22 August 2012

A Miscellany for 21 August 2012 (MacArthur, Zenawi, and Akin)

I have several more articles just about ready to go, but tonight I wanted to comment on three things.

Focus on the Family and John MacArthur
There was an interesting episode of Focus on the Family that aired on Monday. The guest was John MacArthur. For those who don't know him, he's something of an anomaly being both a Calvinist and a Dispensationalist. I encountered him in the mid-90's not long after my conversion by reading some of his writings regarding the Lordship Controversy. It was well worth the read and helped me to better to understand the theological underpinnings of a great error, the unbiblical doctrine of Carnal Christianity....something that had personally affected my life. For years I had believed myself to be a kind of 'bad' Christian. It was only in 1995 I realized I wasn't a Christian at all.
Politically speaking, MacArthur is a conservative and because of his Dispensational orientation he's certainly concerned with American policy toward Israel. But being a more consistent Pre-Millennialist, he's not very optimistic about this world's present course.[i] In addition he rightly believes that much of what the American Church is doing in terms of the Culture War is actually harmful to the cause of the Gospel.
He's strongly condemned by Dominionists and Theonomists. Just the other day I was reading a Coral Ridge publication that specifically condemned his views and those of Cal Thomas. Thomas and MacArthur are both conservatives, they don't have a problem with the political and economic agenda of American Conservatism....they just think the church has put too much stock in it.[ii]
MacArthur has always seemed a bit more sound and he made an important point on the programme, that the Culture War is making the unbeliever into an enemy that we demonize and act as if we wish to destroy. This is not helping the cause of the gospel.[iii]
I would have added that the 'offense' of Christianity is today often due to political and social aggression....not the offense of the Gospel. I know for example the Family Research Council thinks they recently suffered persecution for the faith. I disagree. They're not a Christian organization. They're a political lobby. They're trying to use the force of law and the threat of violence that goes with it to support their agenda.
While I certainly cannot condone the actions of a sick and evil gunman...he was meeting the violence (as he rightly perceives their actions)....with a more direct and immediate form of violence. That doesn't make either party right in any way, but it also doesn't mean that they quite qualify for what historically would be labeled Christian 'persecution'.
Listening to the Focus on the Family programme I was also struck by a couple of things. One, the shift in tone. A few years ago, this episode would not have happened. Focus on the Family in 2012 has a different emphasis today than it did in the recent past.
The organization obviously ran out their founder, James Dobson. No one is privy to the truth in this...Christian organizations (including denominations) are always very tight-lipped.[iv]  
 Nevertheless Dobson had been moving in a more politically aggressive direction, especially after the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. This picked up tempo after the 2008 election.[v] The shows seemed to regularly take up these themes in the last couple of years he was on the show.
And then suddenly Dobson decides to 'retire'...but then within a very short time he starts up a new radio show, where he's basically doing the same thing? Don't most people call that lying? I'm well aware of the fact that Focus on the Family financially 'helped' him out...getting started with the new programme etc... it was all real warm and friendly. I don't think so.
Anyway, the new leadership at Focus on the Family (Jim Daly providing the new face) seemed to want to distance themselves from his political agenda and have definitely spent a lot more time 'focusing' on family and relationship type issues. I will often just flip the show on, listen for a minute to see what they're talking about and turn it off. For a long time now, it's been stuff about weight-loss, self-esteem, and all the usual extra-Biblical and un-Biblical fare that Focus has pushed for a long time.
So by bringing MacArthur on...I thought, this is interesting. But if you listen to the show it seems to me they struggled quite a bit with what he was saying and in the end essentially rejected it. They cited Colson once at the beginning and then certainly at the end where the announcer seemed to just about dismiss everything MacArthur said. It also seemed like they cut it short a little earlier than usual. It wasn't hostile, but they definitely were not resonating with what he was saying.
I don't know if Daly and the other Focus leaders are struggling, trying to find a balance or more likely...I don't think they understand the issues. I think they found his ideas intriguing because they're concerned about the almost violent spirit growing within the American Church, but then when they actually talked to him... the implications of what he was saying was just too much.
They were trying to somehow equate MacArthur's ideas with Colson's when they couldn't be farther apart. Colson regularly argued that the "Gospel is not enough..." and insisted on the Culture War. Colson's ideas were not original[vi], he was largely promoting the ideas of Francis Schaeffer and by extension Abraham Kuyper.[vii] These ideas are incompatible with MacArthur's theology and he seems well aware of it.
Anyway it was a rare interesting moment listening to Christian Radio.
I'm afraid MacArthur's lessons and many unelaborated points concerning power etc... were missed by the hosts of the programme. Sometimes these radio and television shows are so abbreviated it's almost impossible to actually cover anything in depth.
