10 January 2008

"No Statement of Belief"

by Phil Johnson

watched the following video last April or thereabouts, and I intended to link to it on our blog. But I can't find any reference to it in our archives, so I rather suspect it hasn't yet got the sort of attention it deserves from Pyro-readers.

There are lots of sound bites here worth singling out. I'll let you discover them all for yourselves. My favorite is the remark made by the woman at about 4:20.

As a matter of fact, lots of the people in this video emphatically assert in unvarnished terms some of the very things I have cautioned are dangers in the post-evangelical drift. Invariably, when critics suggest this is what you'll find on Main Street in Emergent Village, we're accused of exaggerating. Watch for yourself:



PS:

If that left a bad taste in your mouth, here's an Altoid for you:



Phil's signature

74 comments:

Mrs. J.D.Darr said...

"The way we've done Christianity our entire lives, was no longer a viable option." I don't know what amazes me more. The fact that this young man thinks that the command in Jude to "contend earnestly for the faith which was ONCE FOR ALL delivered to the saints" is an option, or the fact that he was able to use viable properly in a sentence.

Al said...

I'm sorry, but is this produced by Solomon’s Porch? Are they putting this out as a representation of who they are?

I am shocked, but will be doubly shocked if it is their production.

al sends

NoLongerBlind said...

wow.

The whole concept--while not coming across as "trying to be cool"--seems so ear-ticklingly inviting, with plenty of opportunity for worldy and empty chatter, along with opposing arguments of what is falsely called knowledge.

wow

Ray said...

At the "Said At Southern" blog, they posted an audio of Dr. M.L. King who spoke at SBTS in April of 1961. In his sermon that day he said, "It seems to be a fact of life that human beings cannot continue to do wrong without eventually reaching out for some thin rationalizations to cloak an obvious wrong in the beautiful garments of righteousness." Though here the context is vastly different, the truth never changes.

Thin rationalizations, indeed.

Al said...

Ah, found the original at current.com.

It is amazing how many people out there ask that question (WWJD) and then confidently come up with an answer.

I must say that the utopian, hippie streak is strong in you young Solomonite...

al sends

stratagem said...

Saw this video last year, somewhere. I've had some real "interesting" conversations with people from this "church."

Amazingly, I actually agree with one thing that Pagitt says; that the more power structure is in place, the worse it will eventually go wrong. However, then somehow they confuse a strong power structure with a strong statement of beliefs. They are trying desperately to justify having no doctrines, obviously.

This seems like a social club for leftist agitators and Utopians. A cabal of people who don't mind calling themselves Christians, as long as it doesn't cramp their style.

wfseube said...

My goodness, there is so much wrong with what's said in that video that it's hard to find anything right with it.

I wonder - did the "community" cause the philosophies of those people to go haywire, or was it the other way around?

An emergent church harboring liberal leftist sociopolitical philosophy - who woulda thunk it?

stratagem says: Amazingly, I actually agree with one thing that Pagitt says; that the more power structure is in place, the worse it will eventually go wrong. However, then somehow they confuse a strong power structure with a strong statement of beliefs. They are trying desperately to justify having no doctrines, obviously.

Interesting comment, and you're right. But I think it's beyond that...it's their little temper tantrum that says (as Carla Rolfe once portrayed the EC) "You're not the boss of me!!!" I do not believe that a "power structure" naturally leads to it "going wrong." I believe that wrong-headed people with bad motives can make a leadership ("power") structure "go wrong," and people can go wrong in ANY structure. But, at churches that pursue and appoint leaders within the Bible's framework for leaders (eg. Titus, 1 Tim), the rate of success is dramatically higher.

Daryl said...

I can't see the first video, any thoughts? A link I could follow?

Al said...

video

Try that Daryl

Daryl said...

Was it the Solomon's Porch introduction video? Just wondering 'cause Phil mentioned a woman's comments at 4:10 and the link only goes to 3:10.

In any case, did you notice the complete disjunction between on guy saying:
"The way we've done Christianity our entire lives, was no longer a viable option"

And Paggitt saying something along the lines of "we're not trying to be something or not to be something" (sumpin like that), seems to me that determining the church as we know it is no longer viable is exactly deciding not to be something...

S.J. Walker said...

Phil,

I posted the second video some time ago at my blog. That first one is frightening.

