A New Year and Bitch-Slapping!
January 1, 2005
[I'm typing this for the second damn time. Sometimes my fingers move too fast, and I try to do too many things, so I accidentally escaped out of the entry I was writing...damn, I'm really not happy. It's 1.30am and I have to try and rethink the huge post I just wrote...patience...breathe...think Adam...]
I’m really not good at NOT blogging. I think it’s because, well, I don’t want to NOT blog right now, I like it. And I’m okay with that. I celebrated New Years pretty hard this year, sitting at home talking with Katie on the phone, and watching The Terminal with my parents. I know. We are crazy. I’m sitting here, now at 1.30am, and thinking about the whole idea of the “new year” [no worries, I'm not into new years resolution lists either]. It’s weird to be done with yet another year. I’ll turn 25 in 2005. It is a good time to sit here and think [read THINK, not worry about, question, ask 'what if...?'] about the past, live into the present and dream of the future. [I'm listening to Jewel's version of "I Wonder as I Wander" right now] I wonder…
[Very random sidenote: I sort of feel like Jen Lemen right now. I just get this feeling, because I'm sure I read it somewhere before, that she often blogs after the whole family is in bed and she's just exhausted, but sits down and feels like she must get some words out...that's me right now...sidenote done]
…I wander.
I wonder what 2005 will bring. Who I will grow close to, who I will piss off. What I will do, who I will become, how I will change, how I will stay the same. What I will learn, what I’ll question, what I’ll begin to doubt…what views I’ll challenge, what views will challenge me…I hope it will be a big year, a good year, a hard year. But, in the end, it will just be one more year.
As I’m thinking about this tonight, I ran across one of the most exciting and inspiring blog entries recently. I love it; my friend Karen from Raw Faith wrote There’s Blood in My Mouth ‘Cause I’ve Been Biting My Tongue All Week on New Year’s Eve, and it is a must read. Go. Now. Read it. Then come back…
Okay, you’re back. She and Vern (her blogging arch-nemesis, or at least one who disagrees with her a lot on her blog) always seem to “go at it” and she’s sick of it…wait, no she’s not. She’s embracing it! She says its time to get pissed. Read the whole article for yourself, but here are my favorite quotes.
So, Vern and I will not be having a “dialogue,” or a “conversation,” or a “discussion.” No. We’ll be bitch slapping each other on a variety of topics most likely related to his stupid conservative politics and shallow religious beliefs. To facilitate this, please try to use “I” language. For those of you who haven’t spent thousands of hours in therapy, “I” language means that you recast your phrases to be in the first person. Here’s an example - instead of starting out my initial salvo with “Vern, you ignorant slut.” I would say, “Vern, I think you are an ignorant slut.” My first statement is a declarative. It gives the impression that there’s no debate about whether or not Vern is an ignorant slut. In the second statement, I have clearly labeled Vern’s status as an ignorant slut as simply a matter of my own opinion. This is much more respectful, no?
I think it’s beautiful. And I’m wondering…do I have an arch-nemesis who would want to be challenged, and who would challenge me in this way? I don’t know. But I think it’s great. I think there must be times when all the discussion/dialogue/conversation just gets old. I like that on my site, but…there must be those times when you need to go outside and do a bit of bitch-slapping. We’re all pretty concerned about being “nice people” - we don’t want to offend. And maybe it’s time to do a bit of yelling. Now, I’m sure within the next month, I’ll probably post something about how we need to put our differences aside and look at what we have in common, because I’m pretty into that ecumenical, unity, love-your-brother/sister type of thing.
But, I think there must be a time when we read shit like this, and we just have to be honest about it. It’s a pretty fucked up thing to say that God is the “decisive cause of 100,000+ deaths” and that this tsunami was judgment for those unbelievers in Southeast Asia. I think it’s stuff like this where, sure, we could sit around and say, “Well, John Piper is an incredible man of God and he has done a lot to help the spreading of the Gospel…” Instead we need to be saying, “This is WRONG! Okay, if the whole sexist, misogynist thing wasn’t enough, I’m not gonna sit around and take this crap.”