I haven't had regular television since early 1995. And for years we've lived in a rural area where you cannot receive any channels via an antenna. We're not opposed to television per se. We have the device, watch movies, and since getting high-speed internet, we watch news programmes, movies, and sometimes even old television shows from years ago....The Waltons, Columbo, etc...
Recently for the first time in seventeen years, we briefly got television. We're not sports people but wanted to watch the Olympics. I haven't watched a football game in almost twenty years. We're not into any of the major sports, but we do like the Olympics, especially the Winter games. The Olympics are different and it's interesting because of its international flavour.
Actually we watched very little, but recorded them and then over the next year or so we'll work our way through the discs, watching them....and best of all...we can fast-forward through the commercials.
The television is now turned off, the cable disconnected. They're picking it up tomorrow. I was able to get a special deal for one month. We'll probably turn it on again in 2014 when the Winter Olympics are shown.
Good riddance. I have to say after not having it all those years...that was nothing less than shocking. There was no way we would have ever considered (even for a moment) leaving that thing on and unattended with our children in the house. Wow.
Anyway, after spending years digesting international media I was curious to see some domestic news. I have watched some on the internet, so I wasn't too surprised...though a little....to find....
There is no news on American television.
Here I naively thought there would be some good programmes on. But some of the old shows that we remembered from years past like 20/20 and Dateline....they're just a joke. Entertainment really. 60 minutes is probably the one exception.
The History Channel? There's no history at all.
I could go on for quite awhile about what we saw and learned. It was a fascinating sociological experiment to turn that thing on after all these years. Maybe I'll get around to writing about it at some point.
But the news is what really got me. If that's all Americans are getting, then there's no way any kind of Democracy could ever function. There was no reporting, it was just fluff, human interest stories, silliness and often raunchy.
I think of all the years I've watched and listened to international news and for these American television personalities to call themselves journalists is nothing less than an insult.
I had heard that the new CBS morning show was real serious, an in-depth news programme. So I watched it and was left scratching my head and quite unimpressed. This is 'serious'?
So then I watched the Today show and Good Morning America. Wow, it was almost like, anything BUT news. Maybe it's always been that bad. The last time I watched Today was back when it was still Bryant Gumbel and a young Katie Couric who had just replaced Deborah Norville and Jane Pauley.
Again I was just struck by the fact that the American news scene isn't liberal or conservative as much as it's just dumb and entertainment oriented. FOX of course is very slanted, but even then...if I was a hardcore Republican, I couldn't watch that. If you like that, then there's something wrong with you.
A woman I've known and worked for many years is a staunch conservative but not much of a television person. She's been greatly affected by her friends via those good old political emails that we're all so familiar with. Her friends are obviously very much into Glenn Beck and the FOX news scene and it has had quite an influence on her. Anyway she'd heard so much about FOX and so she decided to get cable. I was so pleased when after a couple of months she had it disconnected again. Again, she about as conservative as they come, but she found FOX to be pretty repugnant. She had no interest in watching it.
Elsewhere I've told the story about a friend of mine who has lived overseas for several years. At some point he was at someone's house or something and saw FOX news. This was back around 2000 if I recall. We were talking on the phone and he mentioned it to me. He rightly identified it as WWF (the fake wrestling federation) news. He couldn't believe that people were actually watching O'Reilly and these others programmes. He was even more shocked when I informed him that all the Christians loved that station, it was the news source of choice. He's quite conservative as well, but had no interest in watching anything on that station.
It is shocking and reveals much about the mindset and heart of American Christianity. Several Christian leaders (especially Reformed men like Lillback and Beisner) who have appeared on those programmes should be ashamed of themselves and rebuked.
Generally speaking American news is pro-Establishment, patriotic, and deliberately shallow. I've never been a fan of Cronkite. I remember him being on television, but I was too young to have formed an opinion of him. I knew my dad didn't like him. As a staunch conservative he considered his Vietnam reporting to be treasonous. Strange for a 'liberal' to have contributed to bringing down the president who authored The Great Society.
Cronkite certainly had liberal beliefs, but was still patriotic and establishment minded. As a longtime NPR listener[viii], for years, up until just shortly before his death, I had to endure his rather lame commentaries. Considering the span of his life, the things he witnessed, I do not think he gained a great deal of insight or wisdom.
