldview and (specifically) a Biblical anthropology.

John Adams famously and well said:

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Make no mistake: to Adams, "morality" would be Christian morality, and religion would be the Christian religion.

This foundation is why America has stood for two centuries. To the degree that it has drifted and defected from that original informing Biblical vision, to that degree it is slip-sliding towards tyranny and a cycle of slavery again.

So where is that foundation in Iraq? Can a democracy be built and thrive that is not built on that Biblical anthropology? Can freedom function and thrive without that Biblical framework? Is "freedom" the be-all and end-all, and if they're free, we're done?

I don't think so.

Those are my abiding worries.

Now, I'll say this: if freedom in Iraq means Christians are free to proclaim Jesus, and if the Gospel spreads and prevails, then their freedom will really mean something.

Bush is reputedly quite the poker player. I wouldn't assume that he doesn't have this very thing in the back of his mind.

It's what comes out of his mouth that keeps me worried.

The multifacted marvel that is Spurgeon

I've loved and profited from the sermons and writings of Charles Spurgeon for decades. Now isn't the time for a whole essay, but I wanted to note something in passing.

I read Morning and Evening daily, using e-Sword. Often Spurgeon has a word of uplift or encouragement, or both; sometimes uncannily well-timed. I found his March 9 evening thoughts remarkable on a number of levels.

The text is Genesis 35:18, which reads thus in ESV: "And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni [= son of my sorrow]; but his father called him Benjamin [=son of my right hand]."

Here are Spurgeon's thoughts:

To every matter there is a bright as well as a dark side. Rachel was overwhelmed with the sorrow of her own travail and death; Jacob, though weeping the mother’s loss, could see the mercy of the child’s birth. It is well for us if, while the flesh mourns over trials, our faith triumphs in divine faithfulness. Samson’s lion yielded honey, and so will our adversities, if rightly considered. The stormy sea feeds multitudes with its fishes; the wild wood blooms with beauteous florets; the stormy wind sweeps away the pestilence, and the biting frost loosens the soil. Dark clouds distil bright drops, and black earth grows gay flowers. A vein of good is to be found in every mine of evil. Sad hearts have peculiar skill in discovering the most disadvantageous point of view from which to gaze upon a trial; if there were only one slough in the world, they would soon be up to their necks in it, and if there were only one lion in the desert they would hear it roar. About us all there is a tinge of this wretched folly, and we are apt, at times, like Jacob, to cry, "All these things are against me." Faith’s way of walking is to cast all care upon the Lord, and then to anticipate good results from the worst calamities. Like Gideon’s men, she does not fret over the broken pitcher, but rejoices that the lamp blazes forth the more. Out of the rough oyster-shell of difficulty she extracts the rare pearl of honour, and from the deep ocean-caves of distress she uplifts the priceless coral of experience. When her flood of prosperity ebbs, she finds treasures hid in the sands; and when her sun of delight goes down, she turns her telescope of hope to the starry promises of heaven. When death itself appears, faith points to the light of resurrection beyond the grave, thus making our dying Benoni to be our living Benjamin.

Here are mine. MS Word counts 330 words in that little devotional. In those 330 words:

1. I count fully five allusions to Scriptures besides the target-Scripture.
2. I count eleven metaphors (how to count them can be argued).
3. I count, apart from the metaphors and Biblical references, six allusions to nature.
4. Besides all that, the thoughts are just wonderful, with some heart-brightening, memorable, wonderful words of cheer and encouragement. Just savor this: "A vein of good is to be found in every mine of evil. Sad hearts have peculiar skill in discovering the most disadvantageous point of view from which to gaze upon a trial; if there were only one slough in the world, they would soon be up to their necks in it, and if there were only one lion in the desert they would hear it roar. About us all there is a tinge of this wretched folly, and we are apt, at times, like Jacob, to cry, 'All these things are against me.' Faith’s way of walking is to cast all care upon the Lord, and then to anticipate good results from the worst calamities."
5. In that, too, see why Spurgeon is better than Edwards. (One-Dan's-opinion alert in three... two... one....) For all my efforts to like and appreciate Edwards, I just haven't succeeded yet. Jonathan Edwards writes like a bloodless statue. But Spurgeon -- he's been there, he's fought and struggled, and he's got some hard-won encouagement and cheer he wants to share.
6. Having said all that, it's hard to say that this really came from the text! This has long cracked me up about Spurgeon, and my love for him. I would never preach like him. Sometimes he does a wonderful job with his text; and sometimes I have to admit that the text is more of a pretext. But what he says is always golden! Spurgeon could see a gum-wrapper in the gutter and preach a heartening, God-exalting, sinner-wooing, saint-strengthening sermon. The gum-wrapper would be incidental.