Who knows. I’m not trying to turn this into a really pissed-off rant; like I said, it’s now 2am and I’ll probably post a “Why can’t we all get along” post in a few weeks. But maybe it’s time to just be pissed and just acknowledge that. Oh well, I think my first version was a bit more eloquent, but I’m done for tonight. I hope 2005 is a great year for all of you - may you live into the grace and free abandonment in Christ Jesus, may you feel the presence and empowering Spirit, and may you trust in a God who is actively involved in this world and who hears your prayers…
Tags: Blog-Etiquette, Blogging, New-Year
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
January 1st, 2005 at 10:59 am
I posted a one word post about the Piper thing–simply “heresy” with a link. 20 comments in about five hours. back and forth and back and forth, and while i don’t agree with piper’s assessment at all, what is the more important thing–that people are moved to donate time and themselves and their prayers to the suffering, or that we fully understand the most unfathomable mystery of the universe? i’m tired of fighting; i’m too much of a pacifist, and i believe more than anything that the church is too divided over too many things, albeit some of them more important than others.
in the end assessment, however, i can’t say that any of them are that important compared to working together to bring clean water. just some thoughts.
myles
January 1st, 2005 at 11:04 am
so is this your first “bitch slap” of the year? impressive. i find that it’s always easiest to bitch slap somebody after i put words in their mouths. i’m glad you use that tactic too. it’s clearly the best, coolest, emergent, and most postmodern way to bitch slap somebody.
i also have found that it is generally the coolest, and most emergent thing to do (a real portrait of charity and ecumenism) to extend flowery blessings in the name of jesus after you have excoriated somebody and called them “fucked up”.
i’m new to your blog and i couldn’t disagree more with john piper, but i must not be “pomo” enough to hang in this circle. maybe if we pass on the street, we could have some dialogue on the issue– oh wait– that would be impossible– you’re the cool guy in the grocery store listening to his ipod.
January 1st, 2005 at 11:41 am
Happy New Year, Adam!
Couldn’t agree with you more about the Piper article. That kind of theology is incomprehensible to me, but I’m an Anglican, so that kind of stuff doesn’t come up on our radar too much.
I’m also with you on being fed up with “sexist, misogynist crap,” so in the spirit of Christian love I’d ask that you think carefully about the term “bitch slap” and re-consider whether using such an expression lines up with your condemnation of misogyny. I know it’s just an expression (and I used to use it myself), but all words have meaning and all that.
January 1st, 2005 at 1:40 pm
I don’t mean this to be a “bitch-slapping” comment, but I disagree that it is “fucked-up” or heretical to say that God is the “decisive cause” of those deaths. Scripture says that: “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things” (Isaiah 45:7, NIV). I disagree with Piper’s use of the word “decisive”; I would have used the word “ultimate”, in the sense that God is the ultimate cause of the laws of nature, which were functioning as God intended them to when the earthquake caused the tsunami. The mercy of God can be found in the fact that earthquakes and tsunamis are the exception, not the norm. Yet who can justly protest when the ground beneath our feet responds to pressure as it was ultimately designed by God to function?
Speaking of the ground beneath our feet, I got an ipod for Christmas [U2 edition], and is not the ipod the coolest thing ever invented by man?
Happy New Year.
January 1st, 2005 at 1:42 pm
hey, adam, maybe milton will be your new nemesis. (life was so much easier when there’s was just “o” to contend with). i’ve been shopping for a nice arch-nemesis all year and all my favorite emergent guys won’t bite. further proof that the misogyny extends to even refusing to bitch-slap you because you are a girl. no fair. oops, now i’m reading karen’s post and realizing this last sentence will be offensive to my partners in crime! y ikes. this is what we get for deconstructing ev-er-y-thing.
i mean it all in good fun. and much sleep deprivation. thanks for blogging at night. i feel the comraderie and now you know how i get in trouble.
postmodernly yours,
January 1st, 2005 at 2:46 pm
Sorry, I didn’t mean to go PC on y’all, especially considering that I’m not terribly PC as a rule. It’s just that last year I used the expression “bitch slap” around a classmate of mine who promptly turned pale and left our gathering. Turns out that she had been battered for years by her ex-husband and still wasn’t ready for casual references to violence against women. I felt really crappy for what I said and have gotten a little sensitive about the term. Still, I probably shouldn’t have lectured Adam about it. My apologies.