These days, Ted Koppel often appears on Talk of the Nation. Once again a supposed member of the 'liberal' media who only wants American reporters to report our news and over the past couple of years seems to push for military intervention in Pakistan and arguably Iran. Oh and he's good friends with Henry Kissinger. Yeah, real liberal. There's certainly nothing strange about being friends with someone you disagree with, but his statements go beyond that.
I guess they're liberal because they didn't properly 'hate' Carter, Clinton, and Obama. That seems to be the criteria.
My whole point in this was that once again tonight as I turned off the television for the last time, I was struck by our media's utter failure and negligence.
Meles Zenawi just died, and if you haven't heard of him, then you're either not paying attention or you're a frequent viewer of American network and/or cable news.
He was the prime minister of Ethiopia and his death is frankly a pretty big deal in terms of geopolitics. The United States under both Bush and Obama have been pursuing a proxy foreign policy in East Africa which involves Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya and others. There's a whole range of issues from Al-Shabaab, to Somalia (another incredibly complicated mess made worse by the United States), to Sudan, South Sudan, the Congo, Domestic policy in Uganda, the issues concerning piracy, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and Yemen. There are wars, proxy wars, subterfuge, coup d'état and much more.
If you watch the mainstream news, then you probably know next to nothing about any of this.  His death wasn't even mentioned. If you watch, read, or listen to Christian media, then I guarantee you've received a carefully crafted misguided and perhaps overtly deceptive, certainly reductionistic and American biased narrative. The reporting in these circles on what's happening in Africa is so bad as to be misleading.
For months I've wanted to write about this, but it's complicated and I don't have the time to do it. I have notes on two African articles. One on East Africa and the aforementioned issues and the other dealing with Nigeria, Oil, Boko Haram, and the religious tensions in West Africa. I've also have a partially completed article on Syria and all its geopolitical implications. I hope to get back to that soon. It's been sitting incomplete with notes for over a month.
I can't compete with CBN, World Magazine, and the many other so-called Christian media outlets. I am unable to serve as a news bureau, but one thing I can do is help Christians to understand what's happening and try to put it into some perspective. God willing the time and resources will be granted to me in order to do that.
If not, then all I can do (as I'm doing here at the moment) is raise the issue.
There are large stories that our media isn't covering. Tonight on CBS, apparently it was more important to discuss PTSD-affected soldiers and their therapeutic dogs. Yesterday it was Phyllis Diller. And in between the segments we watch commercials put out by teams of professional liars trying to convince us that by voting for one or the other of the two parties...something is going to change?
Rather than reflect on the state of American news and reporting, it would seem the Church has decided to go for the even more dumbed-down and biased. Rather than be challenged to think, to actually try and learn something, they'd rather have their ears tickled while getting to watch tacky women (who despite being dressed in provocative manner, act and talk like men)[ix] or thugs who shout down people and insult their audience by posting the text of their commentary alongside of their editorial pontifications. Just in case you missed it....[x]
And finally,
While I'm not going to wade into the Todd Akin controversy and its political implications...because I'm not really not all that interested....I do wish to point out that Mr. Akin appeared in Kirk Cameron's Monumental, espoused opinions I found to be lacking, ill-informed, and ignorant....
And he's a member of the Presbyterian Church in America (the PCA), is Reformed in doctrine, heavily influenced by the late Theonomist D James Kennedy, and in fact is a graduate of Covenant Seminary.
Again much more could be said. His statements reminded me of several issues related to a sub-set within Reformed circles....a semi-cultic movement I might label Domesticism. I'm not sure that's exactly where Akin is coming from but he certainly is associating with some of those folks. There are a host of issues, but one of them is that some of these folks have embraced some really bizarre ideas about medicine, health, science etc...
For someone falling under this umbrella to make a statement akin (no pun intended) to his statements regarding rape and pregnancy....wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Someday I hope to elaborate on the issues surrounding this non-official cluster of movements within the Reformed world. A lot of it, especially the camps and ideas associated with Bill Gothard qualifies not only as heretical but cultic.
I must say, that though we presently attend a PCA I am appalled by many of the people who are associated with the denomination. Not only do I not wish to affiliate myself with the denomination,[xi] in the case of someone like Akin, I actually celebrate his downfall.
Not because I'm vengeful. I don't know the man.
Not because I support his political opponents. I don't.
But because he's a heretic and represents a theology which encourages the Church to embrace evil. I wish him no ill. I hope he repents. But I'm also glad that the agenda he would promote has by his actions and foolishness been hindered and I sincerely hope he loses his election bid.
It's not about his victory or defeat being some kind of victory for America. It has nothing to do with that. I'm speaking strictly in terms of the Church and the fact that one false shepherd (in a broad sense) has been exposed.
The Church of course has been shamed, but his victory would be even worse.
Just some things to consider........