A few more words on that last thought, in parting. A lesser mortal such as I wouldn't dare to preach that way. I need the text to keep me honest, focused, directed. Beyond that, it is my conviction that we should preach the Bible, not use the Bible -- but Spurgeon uses the Bible to preach the Bible, so it's hard to be too angry at him.

So what I'm left saying is, "Kids, don't try this at home!" Spurgeon could do it, because God made him Spurgeon. He didn't make me Spurgeon and, no offense, but the odds are staggering that He didn't make you Spurgeon, either.

But thank God He made Spurgeon Spurgeon.

Excellent news: Falwell clearly affirms the Gospel

Rather than make this an update to the previous entry expressing concern over the Jerusalem Post report that Jerry Fallwell had said that Jews could go to Heaven without believing in Jesus Christ, I'll simply delete it, and replace it with this great news:

Jerry Falwell has issued A GRACIOUS CORRECTION OF THE JERUSALEM POST. I encourage you to read it completely. In it he unambiguously states

While I am a strong supporter of the State of Israel and dearly love the Jewish people and believe them to be the chosen people of God, I continue to stand on the foundational biblical principle that all people — Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Jews, Muslims, etc. — must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to enter heaven.

Falwell says he was completely misrepresented, and that he cannot even conceive of what provoked the false story.

Praise God for answering our prayers: Falwell used this as an opportunity clearly to re-state and re-affirm the Gospel.

A great man passes, unnoticed by the glitterati

They say it happens in threes. Don Knotts, Darren McGavin, and Dennis Weaver all passed away. These beloved actors' deaths were noted, their careers lauded, their best screen moments replayed.

But I just learned to my surprise that another person died last Saturday. Not an actor, not a celebrity. In fact, if the circles in which the deceased actors heard of how this man spent his life, they'd doubtless reply with sneering, scornful wit -- or an indifferent shrug.

Henry Morris passed away at the age of 87, after a series of strokes. His name alone will equally bring fond smiles, or hateful sneers, to the faces of those who recognize it. He was a scientifically educated Christian who challenged the very foundations of Darwinism, from the perspective of a plain-sense reading of the Bible. Morris co-authored The Genesis Flood with John C. Whitcomb, Jr., as well as a host of other books, and founded the Institute for Creation Research.

Morris revived the meaning of plenary in the phrase "verbal, plenary inspiration." That is, he did not believe that the Bible's inspiration and authority was confined to "spiritual" matters, but that it was authoritative in every area on which it made pronouncement. He believed that too many had adapted their reading of Genesis from the most natural sense of the words, to a sense twisted to fit the current evolutionary establishment's consensus vote. He didn't think that Christians should hand over their worldview to white-coated "experts" who held their Lord's all-inclusive authority in contempt.

You may or may not agree with Morris' reading of Genesis, nor with his catastrophic reading of the geological record. (I do agree.) But I think you have to grant that he, by single-mindedly holding to the inerrancy and plenary authority of the Word, had a pioneering and revealing ministry.

His insistence on accepting the full authority of the Word revealed the heart of liberalism, quailing before the cultured despisers, eager to please and be friends with the world, accepting the dictums of a white-coated priesthood over God's Word, willing to sell their birthright just to escape the contempt of the elite.

At the same time, he revealed the charade of objective openmindedness behind which the scientific establishment hides. From the PR the Darwinian priesthood was putting out, one would expect that they would welcome alternate approaches and theories with great enthusiasm and open arms. Instead they were revealed to be narrow minded, arrogant, doctrinnaire oppressors driven by a particular philosophy.

It seems to me that if one reaches the end of his life loved for the reasons Dr. Morris was loved, and hated for the reasons he was hated, he has probably done well.

ALSO: read Doug Phillips' (no relation) warm tribute to Dr. Morris, as well as Ray Pritchard's.

Ooh! I did a "best Godblog"!

Sometimes I feel a little like the fifth Beatle over at Pyromaniacs.

Frank called me "David," Steve Camp called me "Don," a poster called me "Phil."

Then, when one of my posts caught the eye of the legendary Tim Challies... he called me "James"! (That's kind of okay, because he thinks "James" doesn't have much of an IT background, as opposed to my six years or so.)

So it's truly nice to have my post 26 ways in which doing IT Support is better than being a pastor made one of the Best of the GodBlogs. He found it funny and encouraging to him as a pastor, and that's dead-on what I was aiming at. Praise God.

(Though he doesn't mention my name. That's probably good; who knows what he might have called me?!)

Eschatology quiz site

Well, this is fun. There's a site called What's your eschatology?, where you can find out where you stand eschatologically. I have some real arguments with forms of the questions; I think I answered in a sense not meant by the designer. But I did say "fun," not "inerrant analytical tool, right? (H-T PietyHill Press.)