However, I do find a certain amount of peace when I see things like this. NOT that these don't bother me more every day. NOT that they don't kindle indignation at the deplorable lack of Scriptural humility. But, when I see people like this, specifically the leadership like Pagitt, saying all this stuff. I find peace in knowing that I can honestly say that some of these folks simply do not believe the Bible at all and can then come at them in the appropriate tone--a sinner saved by grace calling out to sinners still under wrath(who, like everyone in the world either think they are fine, or think they are "messed up" but it doesn't matter).

It gives legitimacy not be unrighteously and self righteously angry, but to be righteously indignant at the lie that is in them as it was in me before Christ. There is a stark difference.

In the end, it is simplified enough that we know all we are called to do is preach the Truth whether it is to people who deny it outright and have turned their faces away, or to people that have painted their faces with it yet are just as ugly as ever underneath. Lost is lost.

These people need the Truth, the whole Truth, and NOTHING but the Truth.


God Bless

Sam

Eduardo said...

I think this sums up pretty much what the ECM is all about. Did you notice these things:

1. No Bibles during teaching (shows how much appreciation they have for it–well the woman at 4:20 stated how much they love the Bible...

2. Pagitt thinks church is governed (guided) by men...so he thinks that doing church the "old fashioned" way is no good

3. Pagitt at the end of the video says he doesnt preach anything that can disturb people...why would he want to do that???

some thoughts...

Daryl said...

Based on the comments I am reading, I still haven't seen the correct video. Wanna try again Al?

Thanks

Al said...

daryl,

In that link I sent you there is a small video button on the left hand side. Did you click that? If you cannot see it or the video will not run then your firewall is blocking the content.

al sends

S.J. Walker said...

Daryl,

Just trust the rest of us. It's scary.

stratagem said...

Pagitt at the end of the video says he doesnt preach anything that can disturb people...why would he want to do that???

Because he doesn't believe anything. So, like, why bother?

Pagitt is doing the same thing for spirituality as Baskin-Robbins did for ice cream, instead of 31 flavors it's 31 idols. Come worship anything you like, just as long as you come.

Daryl said...

Al,

There is a video there, just not the one being discussed here...

I guess I'll sit this one out.

donsands said...

It's very similar to Humanism. Which is no real God, and humans living a good life of compassion for other humans.

Or even Hinduism maybe, with Christ as their main god.

They are blind, and it's very deceiving for some.

As Ravi said, there are those who don't have a critical spirit, and are embracing these teachings that say we need no teachinga, or that teachings can keep on changing.
And as Sproul said, these people do not want to have disagreements, but bring all the doctrines together, and as long as we say we are Christians, Catholic, Protestant, even Mormon, let's just love one another.

"All you need is love,
Love is all you need."

I'm going to stick with the Holy Scriptures as my authority.

"Let us believe that not only every book of the Bible, but every chapter,--and not only every chapter, but every verse,--and not only every verse, but every word, was oringinally given by inspiration of God. .... Let no Christian's heart fail because of these assaults. Let us stand our ground manfully, and defend the principle of plenary inspiration as we would the apple of our eye." JC Ryle

Kenny Clark said...

I came across this a few months ago as I was preparing to preach on 2 Timothy 4:1-4. The quote that was particularly disturbing in this regard happens at 4:59:

"I have no agenda to go around and convince people of things that they don’t want to be convinced of. That seems to be the least gracious, kind and loving thing you can do… that is… go disturb someone who chooses not to be disturbed. I think places like ours are maybe hope-producing for people who already are disturbed and hope there’s another option"

I happen to think “convincing the unconvinced” and “disturbing the undisturbed” are actually good descriptions of preaching the word!
In The Reformed Pastor, Richard Baxter, talking to preachers about preaching, wrote:
“Men will not cast away their dearest pleasures at the drowsy request of one that seemeth not to mean as he speaks, or to care much whether his request be granted or not.”

What is EVANGELISM if it is not “convincing the unconvinced” and “disturbing the undisturbed”?!
Paul said “I IMPLORE YOU ON BEHALF OF CHRIST, BE RECONCILED TO GOD!”

What is EDIFYING believers if not “convincing the unconvinced” and “disturbing the undisturbed”?!
Talking about blessing God and cursing men with the same mouth, James said, “My brothers, THESE THINGS OUGHT NOT BE SO!”