January 1st, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Hey no apologies…you feel what you feel. Karen, I had no problem with you writing what you did. If you’re a bit upset (like Milton), then make fun of my iPod. If you don’t like the language I use, then call me on it. If you think I’m being apostatistic (is that a word?), include me in part of the apostasy.
Let’s keep it real here at pomomusings. I don’t think, really, that I want to fight and yell and person-slap a lot here, but it is damn good to get it out of your system every now and then! :) HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!
PS: Jen, we need to hang out sometime soon…really!
January 1st, 2005 at 2:59 pm
No, no! Making fun of Ipods is the worst apostasy of all!
January 1st, 2005 at 3:04 pm
adam, we need to do a pod-cast before those emerging a-listers beat us to it. god knows we’d be entertaining, don’tcha think?
January 1st, 2005 at 3:06 pm
Making fun of ipods is not apostasy, it’s ipostasy!
January 1st, 2005 at 4:06 pm
Milton must be great at parties.
January 1st, 2005 at 8:18 pm
You’re brilliant too Adam, but I have to say I didn’t appreciate your bashing of the USPS - a fine government agency. ;-)
Karen
January 1st, 2005 at 9:13 pm
Karen H. –> “USPS - a fine government agency”
Apparently there is no limit to Karen’s support of public works projects…
January 2nd, 2005 at 5:31 am
“I’m an Anglican, so that kind of stuff doesn’t come up on our radar too much.”
Karen, I thought that this stuff was one of ur (i.e. Anglicans) articles?
January 2nd, 2005 at 9:01 am
I’m with you on Piper’s nonsense. Tom Wright, on the other hand, has written a nice piece for the Independent weekly in England. I just linked to his article…come check it out.
January 2nd, 2005 at 11:20 am
I admit that I am no fan of John Piper (A big fan of N.T. Wright though). I further admit that I love a good heresy trial and have been known to get rather offensive when arguing with someone when I think that they are wrong. But. When it comes to ragging on people like Piper who have articulated a system and have written a corpus, to flippantly disregard that system is not only to do an injustice to it as theologically “other” but to yourself as a theologian. In the lecture hall where Barth taught there was displayed a bust of Schleirmacher. Barth was in the habit of reminding his students that, though he was generally about the business of disagreeing with Scheirmacher, that Scheirmacher was, nevertheless, watching them and demanding to be heard in the strengths of his position. Not in caricatures or polemic simplification. In other words, let me first see your work (preferably academic) deconstructing Piper before disrespecting him.
P.S. I’m a big fan of the Godfather and tend to think that showing proper “respect” is the only way to live.
P.P.S. The above sermon is also for myself. ;-)
P.P.P.S. ptsblog.blogspot.com (shameless plug)
January 2nd, 2005 at 6:46 pm
Graham,
Unless I dozed off in theology class at some point, I can’t recall any point of Anglican theology which would directly attribute a natural disaster to God’s judgment for our sins. In fact, today’s Sunday sermon by the Archbishop of Canterbury included the words “the Christian faith does not invite simplistic answers to the problem of human suffering.”
Peace,
Karen
January 6th, 2005 at 9:54 am
Karen “can’t recall any point of Anglican theology which would directly attribute a natural disaster to God’s judgment for our sins”?
What about biblical theology, as in statements from the Bible? Which carries more authority to determine the answer to what this post is asking, Anglican theology or the Bible? Karen, do you disagree with the Bible passages Piper quotes in his article, or perhaps simply with Piper’s application of them?
January 6th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
So let’s look at the very first Piper quote, in fact the very opening sentence:
“The waves of death encompassed me, the torrents of destruction assailed me. . . This God—his way is perfect” (2 Samuel 22:5, 31).
A magnificent piece of out of context proof texting, taking two random verses 26 verses apart (you have to watch out for that ellipsis there) - plucked out of a song, no less. I guess there wasn’t any way Piper could link the fire-breathing God part into it too.
Lovely way to (ab)use the Bible.
Is that what they teach people at BJU?
[cracks up at irony of university initials...]
January 6th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
Dave,
I believe I’ll have to defend Piper’s contextual usage of these verses.