So, this (they say) is me:

You scored as Premillenialist. Premillenialism believes that there will be a rapture and tribulation before Jesus returns and overthrows the antichrist and establishes his Kingdom. Current events are spoken of in scripture. Premillenialist 100% Left Behind 75% Dispensationalist 75% Amillenialist 65% Moltmannian Eschatology 60% Preterist 40% Postmillenialist 35% What's your eschatology? created with QuizFarm.com

(Mmm... really have to work on bringing down those Amill, Moltmannian, Preterist, and Postmill scores!)

NOTE: I had to adjust the width of the display, or it torqued out this page. If you do it, be warned to change width from 600 to 300.

My admiration for James White rises; for Ergun Caner? Not so much

In the world of public Christianity, some of my greatest admiration is reserved for folks like James White.

I've no doubt that White and I don't dot all our i's, nor accent all our alpha's, nor vowel-point all our 'aleph's identically. But this is the sort of man who, as far as I can tell, talks the same "game" with friendly audiences as unfriendly. Not only that, he seeks out unfriendly audiences, to make the case for Christ and the teaching of the Word.

So White doesn't just hold lectures by himself, or speak only in situations he tightly controls. He actively seeks out the best in the opposition, and challenges them to debate the central issues fairly and openly.

When a very accomplished scholar like Dr. Norman Geisler takes off after Calvinism, White challenges him to a debate. I never would have figured Geisler to lack courage -- but you can find The Calvinist Gadfly's Norman Geisler Clock here. (So far, it's been over 2100 days since White issued the challenge -- and counting.)

Likewise, White has taken on Dr. John Dominic Crossan, and a host of Mormon and Roman Catholic apologists.

So now I read that he's challenged Dr. Ergun Caner of Liberty University. I'd known Caner by name only, and thought of him as a "good guy," very frontally taking on Islam and other issues. But then lately his name crossed my radar screen again, through his and his brother's stunningly immature, ignorant, and almost drunkenly pugnacious posts over on the Founder's blog. Here the brothers sneeringly and angrily attack Calvinism and Calvinists (h-t Jason at Fide-o).

So what does White do? Corresponds with Caner, and invites him to debate. Not just any debate anywhere, but at "Liberty University ...before an audience of his own students"; that is, on ground friendly to Caner, and hostile to White.

So far, Caner -- so bold and aggressive on a blog -- has not seized what one would think would be a golden opportunity, if Calvinism is such a ridiculous absurdity.

So what is it that White has, and others lack? Courage? Could be. I think further, though, that it's faith. He has the conviction that God's Word is unassailable, and can stand up to attack. White seems unwilling to let truth fall by default.

That, I admire greatly.

The running and the hiding?

Not so much.

ADDENDA: first, on a serious note, I expect everyone to read the Caner's posts and judge for themselves whether or not I describe their spirit and behavior accurately. But in the course of it, Emir Caner in four words took my breath away.

He signed one of his posts, "Elected because I selected."

I like to think I can put words together fairly well, but this one has me next to speechless. There it all is, in four words. That's where you go when you have contempt for the Biblical doctrines of grace. I just have seldom seen it laid out so baldly, in one who (presumably) should know better. There goes soli Deo gloria. There goes monergistic salvation. There goes Jonah 2:9, Ephesians 2:8-10, John 6:44 and 15:16. There goes Romans 9:16. Turns out dead people (Ephesians 2:1ff.) can actually do a lot of good stuff -- why, they can affect (and effect!) the very counsels of God!

Stunning.

This, I suppose, is the sort of person who can sing "Arminian Grace" and not find a thing wrong with it. What would an Emil Caner do before the throne, if he manages to keep himself saved? Would he see the others casting their crowns... would he say, "You know, really, at bottom, if it wasn't for me, I wouldn't be saved. I think I'll keep it. Thanks. Thanks for playing along, that is"?

Then, on a far lighter note, Purgatorio and his posters has some great fun with James White's "when in Scotland" garb, over here.

UPDATE: James updates this story, and adds his email correspondence with Dr. Caner. Not being a "profile in courage," from where I sit. Not on the Caner side.

It's nice to see other blogs taking up this story, almost this very post. It'd be nicer still if they'd hat-tip, if warranted.

What Dispensationalism Isn't

[I was inspired to this by Jason Robertson's What Calvinism Is Not. Jason, of course, bears no responsibility for this essay.]

Growing up, one learns reluctantly that what seems perfectly clear to you may well prove to be equally perfectly opaque to others. Much danger, weeping, gnashing of teeth and pounding of keyboards lies in the way of ignoring this principle. So when I say I am a dispensationalist, I find that even the best-informed may think something totally different from what I mean.

"Reformed" folks bristle, rightly, at how Arminians (some of whom are dispensationalists) misrepresent and shallowly interact with their beliefs. Then they attack dispensationalism -- unaware that they often are returning the misfavor.