Now we CAN'T forget that Paul said this preaching of the word is to be done with "complete patience and teaching" and remember his own example of communicating these truths and praying with tears. But brothers, let's continue to toil with all the power God powerfully works within us to disturb the undisturbed and convince the unconvinced.

I for one am eternally grateful that a man named Russ "disturbed" me by helping me see my sin and our gracious Savior when I was in the fourth grade!

SolaMeanie said...

What I find beyond irritating is that these kinds of churches and spokespeople get labeled as evangelicals, and claim to be evangelicals.

We truly have lost control of the term. But in a postmodern world, "words mean what [they] want them to mean. No more, no less."

chris said...

Pagitt says that "disturbing someone who doesn't want to be disturbed," is the "least gracious, kind, and loving" thing he can do...

I wonder... what DID Jesus do? Seems to me that part of what made Him so remarkable is His boldness in disturbing the people who didn't want to be disturbed. I imagine the moneychangers in the temple were fine where they were, for example.

And, forgive me Mr Pagitt, if I've gotten it wrong, but I thought that Christ's rebellious sticking it to the establishment is what the EC holds as being their inspiration for "emerging."

Howick Baptist youth group said...

Maybe it's just me, but I find the 'communion as a house party' segment the scariest of the lot.

Sounds like something Paul would have written to the Corinthians about...

terriergal said...

Al and all,

I highly recommend the debate on postmodernism with Bob DeWaay and Doug Pagitt that is available at Twincityfellowship.com

You will have NO question that this is Solomon's Porch's own work and they are proud of it.

Eduardo said...

Chris,

I think you hit the spot regarding Pagitt's theology...He thinks he is being loving by not trying to offend people or hurting their feelings, while in fact being, according to Jesus, not loving. Actually he is hating them because he doesnt expose them to their true problem: them being dead in trespasses and sins...

Jay said...

"a sinner saved by grace calling out to sinners still under wrath"

Wrath? Pointing out that coming wrath isn't a very loving thing to do. Besides,who believes that stuff anyway?

:)

ShyGuy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Phil Johnson said...

Daryl:

Here's a link to the version of the video above. Sorry for the difficulty.

S.J. Walker said...

Jay,

You're right, what was I thinking? That might disturb someone...

centuri0n said...

My favorite part of the video is Pagitt on "authority structures". Talk about a one-sided view of the history of human politics.

centuri0n said...

And that "nothing else matters" guy with the top hat -- he's great!

Apparently, he's living like nopthing else matters -- except the top hat.

It must be art.

centuri0n said...

And the "no agenda" statement by Pagitt is, frankly, the least self-aware thing I have ever heard anyone ever say. He's like the Emergent Dave Hunt.

ThyWordisTruth said...

In the vein of not wanting to "disturb or convince" I read a blog post from an atheist who was fisking Resurrection Life Church in MI. While he had venomous things to say about RLC (some perhaps well-deserved) he seemed quite enamoured with Rob Bell's church up the road,

"I now have a much greater appreciation for the direction that Rob Bell is taking his church. Mars Hill is a very low-profile megachurch that is much more liberal in its beliefs. More importantly, they are honest and virtuous in what they do with their money and have some very specific ministries that are supported, whose goals are to help people while here on earth, rather than trying to convert them through pressure."

http://nogodsallowed.wordpress.com/2008/01/06/resurrection-life-church/

You've gotta wonder...

"In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and GIVE GLORY TO YOUR FATHER who is in heaven." Matthew 5:16 (ESV)

I think they sincerely believe that they are being "light" but I think what may be the missing link is that the world is not giving glory to the father because of their good works. They're just a bunch of nice people who buy groceries for the poor and have creative spaces in their buildings. Cool.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

I normally don't watch videos but I did this time. OH MY GOODNESS!

This is a Christian horror film. The theological video equivalent to "Friday the 13th", "Halloween", "Nightmare on Elm Street", etc.... That's just freakin' frightening. As a dad, I'm spooked by the prospect that my daughter will have friends like that.

And thanks for the altoid Phil. Actually, it was more like Pepto-Bismol for an upset stomach.

The Emergent Church is the Mother of all tar babies. Ravi, Al, and R.C., all push for truth as the antidote. But like RC said: "Wrong and Right are not appropriate categories for the paradigm of PoMo. They want to relativize theological truth."