[i] This is also consistent with Amillennialism, though many Amillennialists are also Dominionists. These 'optimistic' Amillennialists don't believe Christianity is going to conquer the earth, but they do believe Christianity will have real cultural and political success. Practically speaking they're little different from Postmillennialists who seek to (and believe they will succeed in) transforming the earth and its institutions into redeemed categories. In others words they believe the Kingdom will be manifest on earth before the Parousia, the 2nd Coming of Christ.
[ii] Cal Thomas is a regular feature in our local newspaper and used to be on the local 'christian' radio station. I disagree with him on just about every issue, in fact to be clear how strongly I feel about him... I don't think I could bring myself to sit in a congregation where he was present. He needs to repent. Some of his views are completely contrary to and irreconcilable with Scripture.
Though on the surface he disavows his former ties with the Christian Right, he still espouses all the same positions, the same sacralized economic policies, political theories, the same militarism and bellicosity, the same nationalistic pride and historical myths created by Christians. It's like he reads his Bible and knows (somewhere deep down) that the Christian Right isn't in accord with Scripture, so he distances himself...but then when confronted with any particular issue he goes back to his default mode... Christo-Americanism. He can't divorce himself from the idol he worships.
The aberrant and evil views of Cal Thomas and Charles Colson played a large role in pushing me to start writing. Listening to them every day drove me to want to start responding. I felt like someone, somewhere should challenge their assumptions. It angered me that these men are looked to as spokesmen and leaders within American Christianity.
And it irks me to no end that Thomas is erroneously tied to somehow advocating a Two Kingdom theology or a position of 'disengagement'. Anyone who is familiar with him would have to laugh at the assertion. He's a political partisan...with a conscience? I don't think so. I think he's just been around long enough to have a realistic view of what all this actually accomplishes. He's not a Pollyanna when it comes to Christian political activism. That is perhaps the sole accolade I would give him.