I get it both ways. I tell dispensationalists that I'm Reformed in most areas of theology, and run a real risk of getting a sort of Church-Lady-voice, "Oh, reeeeealllly?"

But the same thing happens when I tell Reformed friends that I'm a dispensationalist. I even had the late William Hendriksen blast me in a letter decades ago, thundering that I couldn't be "100% Reformed" and a dispensationalist. (I hadn't written about dispensationalism, just mentioned it in passing.)

Though there are substantial and real areas of (what should be) brotherly disagreement, I think both are often reacting to a misunderstanding, rather than to the actuality.

So what do I mean when I say I'm a dispensationalist, and what don't I mean? I can put it very, very briefly, believe it or not. Charles Ryrie identifies as three items as the irreducible sine qua non's of dispensationalism, in the first -- and, to my mind, better -- edition of Dispensationalism Today (Moody, 1965, pp. 43-47). In my own words and order, they are:

• Grammatico-historical hermeneutics applied to all Scripture
• The Christian church and Israel distinguished from each other
• The glory of God seen as the center of history

I think that the second and third grow out of the first, which really is the pivotal point. (This is deliberately oversimplified. Michael Vlach gives an admirably brief but more nuanced discussion here.)

Now, that is what I mean by dispensationalism. Sadly, some dispensationalists have gotten attention by teaching other doctrines which may or may not be true, but are not in any way integral to dispensationalism -- any more than Harold Camping's nuttinesses are integral to Calvinism or amillennialism.

So, without further eloquence, here is my partial, exploratory list of What Dispensationalism Isn't.

1. It isn't belief in any particular number of dispensations (all Christians believe in dispensations).
2. It isn't any particular position on the "Lordship"/"grace" controversy.
3. It isn't any particular position on the "continuationism"/"cessationism" controversy.
4. It isn't any particular position on the KJV-only issue.
5. It isn't about multiple ways of salvation.
6. It isn't any particular position on Calvinism/Arminianism/Amyraldianism or any other soteriological "-ism."
7. It isn't any particular position on baptism.
8. It isn't any particular position on church government.
9. It isn't any particular position on the age of the earth, or meaning of the days of Genesis.
10. It isn't about huge, complicated charts. (Any theological position can be turned into a huge, complicated chart.)
11. It isn't contrary to any of the "five Sola's."
12. It isn't anything that any Reformed person shouldn't be able to embrace -- unless his definition of "Reformed" means "non-dispensational," or even "amillennial."
13. It isn't any particular position on the use of alcohol, movie-attendance, dancing, nylons, lipstick, tattoo's, or tobacco.
14. It isn't any particular position on the significance of the current nation of Israel.
15. It isn't inherently divisive -- any more than any other distinctive doctrine (i.e. the five sola's) divides one position from its contraries.

Now, it is true that one can find some or many dispensationalists who occupy particular positions under these categories. One might even find majorities on various positions. What one has to ask is, "Is this integral to the position? Does one of the three core-beliefs necessarily lead to that position?"

For instance, some date-setters have been dispensationalists. But there have been amillennial date-setters, too. If all dispensationalists are to be blamed for Edgar Whisenant, then surely all amillennialists are equally to be blamed for Harold Camping. Which is to say, not -- in either case.

Likewise, it could be argued that the same principles that incline one towards dispensationalism might incline one towards certain truths and certain errors. But if they're not inherent to the system, then they neither credit nor discredit the system. For instance, I think a consistent application of the grammatico-historical hermeneutic will lead one to the poorly-named "cessationist" view, or to affirm that holiness is a necessary fruit of salvation, and that obedience is integral to the Christian life. But those positions aren't necessary to dispensationalism, nor are they confined to dispensationalism.

For instance, it has been said that all dispensationalists are also inerrantists, and all liberals are amillennialists. There is some truth in this. But does one position necessarily and exclusively give rise to the other? Not at all. There might be room for fruitful discussion as to whether affirming the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture most naturally lends itself to a grammatico-historical hermeneutic (it does); and whether a grammatico-historical hermeneutic most naturally lends itself to a dispensational approach to Scripture (it does). Further, it might be discussed whether a person with a low view of Scripture is not likelier to be dismissive of the details of prophecy (he will), and whether that dismissiveness is likelier to yield something more like amillennialism than dispensationalism (you decide!).

The first distinctive led me to be basically "Reformed" on theology, Christology, anthropology, Bibliology, soteriology -- but equally to a distinct position on ecclesiology and eschatology.

But it also cannot be denied that some of the very best, most convinced and convincing stalwart defenders of the authority of the Word have also been convinced amillennialists -- such as Edward J. Young, to name only one of scores.

It would be nice if the two camps ("Reformed" and "dispensationalist") would stop lobbing grenades at each other. It would be nice if they'd recognize each other as co-combatants under a common flag and against a common enemy, would sweep aside straw men, non-sequiturs and old grudges, and would confine the discussion to the only thing we all should care about: what does Scripture teach?