I just read 2 Sam 22. It is a song, but it follows a clear story line described in 22:1. David calls God his refuge and then tells a story about why he can do that. He was encompassed by waves (the parallelism at least makes it clear that this is metaphorical, but Piper is not suggesting that it’s literal) and other dangers and called out to the Lord, who rescued him. After telling the story of his rescue (that’s what the ellipsis left out) he confesses, in the same context and towards the end of the same story line, that the God who rescued him has perfect ways.
I argue, then, that this is not random proof-texting. Actually, contextual interpretation is something I love to talk about, so feel free to continue to interact.
January 6th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
I think it’s extremely disingenuous to imply that Piper didn’t quote verse 5 purely for the parallel with the tsunami. Then to link it directly to verse 31 and imply causality as if the one (the tsunami) was a direct result of the other (God being perfect) is even worse.
He must have felt pretty smug the way that plan came together.
January 6th, 2005 at 2:56 pm
Dave,
You misread, and I did not miswrite.
Piper clearly chose that verse because of its parallel with the tsunami. No contest there. But he did not suggest that David was talking about a tsunami. Viewed in the context (ahem) of Piper’s writings, you have to give him a bit more credit. He was noting a striking parallel in the metaphorical language David uses.
Now, even if David is not talking about a tsunami, he is still talking about a disaster, if not perhaps a natural one. Admittedly, you could argue that verse 31 (”This God–His way is perfect”) refers not to God’s bringing the disaster but to God’s perfect response to David’s cry from within it. But the other verses Piper cites in his article (and many others he could cite: the story of Job; “he performs the thing appointed for me”; “who can stay his hand?”; “is there calamity in a city, and the Lord has not done it?”; “he works all things according to the purpose of his will”) argue that God does indeed bring disaster.
And you didn’t handle my argument that the two verses stand in exactly the same context, one at the beginning, the other at the end.
January 6th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
“Didn’t handle my argument”
I stand by my belief that taking the beginning and end of a song or passage without the context of the middle is misleading and wrong (certainly to draw any conclusions about events like the tsunami - which he did). Just because you can sort of make a vague connection in your head between the two is no indication that it was a good and right thing to do, nor that the rest of the world can see it that way.
The evangelical trait of randomly lifting bible verses out of context to string an argument together (14 in the article, not including the opening quote) is, IMO, stupid and wrong, so to debate whether he did it “right” is kind of pointless.
January 6th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
Dave, I think I’ll have to call other commenters to evaluate your argument–if any are still reading comments on this post.
So, other commenters, did Piper lift these two Bible verses out of their context?
January 6th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
i would have to agree with mike - i don’t think that the two verses are necessarily out of context. even if they are, what about the other verses cited (the 14 referenced by dave) - are every single one of them out of context?
piper is an amazing expositor - i think it is difficult to read or listen to the majority of his preaching and argue that. i would agree with what WTM said above: “let me first see your work (preferably academic) deconstructing Piper before disrespecting him.”
January 7th, 2005 at 3:01 am
Bill, that’s quite an endorsement, but I’m not sure it counts for much coming from a self-professed Piper disciple. It’s a bit like Jerry Falwell endorsing Pat Robertson - looks good to the converted but meaningless to most of the world.
As someone who has never in his life subscribed to any kind of fundamentalist theology or agenda I only barely understand where you’re coming from anyway. As Karen wrote earlier “That kind of theology is incomprehensible to me, but I’m an Anglican, so that kind of stuff doesn’t come up on our radar too much.” So as afar as WTM goes, I don’t so much disrespect Piper so much as find him completely irrelevant to my own faith journey.
But I guess I’m also curious about why a bunch of nice fundamentalist boys feel called to come and throw sand around in the postmodern sandbox. Are you trying to save us from ourselves or what? Tired of trying to convert the Roman Catholics, mormons, muslims? There’s a lot more of them, so why waste your time on us?
January 7th, 2005 at 8:46 am
I can’t speak for all the other fundamentalists/evangelicals who post here, but I visit here to learn more about post-modernism and the emergent church. Part of that learning comes through raising questions and having them answered.
I have a Roman Catholic friend with whom I carry on these friendly debates. We’re continually raising arguments against the other’s position (we do talk about other stuff too), and I’ve found this to be one of the best ways to learn about Roman Catholicism.