Even showing a PoMo that their way of doing things is self-refuting doesn't even phase them, since logic is deliberately muted by their PoMo philosophy.

Can anyone show me a link of how an evangelical absolutist was able to break through the dark side of some Emergent follower and then get Emergent to renounce the Emerging Church?

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

That bald-head guy was Doug Pagitt? He's the one I've been reading about on this blog?

He's a false teacher. If you can use an irenic tone as you speak the truth-in-love to him, then by all means let's see if he changes and repents. If not, then I'm not opposed to anyone calling him a heretic or false teacher.

In fact, I'm wondering if there shouldn't be sanctions for those Christians WHO DON'T condemn Pagitt for his PoMo Emergent nonsense.

Richard said...

I do confess, after dealing with emergents for the past 2 weeks, I simply enjoyed the Altoid...very refreshing indeed!

ThyWordisTruth said...

Did anyone happen to catch the PBS show last night about American Jews? It was fascinating to learn that this "downgrade syndrome" is not exclusive to Christians. Reform Judaism followed a similar trajectory to the EC and the dozens of others that reject their scriptures and orthodoxy in favor or the cultural norms of the day.

Here were two of the motivations for the Jewish reformation in the 19th century:

**A desire to take full advantage of newly granted rights and to show the non-Jewish intelligentsia that Jews could take their place in the new societies that were then being built; and

**A fear that many in the Jewish community were so excited about their new freedoms that they were leaving Judaism altogether; Reformers wanted a religion that would embody the principles of the enlightenment while still maintaining a Jewish flavor or character.

Sound familiar?

But here's where it always starts, whether in Judaism or Christianity,

"The present requires a principle that shall clearly enunciate that a law, even though divine, is potent only so long as the conditions and circumstances of life, to meet which it was enacted, continue; when these change, however, the law must also be abrogated, even though it have God as its author....The Talmud speaks with the ideology of its own time, and for that time it was right. I speak from the higher ideology of my time, and for this age I am right." early reformer Samuel Holdheim (Blau, MODERN VARIETIES OF JUDAISM, p.37)

The more things change...

ThyWordisTruth said...

Sorry, here's the link to this history:

http://www.bluethread.com/fringeref1.htm

Libbie said...

Yeah, it would be just so confining for us to 'hold on tight' to truth.

To quote someone I once read on pyro - wow. wow. wow. That first video really is a completely alien religion.

Puritan said...

Excuse my English ignorance, but what's an "Altoid"?

ALL FOR ONCE/ ONCE FOR ALL said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReformedMommy said...

I was going to watch the second video, but noted that they are all 1. men 2. white 3. wearing ties 4. (most important) devoid of goatees and soul patches. Who on earth would listen to THEM?!

ReformedMommy said...

puritan - what? I thought Altoids were English! They are exceptionally strong mints and, for reasons I won't begin to question, are very popular at Phil's church. Perhaps because of the nifty metal containers instead of the more girly paper-wrapped mints?

Joanna Martens said...

sad.

SolaMeanie said...

Puritan,

Altoids are "curiously strong" breath mints, which are -- interestingly enough -- made in Great Britain. Perhaps they are sold there under a different name?

pastorbrianculver said...

WWJD? became a very popular statement that basically came from In His Steps. For a person who is a true follower of Christ it can be a good tool, but for the person who is lost, it is just like using a hammer when the correct tool would be a microscope.

ThyWordisTruth said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altoids

"The history of Altoids dates back to the reign of King George III. The brand was created by a London-based Smith & Company in the 1780s but eventually became part of the Callard & Bowser company in the 1800s"

And who'd a thunk you could make a camping stove or a pinhole camera out of the tins???

Lance Roberts said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lance Roberts said...

Authority is ordained by God, so no matter how often it is abused, we still have to implement it.

David Smithey said...

Phil,

Thanks for posting the second Video. I was able to recover from the first one.

They can't handle the truth. :-)

I couldn't resist...

danny2 said...

i found these two quotes interesting:

"things run into far more trouble when there is a strong authority structure, because they always go bad. (1a) Look at government. (1b)The history of governments. (1c) The history of countries. (1d) You look at the history of monarchies. (2) You look at the history of the church. The larger and more powerful and dominant the structure is, the more deeply flawed it will become"

i inserted the parenthesis to illustrate two realities.

a) Scripture is no where to be found to establish his claim.
b) he really only uses one example to state his case. (last time i checked, government [past or present], countries [not nations/people groups], and monarchies are all still government.

i've heard the kingdom of God is supposed to be a house party, so let's do communion like a house party.