Hey -- a man can dream, can't he?

UPDATE: looking for something else, I stumbled across Revealing The [sic] Dispensational Straw Man, which does a good job of making the specific case that nothing in being a 5-point Calvinist precludes being a dispensationalist, nor vice-versa. Check it out.

Experimental policy change

All right all right. If girls (like La Shawn [although sometimes it's driven her just next to crazy], and Libbie, and Kim, and the Under the Sky lady) allow comments, maybe I should at least try it. Yes, they've unintentionally shamed me into trying it. Shame does sometimes work with me.

I have never allowed comments, and it's been a really good thing. My post on "Jeff Gannon" was linked on liberal sites, and got me hundreds of hate emails; the site would have been swamped with only one viewpoint. I never would have had the time to respond. One of my posts on Chad Allen and "The End of the Spear" (I forget which one) was linked at, I think, a homosexual site. The comments there were just astonishing, even getting at my family. It would have been ugly.

It isn't that I'm against your occasional fly-by drooling idiot, or your occasional stubborn pinhead. They can make life fun, and funny. It's that I've been afraid my readership was such that there'd be no response unless it was by me, and I simply haven't the time.

But that's changed, and I'm hopeful that there could be an evenhanded give and take. "Hopeful" is, you'll note, not a synonym for certain.

Posting at Pyromaniacs has shown me how fun comments can be when you've got a good spread of really great readers and contributors.

So, all that to say, I will try it here. If it doesn't work, it's gone, no tears.

Kind of up to you, Gentle Reader.

Hugh "Squish" Hewitt?

I like listening to Hugh; it's a daily thing as I drive home. He knows an awful lot, he's very interesting, and he is on balance by far the best radio interviewer I have ever heard. He has great guests, and gets the best out of them, he's generally very polite but takes no prisoners and no guff. He also probably most influenced me to get blogging. He also is on my very-select list of links, as you'll see.

All that having been said.....

I called Hugh's show probably a couple of years ago, to talk about something. But Hugh was flogging one of his books at the time (I think it was In, But Not Of : A Guide to Christian Ambition), and he asked me what he was asking every caller. "Have you ordered my book yet?" I said, maybe a bit too emphatically, "No!" He was taken a bit aback, I think, and asked why. It wasn't what I'd called about, so I semi-punted. I've since wished I had been prepared with a better response.

Here's why. I just have no respect for Hewitt as a spokesman when it comes to Biblical essentials. If he wants to have coffee and talk about spiritual things, terrific. But I don't need to buy one of his books on the subject. I accept him as a Christian, but I can't accept him as an authority or spokesman in any sense -- which is unfortunate, given his position and influence.

Starting with the most minor anecdote: he moderated a debate on some aspect of eschatology at Biola, and openly joked about having no clue about the very topic he'd be moderating. First, that's interesting, given that a great deal of the Bible was prophetic/predictive when first written, and it is a subject of some moment. What's more, it isn't as if teaching isn't available. You want to write books about Christianity that other people should pay money for, it seems to me you should have some knowledge in the main areas.

But here's the one that bothered me the most. Hewitt used to have columnist Michael Kelly in what is now the Mark Steyn spot. Kelly was a great guest, knowledgeable and affable. Kelly went to Iraq to do some on-site journalism and, tragically was killed in an accident. It was shocking and sad, and Hewitt paid due tribute to him.

But Hewitt pretty well declared that Kelly was in a better place, or Heaven, or something to that effect. How did he know that? In this essay, Kelly said that he is (Roman) Catholic and his wife is Jewish, so his kids get both Christmas and Hanukah -- and he says this in passing, emphases added:

People sometimes ask me if it is hard to raise children in respect and love for two great faiths that have a slight doctrinal disagreement between them, and I say: Not if you give them presents every day for eight days of Hanukah and for Christmas. The more Gods, the merrier is Tom and Jack's strong belief.

The identity of Jesus the Messiah -- a "slight doctrinal disagreement"?

Since making that stunningly ignorant and misleading statement, did something change within Kelly? Is that the sort of thing a saved man says, to Hewitt? How did Hewitt know Kelly was in Heaven?

Now, I can hear Hewitt demanding of me, as he does to guests when he's in hectoring-mode, "So is Michael Kelly in Hell? Is he in Hell? Did you want me to say he was in Hell? No, I won't let you talk about anything else until you tell me: is Michael Kelly in Hell? Why won't you just answer that simple question: is Michael Kelly in Hell?" And of course I don't know, so I wouldn't have said.

But Hewitt doesn't know, either, so he shouldn't have said anything.