Now perhaps Mike’s first post sounded a little too much like stone throwing (I actually talked with him about that), but some kind interchange would have been nice. If you had dialoged with us instead of sneering at us, we all may have learned something about each other and our interpretive communities.
January 7th, 2005 at 10:08 am
dave,
wow. not quite sure what to say about that. first, i didn’t realize i was throwing stones - if i did, my apologies. i just wanted to participate in the conversation. for the record, i don’t know anyone who comments on this blog personally. i’m a young (under 30) pastor planting a church in houston, trying as best as i can to be faithful to the scriptures and centered around a God honoring gospel. if that makes me a fundamentalist, then i will gladly wear the title. i guess my church isn’t considered “emerging” though - we’re part of the acts 29 network and i’m good friends with mark driscoll… and i’ve read on here that this combination isn’t a popular one around here.
if i’m not welcome in the conversation, i won’t continue to participate. i don’t want to throw sand around in anyone’s sandbox. i will say i think it’s interesting that you dismissed my opinion simply because i agree with piper. no consideration to what i actually said or the points i raised - just “i should have expected that from you, and since its so different than where i’m at i won’t even bother to dialogue with you.” if we’re to value community, especially when it comes to reading the scripture, and to value diverse voices - than why would you simply dismiss me because of my opinion?
January 7th, 2005 at 10:54 am
I am wondering if Dave P. was spanked with a Bible when he was young. This would account for his aversion to the Word and its truth. Dave your wonderful and courteous display of “godly tolerance” is to be commended.
The Lord said that His sheep know his voice. I am not, and I am assuming Bill S ,
is not a disciple of Piper. We are disciples of Christ. I will always agree with those who speak the Truth of Christ.
Why should Bill apologize? He has not said or done anything to apologize for. Dave’s reaction to anyone who uses Scripture for reference is, that it is out of context. (a convenient catch all mantra) The context of all Scripture is “all” Scripture. Scripture proves itself. It is as relevant today as it was when it was written. We are accused of painting with a broad brush. God help us, these guys pick up the buckets and throw the paint everywhere.
Piper took nothing out of context. By proclaiming Piper as irrelevant you are denying the truth that he is sharing. Tom Wright’s article was a disappointment,as he has written some good things, but his perspective on the tsunami is just re-hashed post modern twaddle.
I read a statement on another blog whose name I cannot recall at the moment,which said,
“God is sovreign, but not in direct control” Whattt???!!! How ridiculous is that? By allowing something to happen HE shows that HE is in complete control, to intervene or not. There is this huge battle that is pitting Platonic-reductionist theology against the post-modern travesty of the new and improved i.e. “redefined” God (who is also portrayed as totally inept btw). The God of the “open theistic-process theology” heresy. Neither side understands that the real gospel exists outside of both of these falsehoods.
I am on the side of the God of the Bible,which HE authored and the true biblical practice of the Kingdom.
At the risk of sending Dave to therapy I will quote Paul in 2 Cor4:
1Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. 2But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. 3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
January 7th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
Chris,
If you want Dave to respect you and not simply dismiss your arguments, shouldn’t you also show him respect. Statements like “I am wondering if Dave P. was spaked with a Bible when he was young” and “at the risk of sending Dave to therapy I will quote Paul” are rather rude and obscure the message you are trying to proclaim.
January 7th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
bcollins, mike and bill s. - I apologize very much if I implied that you are not welcome to comment here (it’s not my blog, so who am I to speak anyway). The intent behind that comment was to ask why people feel the need to come argue in this kind of arena. It wasn’t necessarily a rhetorical question. I think the question is relevant because communication in the blog world is difficult enough even with people with whom you have something in common.
To go back to the beginning, John Piper is, as far as a I can tell, an evangelical, fundamentalist, biblical literalist and creationist (which I am assuming also goes for some of the commenters here.)
I, like many large parts of the worldwide Christian church, am not. The difference between our worldviews is enormous and leads to radically different views of the world and understanding of God.