[iii] In Reformed circles, Kline offered a similar critique directed specifically at Theonomic Reconstructionism. He argued their desire to gain political power and to force Covenant-compliance on a society...their application of the so-called Dominion Mandate was in direct contradiction to the Great Commission. We can't disciple the nations if we're arresting them and executing them.

[iv] Whether this is due to the nature of institution, thinking in bureaucratic terms, or simply due to concerns about losing income if too much is disclosed, I don't know. Telling the truth in many of these instances would not qualify as gossip, which is I think another very misunderstood concept. But that's for another time....

[v] I was often amazed listening to him. He criticized Obama for wielding too much power in 2009-2010 when the Democrats held the Congress. It was defeating the checks and balances the Founders had built into the system, he insisted. One party shouldn't have that much power. His tone could be described as livid.

Of course the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate from 2002 until the 2006 mid-term election and not once did I ever hear Dobson complain about the Republicans holding Congress and the Presidency. For four years the Republicans held an almost unchallenged grip on power and due to the political climate (post 11 September) they largely went along with Bush as he waged global war and passed treasonous legislation like the Patriot Act. That name is like something out of Orwell.

And Dobson also defended Bristol Palin's out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Obviously he wasn't defending her fornication, but he praised her for 'keeping' the baby etc... I too am glad she didn't abort the baby, but that's not the point.

Can you even imagine what he would have said during the 1990's if Chelsea Clinton had turned up pregnant? Aside from calling her a tramp, he would have excoriated her parents and the values they had passed on to her etc...and yet the Palin's are just fine exemplars of the Christian family?

Sometimes I really and truly wonder with these people....are they so blind that they cannot see their own hypocrisy and inconsistency, or are they just plain opportunistic and deceptive and somehow they've justified it in their minds?

[vi] In fact listening to Colson (and I had for years) I was often struck by the disconnected and jumbled way he spoke...leading me to wonder how much he actually grasped what he proffered. He was all over the place, quoting all kinds of people, but often the quotes....didn't support what he was saying. The people he quoted were sometimes saying the opposite of what he was saying. I wouldn't suggest he was unintelligent. I just don't know. He was incredibly cunning and respected. People from the Bush White House tended to roll their eyes at people like Dobson and DJ Kennedy. They didn't understand how the political machine worked. But Colson, he knew it inside and out and played an important role in the Evangelical political machine.
Considering that he didn't really write most of his books and then listening to him speak on so many occasions I was left wondering if the 'chief intellectual' of American Evangelicalism was actually something of a fraud.

[vii] Two titanic figures in terms of 20th Century Protestant Sacralistic and Dominionistic thought. Their influence (and I would argue destructiveness) cannot be overemphasized.

[viii] NPR and perhaps PBS are about the only somewhat laudable news agencies in the United States. But even then, I find both organizations to be establishment minded. For years I've watched PBS documentaries online and especially when it comes to American History....if they're 'Leftist' then the Left died long before Nixon left office. The reporting has more depth than the mainstream news, but they still largely accept the government line and I'm amazed at how often they turn to commentators from the Heritage Foundation and other such groups.

[ix] Another article awaiting composition deals with the tendency among Conservative women to dress provocatively. I'm not a legalist nor a prude, but there's an interesting pendulum swing at work. The reaction to feminism in some sectors of conservatism has been to respond with celebrating femininity. But our culture no longer understands the concept and has equated sensuality with femininity. What used to be considered sluttish is now being feminine, the distinction has been reduced to a nebulous line....two inches of cleavage is okay....four is trashy. Three inch heels and a skirt 8 inches above the knee is feminine....Four inch heels and a skirt 10 inches above the knee...that's slutty.

Watching international news, it's like we're left with the strange picture of secular, worldly, European women looking....more often than not feminine and properly dressed. Feminism there celebrates women for being women.

And the good Christian women of FOX News (including PCA pastor Tim Keller's congregant Anne Coulter) looking as one comedian put it.... like crack whores.