But what I do know, and what self-proclaimed evangelical Hewitt also should know -- unless he didn't learn about soteriology when he wasn't learning about eschatology -- is that Jesus is the only way to God (John 14:6), and that those who don't affirm His Messiahship and Deity will die in their sins (John 8:24). I know that false Gospels damn, they don't save (Galatians 1:6-9). And I know Rome preaches a false Gospel. Does Hugh know that? (More on that later.)

But then something saddened me even more. On that same show, he had a regular caller, a Jewish man named Yoni. Since Yoni was running for political office in Israel, I take it he is unsaved, an unbeliever, rejects Jesus. In the course of talking with Yoni, Hewitt asked Yoni to pray for Michael Kelly.

Wait. What?

Where do you start? This evangelical leader, big-name "God-blogger," author of Christian books, is asking (A) an unsaved man to (B) pray (C) for a dead man? What was that about? Is Proverbs 28:9 in Hugh's Bible? To say nothing of... hello? Praying for a dead man?

Now, I've done a funeral for a person who'd given no evidence of Christian faith. It was tough. But I didn't try to preach him into, or out of, Heaven. Not my business, thank God. But what I did do was preach Christ to the living, and laid down the Gospel as crisp and plain as I could.

Many other things have been niggling concerns over the months. Hewitt has pastors and/or theologians on the show to talk things over and goes on about how deep and wonderful they are -- but the conversations are anything but, as a rule. If I were to say that I could have dug deeper, my point would not be that I'm anything special, but that his "experts" aren't.

Then there was the whole mess around the death and replacement of the Pope. At that time, I began to wonder anew how far Hewitt really had escaped Rome. One perspective alone (friendly to Rome) was given respectful consideration and air-time. I remember Hewitt registering no concern (as I did at the time) about the fact that Rome preaches a damning Gospel, nor that the late pope was a great leader of Mariolatry. The edges of the Gospel just don't seem to loom too large to Hewitt.

And now my fellow-Pyro Frank Turk has weighed in. His post, Hugh Hewitt, Mere Religionist, is what actually finally edged me over to expressing my concerns. Frank's a terrific writer, and I won't try to reproduce what you should read for yourself. Hewitt slaps down all sorts of stuff -- but damning doctrinal insanities? Not so much.

So no, I really probably won't be buying anything Hewitt writes about how to be a Christian witness.

UPDATE: Unlike me, Frank did read In, But Not Of. Looks like I did well in saving my money.

UPDATE II: FRESH SQUISH? I wouldn't have assumed Hewitt knew who John Piper was. But yesterday Hewitt wrote, "If you have cancer, have battled it successfully, or have lost a loved one to the disease, you will want to read this post, and this one, and especially this one." The first is Piper's very challenging essay, "Don’t Waste Your Cancer," written on the eve of his own surgery for prostate cancer. The other two are by some guy who attacks him and his theology. The one that Presbyterian Hewitt says we should "especially" read is a sarcastic, blistering attack on Piper as a pastor, written from equal helpings of emotion and ignorance. There is a lot of venting, and not much Bible. Why does Hewitt think we should "especially" read that one?

UPDATE III: A HISTORY OF SQUISHINESS: m'man Frank Turk looks back into Hugh's deceased books and finds a squishy trail.

UPDATE IV: CENTRAL LOCATION FOR SQUISHLINKS: here.

Woman theologians in the PCA: my half-baked and fully-baked thoughts

The Presbyterian Church in America's magazine By Faith is now featuring an article by Carolyn Custis James who, we're told, has an M.A. in biblical studies, and "is an international conference speaker, and ...author ...." I found the article very troubling. It certainly gave me a nasty case of deja vu.

(Something odd is happening with that link, even though I've repeatedly confirmed it. If it doesn't work, go to the magazine's web site, click on IN THE CHURCH, and you'll see the link to the article.)

Here's what James lays down pretty much at the outset, emphases added:

Currently, PCA churches offer few vocational ministries to women. At a conference recently, a Westminster Theological Seminary graduate told me her heart was in the local church, but because she was unable to find an opportunity to support herself in ministry there, she was reluctantly returning to the business career she had set aside earlier to pursue her seminary degree. Another young woman, graduating in biblical studies this year from Reformed Theological Seminary, asked me pointedly, “What can I do with my seminary degree?” Women in the pews are asking questions too: “How do I fulfill my responsibility to minister to the whole Body of Christ?” “Does the church really value and need my spiritual gifts?”

With the educational and professional advancement of women today, many women come to our churches and wonder why the secular workplace values what they bring to the table, but the church shows so little interest. One young professional remarked, “At work, my male colleagues value and seek out my expertise and involvement. I’d like to think I could make a serious contribution in the church too. But my gifts go virtually unnoticed here.” An attorney with years of experience practicing law and a deep commitment to the church was bewildered that no one ever accepted her offer to assist with expensive legal issues her church was facing. Instead, she was drafted to decorate tables for the church dinner.

I'll launch here. This fires up an array of red lights for me.