Part of that different understanding is how we read the bible. I personally do not believe that random bible verses can be lifted and strung together to make an argument. I’ve said that already. I like to call that “Bible verse bingo”. We don’t do that in the Episcopal church. Our weekly and daily lectionaries are made up of significant coherent bible readings that usually provide an adequate context for the reading. Bible verse bingo, however, is a fundamental modus operandi of evangelicals, so we differ greatly on that point.
Just to (finally) take one more example from Piper’s take:
1 Peter is an address to the Christians in Rome to be faithful in the face of the new persecution. That is the context of the entire letter (and it isn’t very long, so there isn’t much room for more context). That context has nothing to do with the recent disaster except maybe to encourage Christians to persevere in the face of adversity. In many ways a pretty decent sermon along those lines could have come out of this letter, but that wasn’t Piper’s agenda.
Even within chapter 4, the single verse that Piper lifted out of context (v17) is a run on from the previous paragraph, linked to suffering for Christ. Again, in my opinion this has nothing to do with the tsunami situation, at least not the way Piper twisted it>
Verse 19 ends the chapter with a brief summary:
and that again is back to the main theme, and doesn’t relate to the disaster. If it does relate in any way it is an exhortation to believers not to be discouraged, not a condemnation of the non-Christians who were lost. Even then, both Christians and non-Christians died pretty much indiscriminately, so to draw grand conclusions about God’s plan from this is plainly stupid, in my opinion.
And with that I’m done commenting on this thread. I’ll gladly read anything further you care to write, but that’s it.
January 7th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
Dave,
Thanks for your post. Apology accepted.
If I could make one clarification, then my comments will be finished for this thread as well.
As a fundamentalist, biblical literalist, etc. I too don’t believe that random verses can be lifted out of the Bible and strung together to make an argument. My church doesn’t use a lectionary, but our pastor preaches through books of the Bible on a verse by verse or passage by passage basis. My personal Bible study follows the same pattern.
On Sunday mornings I help teach a class for teens who are relatively new to church. This last semester we worked through a catechism to introduce them to basic Bible doctrines. In our planning session for the semester the teachers agreed to find one passage that gave a good exposition of the doctrine or aspect of the doctrine for that week and to teach the students from that passage. We chose to do this because we didn’t want to teach the students that they could jump around the Bible and pull verses out at random to prove points. Instead, we wanted to teach them how to study passages within their context.
That said, I don’t believe it is always illegitimate to study a biblical topic (though I don’t think this should be the standard method of our preaching). A survey of the sermons in Acts would indicate that the Apostles did draw their sermons from a number of OT rather than simply expounding one OT passage. In addition it seems that it is also legitimate to draw implications from a text that aren’t necessarily the main point of the text in context (compare Matt 22:29-33 with Exodus 3:6 and its context). The key is to make sure that our topical surveys and implication drawing are grounded in contextual exegesis of the passages employed.
January 7th, 2005 at 6:16 pm
Hmm…I see that Mike invited me to provide an exegesis, but since this whole thing has deteriorated into an argument I’m not going to linger. Let’s just say that I agree with Dave’s contention that Piper was engaging in proof-texting and leave it at that. Having said that, I’ll not comment any further since the tone here is way too hostile for me to engage further.
January 7th, 2005 at 9:07 pm
(just an aside. i don’t think chris p. should be scolded for suggesting dave p. was spanked with a bible in childhood. that’s just hilarious whether it was intended to be or not. and it sounds a little playful and a little naughty–two qualities that should be encouraged at all costs especially in chris p.!!! especially since he is now the heir to the pomomusings blog.)
January 8th, 2005 at 9:51 am
“To go back to the beginning, John Piper is, as far as a I can tell, an evangelical, fundamentalist, biblical literalist and creationist (which I am assuming also goes for some of the commenters here.)
I, like many large parts of the worldwide Christian church, am not. The difference between our worldviews is enormous and leads to radically different views of the world and understanding of God.”
So we are to assume that Dave P. is Darwinian, universalist, and the gospel he preaches is of the subjective/relativist variety. Fair enough. Brian and Karen, I do not care if Dave respects me or not. I am also tired of “holier than thou” liberal theologies. Today’s radicals are tomorrow’s pharisees. Unfortunately tomorrow is already here.
Take a cue from Ms. Lemen. I could party with that lady!