Both amazing and interesting how feminism has played out in America. In the United States you get the whole 'empowerment' and 'self-esteem' impulse...which breeds the 'if you got it, flaunt it' mindset, coupled with American feminism's need for women to act like men in their speech and demeanour. In Secular or Leftist feminist circles this has often driven women to be frumpy and unkempt (there are exceptions like Naomi Wolf)...driving Conservative women to be 'feminine' in response. But the problem is, American narcissism doesn't produce traditional feminine attributes, but that's for another time....

[x] I'm sure the American television psyche equates news-box text with facts and I'm sure many watchers confuse O'Reilly's pontifications with actual news. A similar phenomena often occurs with the commentary in Study Bibles. After they walk away, they confuse what was text with what was commentary. That's why I generally consider them to be a bad idea.

[xi] And I cannot in good conscience verbalize their membership oaths. This is for many reasons I've talked about elsewhere, but one being that you're called on to pray for the peace and well-being of the Church...by which they mean the PCA denomination. I made a point to have this clarified.

I cannot in good conscience affirm such a statement, let alone vow it. Truly many people like Akin, Coulter, DeMint, and others I consider to be enemies of the Kingdom.


Jim C. said...


Hey John,

I found this article from 2009 describing Dobson's departure from FOF. It doesn't go into exhaustive detail but it does say that they were struggling to attract younger listeners and they had recently had to cut their staff in order to reduce operating expenses.

Dobson also said something about "letting the younger generation take the reins" in spite of leading the organization for 30 years.

Taking all of this into consideration it seems that it came down to the bottom line. For this entity to have remained economically viable it had to attract a growing demographic of younger listeners and Dobson was making that too difficult.

Whether his political activism had anything to do with it is uncertain.


Protoprotestant said...

They've been struggling for several years and it would seem there were people on the board who believed Dobson's activism was starting to drive some people away. He was getting a little fanatical about it.

So he stepped down as Chairman in 2009...in the article you linked.

But then in early 2010...something else happened, and that's not entirely clear. It would seem...but again it's all hush hush....he was about to be fired but then he resigned.

In 2009, he stepped down as Chairman...he no longer had any administrative duties and was just supposed to host the radio show.

But apparently that wasn't good enough. Whether it was the tone or the fact that he wasn't acting like a person who had stepped down...who knows?

So then suddenly he's also leaving the radio show and he made statements about 'moving on' to do other things etc... He made it sound like he was going to semi-retire or whatever. But then within just a few months he has another radio show going that is strangely just like FOF. He obviously had no intention of quitting radio or any of it.

I think everyone pretty much agrees that we was forced out...it's the why. No one knows and they won't say.

While I think the reasons cited in the article you linked are part of it I don't think it delves into 'why' the younger people were being turned off from the organization?

I think the younger evangelical just isn't into that Goldwater-esque Right-wing agenda...

and the leaders of the Christian Right are starting to panic a bit.

Do they modify the message a little like FOF is struggling to do?

Or do they keep at it and for all their efforts...poof!....in another 20 years they may be in serious decline, because the older generations will be gone and the younger generations will not have adapted their view.

This is why the hardliners are getting aggressive....I think anyway....It's not quite endgame time, but almost.

This is that funny little historical/sociological phenomena.

Do you refuse to change and die? Or...

Do you change your ideological message to stay alive...and in the end lose because you changed the nature of what you were about?

I think there's a split in the Sacralist camps over this issue. In the meantime they're being very aggressive in pursuing the middle aged and younger generation. If they don't win over a substantial demographic 'chunk' of the population by the time my generation (gen X) reaches senior citizen age....then they're done.

Anonymous said...

so what you don't think focus on the family has a right to preserve their organization?

i don't think it was some kind of conspiracy.

Dobson is a dinosaur, and to save the ministry they needed to move on. He resisted and they dumped him.

do you really think they're going to broadcast that? would anyone?

i'm not a big fan of fotf, but you might be a little on the unfair side of things,


Jim C. said...