When I attended Talbot in the early eighties, the issue of women in the ministry was red-hot. Talbot had recently begun admitting women into the Master of Divinity program, a program traditionally thought of as culminating in a "pastoral degree."

A professor remarked, off the record, that allowing women to take that program was like giving someone a gun, and saying "Now you must never, ever actually shoot this."

It was argued, of course, that women just wanted and deserved the best education, this would make them better pastor's wives, better Sunday School teachers, better servants in women's ministries, etc. Many of us felt that those arguments had real merit... yet were troubled. Ms. James validates every fear we had when she complains that women have nothing to do with these degrees, that they can't get full-time jobs with these degrees, and that because they can't their "gifts" are being undervalued.

Don't miss that: if they can't support themselves full-time in the local church with their seminary training, their God-given gifts are being wasted.

So much for "just" being a great pastor's wife, "just" being an excellent Sunday School teacher, "just" being a women's ministry servant, or "just" being better-educated for personal enrichment.

Then she goes on to give examples precisely like the ones I heard in the early eighties, meant to make the point that women should do exactly what men do in the church. Two ironies whack me over the head:

Irony one: in what is probably supposed to convince us all of the great loss we all are suffering (and our great offense against God), she makes a Biblical case that does not Biblically make her case. That is, none of her Biblical examples makes the case that the church sins by not employing women as full-time theologians. If this is an example of what we're missing... well, you draw your own conclusion.

Irony two: after denigrating the horror of asking this high-powered female lawyer to decorate tables, her very first signal example of a "woman theologian" is Mary, anointing Jesus for burial. Decorating tables is demeaning for an attorney; but pouring oil on a guy isn't. Decorating tables is not serving Jesus; only holding a full-time religious job is. (Wait -- isn't that a step backward from the Reformation she claims so to value?)

(And while I'm being parenthetical, I'll observe that I can't understand why a church would turn down this woman's legal expertise. As the author tells it, it makes no sense. And has nothing to do with employing women fulltime as theologians.)

She does doff her hat, in passing, to the real hot-button issue: "The PCA’s position on the matter of women’s ordination is firm, clear, and defended by Scripture." Then she hurries on to say,

But this position still leaves plenty of room for the PCA to build a reputation as a denomination where women’s gifts are embraced, fully utilized, and publicly affirmed as vital to the health of the Body of Christ. There is still opportunity for us to think of substantial ways to incorporate women into the full life of the church and to brainstorm new ministry vocations for women in our congregations. An encouraging precedent has already been set by the fact that some of the brightest lights in the PCA galaxy are female theologians.

Think over that last one. Most of the folks I've heard lament when women do most of the work in the church. It is taken as an indication that men aren't doing their jobs, and that they are falling to women is thought to be a symptom of male failure. James, by contrast, seemingly thinks it's cool that "some of the brightest lights in the PCA galaxy are female theologians." Is it true? If true, is it really cool?

Then we read this: "The wife of a leading PCA pastor told me, 'PCA men need to unleash our gifts.'" The message here is: Bad men! Bad men -- holding back all those women's God-given gifts!

I attended a little seminar at Biola in the early eighties, where a female Princeton graduate was making the case for woman pastors. She had no in-context Scripture, of course -- so she made exactly the case that James makes (except for the final conclusion): women were taught and did things in the Gospel, the Holy Spirit gives women gifts, ergo women should be pastors. QED.

Well, children were taught and did things, too. Should children be pastors? As to the Holy Spirit, I take it as a given that the Holy Spirit never gives a gift to do something that He forbids. He doesn't men the "gift" of lying glibly, and he doesn't give women the "gift" of teaching or exercizing authority over men (2 Timothy 2:8-15).

Is there some large Bible-believing contingency who believes that women can't be taught, or do things? Is there someone who believes that women aren't gifted and crucially valuable? I've not heard that this is much of a pandemic, let alone an epidemic -- or even a microdemic. Only if the problem is defined as being unwilling to "let" women do what Scripture forbids them to do, is this much of a problem among Bible-believers, as far as I know.

She also says this:

One of the serious side-effects of roping off women’s gifts within the confines of women’s or children’s ministries, is that men have effectively cut themselves off from vital ministry that they need and God intended for them to receive. It is still “not good for the man to be alone.”

Since I'm tiring of hearing myself using the word "irony," I assume you're tiring of it too. But I have to use it one more time... maybe two. Yeah, two. No, three. Here goes.

First, it is an irony that the passage she quotes (“not good for the man to be alone”) is where God explains why he made for Adam a wife. Yet the message of the article clearly is that being a helpful wife is not enough.

Second, it is an irony to have James denigrate "roping off women's gifts" to the "confines" of women's or children's ministries. Wow, I guess those ministries must really be wastes of time for women. I guess when we talk up how essential they are, we're -- what, lying?