--this shows the obsession with "kingdom of God" language. suddenly we can just jump from a kingdom of God discussion (which is never defined) to allowing it to define our communion service?

--Jesus said, "I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." (Mt 26:29). while this text may be the link they use to tie communion process in with kingdom language, it's interesting they ignore: a) Jesus is currently abstaining from alcohol, b) His words clearly show the kingdom is not here right now.

--his emphasis i've heard shows where they go for their "inspiration." it doesn't matter what the Word says. it didn't even matter who said it. it's not even worth looking into and find out who said it!

Stefan said...

Wrote Reformedmommy:

"They are exceptionally strong mints and, for reasons I won't begin to question, are very popular at Phil's church."

Possibly because of the vaguely Victorianesque package design and slogan???

David Smithey said...

For all of their talk of Jesus it's just their name for their own idol. If Jesus "were" to appear and preach to them they would reject Him and tell Him not to come back and that He was not really Jesus.

Very, very, very Sad!!

Al said...

Giving a Christian the advice of WWJD is like handing him a hammer to wash a window.

The poor girl in the video is saying that Jesus would address racism, the environment, globalization... It is simply putting Jesus into her life, like a metaphorical flannel graph.

Conservative Christians do the same thing though. Just because abortion is a sin don't paste Jesus into the middle of an Operation Rescue rally. He may not want to show up.

Man, I have been running into this whole WWJD thing a lot lately.

al sends

Doug McMasters said...

Watching the video makes me wonder how "cool" and "hip" and "with it" the early liberals and modernists considered themselves to be in the 19th century when they sought to reclaim the essence of Christ's teaching that those "stiff-collared" Bible believers.

Same banjo
Same string
Same tune

Kent McDonald said...

Truth is what brought me out of the darkness of my own sin into the glorious Light of His dear Son. If truth be relative, how would I be convicted of my own sin? If truth be relative who would disturb me from my complacency? I thank God that His Son declared Himself to be the Way, The Truth, and The Life. Without Him I would be destined for hell. Without convictions, without the sure knowledge of the Truth of God, we would with all men be most miserably lost.

Trey said...

Phil or any,

Where is the video of Zacharias, Mohler, and Sproul from and what year.

Thanks,

Trey

candyinsierras said...

My first thought was, what a wasteful use of a beautiful brick building.

Andrew and Carolyn said...

Scary, I mean really scary!!!

Not sure I quite get the logic of everyone sitting in a circle when the guy on the turntable in the centre seemed to be doing all the talking!!?

Thanks for the altoid...but I've still got a bitter taste in my mouth.

Mike Riccardi said...

Solomon's Porch girl: The bible is always changing. -- 04:20

The Bible: Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven. -- Psalm 119:89

I guess the part of the Bible that said the Bible is unchanging got changed.

I think we should take sound bites like these, and do nothing but post the relevant Scriptures that undeniably refute any propositions we can muster from that video.

Will said...

I would last about two seconds at Solomon's Porch. I was arguing with the computer as I watched it. The one point of contact was that as I saw the guy in the top hat curse...I wanted to curse ("son of a...".

If that is the future of the church.......sigh.

Ryan Gill said...

I don't need an Altoid... I need something that will clean up the little bit of vomit that came up in the back of my mouth.

I have tried to figure out who is more dangerous int he Emergent Movement... and I'm coming to the conclusion that they are ALL dangerous because Postmodernism is inherently dangerous.

Jim Pemberton said...

Let me try some satire here:

Cool - they, like, don't make you have to believe in God to hang out and paint. I mean, you could even be an atheist and a Christian all in the same body at this church, right? Man, that could preach - like, you know what I mean? Just as long as we get together and fight injustice, so long as no one gets offended. I mean people are where it's at, man.

Hork... [vomits]

That's all the satire I can stomach. It's hard to do satire when its so close to the truth.

Will said...

you ever notice that for all thier consern for the oppressed, they never seem to focus on the 1.2 million babies that are killed every year due to abortion.

I guess that justice is too judgmental and closed minded.

chris said...