From an amoral and pragmatic viewpoint, you're correct. Focus on the Family is a corporate entity and like any other has to worry about its net earnings. When profitability declines it has to cut costs. Since payroll constitutes the largest portion of any company's operating expenses one of the first things it usually does it lay people off. Focus on the Family had already done this. They had also seen Dobson as a hindrance to attracting new listeners. Thus, they had to let him go. No one is immune.

Also, it would make sense for them to remain silent about any power struggle within its bureaucracy (assuming there was one and it seems reasonable to do so given the evidence) in order to maintain a positive public image.

What Proto and I are rhetorically asking, however, is how an organization that calls itself Christian and claims to base its faith and practice on the Bible can function this way.

Does Scripture even allow for the existence of such an organization? Do we find Christian PACs in the New Testament? This is something else to think about.

Do we even find Christ or any of the apostles exhorting Christians to use the government as political leverage?

These are just a couple of the assumptions this website goes to great length to address...and ultimately question.

Hope this helps,

Protoprotestant said...

I couldn't have said it better.

Anonymous said...

Cal Thomas ... though on the surface he disavows his former ties with the Christian Right, he still espouses all the same positions ... It's like he reads his Bible and knows (somewhere deep down) that the Christian Right isn't in accord with Scripture, so he distances himself...but then when confronted with any particular issue he goes back to his default mode ...

I think it's a ploy. He claims to have discovered that the conflation of faith and politics is bad and criticizes those that do so. Therefore, he couldn't possibly be doing it himself. What _he_ is doing is completely different--and good. _His_ words and actions are a good model to follow. Whatever.

Jim C. said...

Hey John,

I apologize for changing the subject but I was wondering if you had any intention of continuing/concluding your series on gay marriage.


Protoprotestant said...

Anonymous, I agree with what you said. He criticizes the melding, but then every one of his commentaries is nothing less than a Right Wing call to action.

As I said it just irritates me that when Dominionist types want to invoke an example of someone who has 'disengaged' they look to...of all people!...Cal Thomas.

And Jim,

Yes, I've got the next couple of parts essentially done. I just have to go back over them and clean them up. Just been too busy. I thuoght I would get to it on Saturday but it was not to be.

I still have to finish the Kirk Cameron series, the one with the guy who's son dies in Iraq, and I've got several more sitting there, either partially done, mostly done, or ready to be written.

What happens is...I go to work and end up with a couple of pages of notes. I either write it that night or it will just end up on the stack....the dozens of pages of notes of articles to be written.

But then I sit down and write and the articles end up being a bit longer than I anticipated and so... things often don't get 'quite' done.

When I get a day, I can sit down a do a bunch of clean-up, editing etc....

But I haven't had a 'day' in awhile. Perhaps soon. In the meantime, I'll keep at it when I can.

Thanks for the encouragement. It's nice to know someone is interested.

Anonymous said...

I have been following for a while usually keep to myself in no way does this mean I am not interested . I too am wondering what your going to cover further on the gay marriage political views going on these days. My husband and I feel this is not something the "churches" should be involved with one way or the other pro or against. It is by the Holy Spirit we are convicted of right or wrong..If we have no conviction then as scripture says we are like a child with no father....Now it is not to say we do not have an answer if we are asked we are to be ready with scripture to explain why this is not God's wish for us to behave in this manner...We to have reponcibility to love our neighbors as ourselves if we are about hate and anger then we are no differnt than those who insist I have to adhere to thier beliefs without letting me share mine. I do so hope I have not rambled on too much..
I recently said to a baptist I know who believes"ALL MUSLIMS " will someday "KILL ALL CHRISTAINS" I said please do not pool every one of them into a box that they are all radical killers becasue we may just become pooled into a box with the skinheads and kkk ok enough said sorry for going on . Have a pleasant day. PRL

Protoprotestant said...

Wow interesting. I've also received some private encouragment to finish this series. I'm motivated. I will certainly get another portion out this evening....God willing.