I honestly need this cleared up: Ms. James scoffs at "roping off" women to the "confines" of "women's or children's ministries." Now, help me out here. She doesn't want to teach children, she doesn't want to teach women. Scripture forbids her to teach or exercise authority over men, at least in the context of the local church. But she's explicitly raised the issue of fulltime employment in the local church.

So what is it that she wants to do, that she can't do?

Third and final irony: James has no Biblical precedent for what she seems to want to do. In fact, the two explicit Biblical examples I can immediately think of for women actually teaching are: women teaching their children (Proverbs 1:8-9; 6:20-23; 31:26), and women teaching younger women to be great and godly wives and mothers (Titus 2:3-5). Note this well:

1. Neither of these is presented as fulltime local-church-salaried employment; and...
2. None of these scriptures is mentioned even once in Ms. James' article!

FINAL DISCLAIMER: there are real, legitimate, hard questions to be asked about what women should and should not do, and be employed to do, in the context of the local church. I do not even pretend to be able to answer those questions.

For that matter, I'll go one better: I don't see a direct precedent, offhand, for fulltime salaried male professional theologians anyway. Except pastors.

But that's a subject for another post.

(POSTSCRIPT: After writing my thoughts, I read this essay by "Little Phil." I commend it to you.)

UPDATE: Some sisters in Christ blessed me with insightful email and conversation after this. Libbie just blogged some thoughts, from a different perspective, that I find very insightful, and commend to you. This in particular is wonderfully put: "...they claim to be wanting to lift women up. Yet they go about this by denigrating the clear mandates given to women in scripture, exalting the mandates given to men, and then saying that women should be doing the men's tasks because the women's tasks are rubbish."

"Arminian Grace"

Ouch, and LOL, at the same time:

Arminian Grace
(To the tune of Amazing Grace)

Arminian "grace!"
How strange the sound,
Salvation hinged on me.
I once was lost
then turned around,
Was blind then chose to see.

What "grace" is it
that calls for choice,
Made from some good within?
That part that wills
to heed God's voice,
Proved stronger than my sin.

Thru many ardent gospel pleas,
I sat with heart of stone.
But then some hidden good in me,
Propelled me toward my home.

My poor, dead neighbor,

Such a fool!

Didn't choose from sin to flee

I had the sense
to change my heart

But he's not smart -- like me!

When we've been there
ten thousand years,
Because of what we've done,
We've no less days
to sing our praise,
Than when we first begun.

(With apologies to John Newton)

(From Timmy at Provocations and Pantings; the bolded verse is my addition.)

C. J. Mahaney is wrong -- >:^(

I'll admit from the outset that I know next to nothing about C. J. Mahaney. He's supposed to be a good guy. He's supposed to be Reformed and Charismatic, which... no comment. MacArthur invited him to preach. That last one really proves he's a good guy, to many. And that, really, is about all I know.

Well, that, and this: he has ruled that Real Men don't use smileys. His dictum:

Real men do not use smiley faces on e-mails! This is fine for the ladies, but not the men. Real men communicate humor effectively without having to use a smiley face and real men can discern the presence of genuine humor without seeing a smiley face. So let our blog be free from all wimp-like communication!

Perhaps he is some-kind-of joking, although his thought is echoed here and there -- the latter of which featuring some very, ah, lively interaction.

Maybe C. J.'s joking. If so, no one's sure. Of course, he could have removed all doubt by ending his post with a (c; -- but that would have made him a wimp.

It is passing ironic to have a Charismatic objecting to men expressing emotions. My objection is simply that it has no Scriptural basis. Well that, and that it's silly. To me, it would make as much sense to call emoticons "wimpy" as it would to stigmatize people who use certain letters of the alphabet, or compound verbs or predicate adjectives, as being a bit light in the loafers.

"Say, Dirk -- do you notice that Francoise over there says 'down-size' an awful lot?"

"You know, Crusher, you're right. And the letter 'q' seems to keep cropping up."

"Yeah. D'you think maybe...?"

Silly. If we're going to judge by such trivia, what about people who go by their initials, instead of their given name? Pretentious, much?

In other words, it makes no sense.

Is the goal communication, or isn't it? I say it is. Even John felt the limitations of mere pen and ink, powerful as his writing was (2 John 12; 3 John 13). How often have you written something in a light mood, or meant to be taken lightly and chattily, and had it received as if it were a thunderous denunciation? If an emoticon better communicates the tone of a note, where's the bad?

And by the way, Mahaney wrote, "Real men communicate humor effectively without having to use a smiley face and real men can discern the presence of genuine humor without seeing a smiley face." But many of us don't know whether he's serious. So... does that mean he isn't a real man, since he didn't "communicate humor effectively"? Or that we aren't, since we didn't "discern the presence of genuine humor without seeing a smiley face"?

Hmm.

:^/