And another thing: That one fellow said he heard that the Kingdom of Heaven is a lot like a house party... I'm wondering where that could be found in Scripture; I think it's either in 2 Opinions 3:45, or The Gospel of Doug 1:4...

House party indeed.

ChosenClay said...

I couldn't finish the first video due to the nauseousness that over took me. But I was revived by the second video!:) I will refrain from commenting on the first video because I would have to use language that would be deemed inappropriate.

Keith DeRose said...

I certainly didn't agree with everything said in the SP video, but I liked a lot of what I saw. I'd certainly give that church a try if I lived anywhere near it. So it seems to have been an effective video: Through it, you guys found out that stuff definitely is not for you. But others, especially those who just don't take to old-style churches, might find a place they might like.

Keith DeRose said...

From the very first comment:

I don't know what amazes me more. The fact that this young man thinks that the command in Jude to "contend earnestly for the faith which was ONCE FOR ALL delivered to the saints" is an option, or the fact that he was able to use viable properly in a sentence.

I imagine the young man in question is better off going to Solomon's Porch, if the alternative was to go to a church policed by folks who would form such a snap judgment about him (he was on camera for all of a few seconds) that they would be "amazed" that he "was able to use 'viable' properly in a sentence."

Rob Hughes said...

Are we really so convinced that these are Christians we are listening to?!! We are so quick to give people the benefit of the doubt. I don't mean to be overtly harsh here but come on!!Doug Pagitt said that when they began their church they had the choice to take on any of the church forms that existed or they could create their own. Hmmmm, create their own...???

FSU said...

"But others, especially those who just don't take to old-style churches, might find a place they might like."

The fact that some describe church as a "style" explains alot.

"...if the alternative was to go to a church policed by folks who would form such a snap judgment about him (he was on camera for all of a few seconds) that they would be "amazed" that he "was able to use 'viable' properly in a sentence."

This is a valid [and good point]. However, does this wrong make the teachings of Solomon's Porch right?

Keith DeRose said...

The fact that some describe church as a "style" explains alot.

"fsu": I take it you're referring to me here. No, it doesn't explain much of anything (& I wonder why you are so eager to jump on a word here). I wasn't describing churches as "style"s, or reducing them to their styles: I was merely acknowledging that churches have styles -- they all have their ways of doing things. And surely they do. That doesn't mean that there's nothing more than "style" going on.

I agree that the attack under discussion (and other unwise and unfair comments here) does nothing to show that SP's teachings are right. I do suspect (on fairly good grounds, I think) that this young man, and many other young people, are far less likely to be judged in that wrong way at Solomon's Porch than he would be at a lot of churches and that this would constitute a good reason for him to go there.

So, to echo my agreement with "fsu": Don't conclude that SP's teachings are right b/c of such attacks. But: do cut it out, please. (That last part isn't directed at fsu, of course, but to those on whom that shoe fits.)

Theophilus said...

If she owned (or opened) a Bible, she would have known about Jesus' handling of racism, environment and globalization.

Racism: Ephesians 2.14-18 (to create in HIMSELF one new man out of the two, thus making peace... to reconcile both...to God through the cross)

Environment: Hebrews 1.3 (upholding all things through the word of his power)

Globalization:
-Mark 16:15 (Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.)
-Revelation 5:9 "because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation."

Probably, though, these answers do not square with her assumptions, being as they are theo-centric and not anthropo-centic

FSU said...

What is an old-style church?

Daryl said...

Keither (in case you're still reading this thread)

The attacks on Solomon's Porch stem as much out of Mr. Paggit's theology which he has not hidden and which is not biblical.
That video, while perhaps unclear to the uninitiated, only reinforces what is already clear about both Mr. Paggit and the "church" he leads.
So, unfortunately, "cut it out" isn't good enough given what information is available out there.

(Incidentally, if the comments in the video which indicate a belief that the Bible is changing and that we shouldn't disturb people with a message they'd rather not hear don't concern you, well, what can I say, you've got some things to learn I guess)

Keith DeRose said...

Daryler: I was explicitly talking about judgments like the one I pointed out: Forming a snap judgment about a young man one doesn't know at all (presumably based on his looks) such that one is amazed that he can use "viable" properly in a sentence. That's OK b/c there are aspects of Doug Pagitt's theology one disagrees with?