Spoiler alert......

It's probably no surprise, but while I'm not for gay marriage, I'm not necessarily against it either.

Some will say 'huh?' but others of you will know what I mean.

As usual I think the Church has got this wrong because they're operating with the wrong assumptions and hence (and very importantly) asking the wrong questions.

More to come....

Anonymous said...

Yes: wrong assumptions leading to wrong questions; and ultimately to very wrong answers--that's the root problem of the sacralist positipon.

The visible kingdom-confused (political/sacralist/culture warring) "church" ends up battling the symptoms of sick and dying culture (the world), which dissipates her energies and focus, thus she doesn't effectively hold forth the "cure" (the redemptive gospel.)


Anonymous said...

锘縅eans just like ugg boots were not [url=http://www.uggukcheaper.co.uk]cheap ugg boots[/url] designed with fashion in brain. Denims ended up originally made for coal miners and workers that [url=http://www.uggukcheaper.co.uk]ugg boots uk[/url] experienced heavy duty jobs so they experienced one thing durable and very long lasting to put on. Ugg boots ended up originally built in Australia and were being utilized by WWII pilots that required to always keep their feet heat. Later on as much more folks located out what productive insulators they were, surfers began using them to keep their ft hot once getting out of the drinking water. Jeans are likely the only pair of trousers that have reinvented by themselves in excess of time to hardly ever go out of model. You can discover at the very least 1 pair of jeans in each individual closet and uggs are catching on in the same exact way.

Australian ugg boots have turn into the fashionable winter footwear that almost everyone is putting on. If you think it a passing pattern, guess yet again. Australian ugg boots are here to keep. They are the type of footwear you can pull out of your closet and have on each winter months year. You can also add a various shade of Australian ugg boots to your closet just about every winter. You can get started with chestnut brown which is the most popular coloration and transfer on to any colour that you consider would go well with your wardrobe. They are also readily available in ankle, calf and knee duration designs. You can pick Australian ugg boots that would match your individual flavor and lifestyle.

What can make these boots so unique is that they are manufactured with authentic Australian [url=http://www.uggukcheaper.co.uk]ugg boots uk[/url] sheepskin. The fleece found in Australian sheepskin is a organic insulator that correctly retains your feet heat when always keeping the humidity out. Your ft will never ever sense sweaty and moist when carrying Australian ugg boots. These boots are not meant to be worn with socks so they can sufficiently mold to the condition of your ft. Because of this reward, you will under no circumstances working experience any foot ache. The heels, arches of your feet and toes are completely cushioned to give you lasting ease and comfort whereas walking close to in ugg boots. Don get fooled by artificial ugg boots. They will not have the same exact benefits as legitimate uggs. You might finish up expending less if you resolve to order synthetic kinds but they will not maintain your ft as heat. Because authentic fleece is not utilised in artificial uggs they can overheat your ft making them damp and sweaty.

If you want your Australian ugg boots to very last you a very long time you have to learn about to consider adequate treatment of them. Do not ever endeavor to set them in your washing machine or dryer. Ugg boots are too sensitive to withstand the vigorous cycles of a washing machine and would get completely ruined. You can hand clean your boots with a specific detergent resolution manufactured for ugg boots. The detergent will take away any dust and dirt trapped on your ugg boots when retaining the superior of the sheepskin fleece. Ugg boots might have not too long ago received your particular attention but they have been all-around for pretty some time. They will keep going always keeping toes warm and be 1 of the most crucial manner objects to personal.
[url=http://www.guiaintimo.com.br/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=73:aline&Itemid=112&limitstart=120] uggs, Reserve Testimonials - New Moon low-cost wow gold[/url]
[url=http://hedgephone.com/partners/#comment-46949] UGG Boots-Great Present Strategies for the Approaching Halloween[/url]
[url=http://bposutra.com/index.php?option=com_mojo&Itemid=&p=50] Uggs British isles to normally be revealing wonderful problem among the quite a few men and women these days[/url]