OK -- not for nothin', but I am still the least-read and least-posting Pyro, and the odds of me reversing that any time soon are slim and none. I love my job, my family, and the real people we have met here in central Arkansas, and while I cannot conceive of even "not blogging", the best case for me is that I'll be blogging less frequently but still often enough for the right people to be variously edified and outraged.
Many of you will note that one of the reasons my blogging seems to be impacted is that I have become the house malcontent at First Things Evangel, a blog conceived of by Joe Carter and populated by what can best be described as an "assortment" of people from the broad Evangelical spectrum.
The only reason I bring it up is that fellow blogger James Grant posted a link to this article in Touchstone magazine which lines out an interesting perspective on the Twilight series of books: that they are a literary apologetic for Mormonism.
You know: wow. It sounds preposterous except that it also sounds entirely plausible when you read the article.
Stay tuned for the dose of Spurgeon. I'll be back on Wednesday.
43 comments:
That is not preposterous - the author is Mormon. While many Mormons do not claim that the books' doctrine accurately reflects the doctrine of Mormonism - it is strongly influenced by such.
Guys, I'm not trying to a jerk, but I think the current picture of the immodestly dressed woman is a poor decision and in poor taste.
I know it's an honest mistake, but I think it would be a good idea to take it down.
Love the blog. Frank, I usually enjoy your posts most of all. Please keep at it!
Blessings.
Frank good to see yr still posting over here. I thought Dan would snap with the strain of carrying two blogs.
Link to evangel blog is broken.
Mr Gruber's right: there are 2 t's in the middle of the name, not an elision into one.
The Touchstone piece was really helpful. I'm totally surprised by how many otherwise seemingly rational women I know, married or single, are all mushy over these books. What's most frustrating is that after I'd read this article and mentioned its' main premise re: Mormonism, the young woman I mentioned it to didn't think that mattered. Sheesh.
And I'm sort of thankful you don't post more often. Every time you do, it seems to hit me square in the middle of something I've been pondering, and I keep having to shift my thinking and/or doing. It's getting kind of tiring. :)
"..still often enough for the right people to be variously edified and outraged."
I'm mostly edified, and never outraged.
But you do have a way of getting under some people's fingernails. But it's a good getting under type of deal. Outraged can be a good sign.
Have a blessed Sunday eve, and a godly and good week.
Link fixed for the peoiple who cared about the actual post.
Image fixed for the sake of lesser prothers who don't get out much. Make me feel better about it by buying some junk from the pawn shop to cover up your own young men and women for Christmas.
Frank,
Thanks for the link. I am a middle school Bible teacher at a Christian school in FL. I probably don't need to tell you that these books are pretty much ALL that my students read... I'd like to think that they read the Bible, too, but since it is usually for an assignment I'm likely thinking wishfully.
Anyway, I posted the link on a Facebook page that my wife and I run publicly so that students can interact with us if they want to. Already getting some interesting comments. Not sure if it will impact them, but it at least gave me some intelligent talking points since I refuse to read the books.
WV: losable-- My opinion of Meyers' books.
That's pretty cool how you covered her up.
BTW, thanks for the link to "Twilight". Got me very interested, and I read the review, and was totally confused so I e-mailed my pastors, and asked them what they knew of this new vampire interest. My one pastor said his 11 year old daughter says she wants to read it, and so he is now reading the book, or books, and is taking the precautions he thinks he needs to. My other pastor wants to simply leave it alone, and disregard it.
I also talked with my daughter, and she read the book, and didn't like it at all.
She really liked Harry Potter though, and her son, has read all 7 books, he's 9, and a real book worm.
God bless.
I don't like the current trend to think Vampires are good and even worse, sexy. Vampires have and always will represent evil. Next thing you know, they'll be telling us there are good demons.
Sir Aaron,
You mean... like Hellboy? Or many of the creatures that populate Joss Whedon's vampire universe? :P
Image fixed for the sake of lesser prothers who don't get out much.
You must be joking.
Why is "snide" all that you men can seem to muster on this blog anymore?
It's actually just me going on a campaign against prudery. Again.
Would John MacArthur have a little cleavage on his desk? How about Jesus?
Oh, yeah...I forgot: it's just you being you.
Maybe you guys are just a little too arrogant, and too full of your own popularity, to understand that some of us do not need to come to this blog for thoseimages...and then be made fun of when you are respectfully asked to tone it down.
It's actually just me going on a campaign against prudery. Again.
Start by cutting 1 Tim 2:9 out of your Bible :) (sort of like Ian McKellen does when he goes to hotels...except not).
Just a joke, in case you missed the :) in the middle.
Or perhaps it's just that some of us struggle with the sin of lust and don't need to be drawn into temptation on a Christian blog.
But you're right, it's probably that we're just a bunch of prudes.
Thanks Frank, we "weaker brothers" appreciate the support of a big strong brother like yourself. Romans 14:4
"Maybe you guys are just a little too arrogant, and too full of your own popularity, to understand that some of us do not need to come to this blog for those images...and then be made fun of when you are respectfully asked to tone it down."
EXACTLY
Thanks for the interesting article link Frank. Was very informative and sounds very plausible, especially since she is herself a Mormon.
As for those that didn't like the image and Frank's response, I have a question. Do you watch TV, movies, or magazines that might have images of women that may dress like the original pic? If so, then do you immediately stop watching?
I very well understand the damage that pornography and lust can do to our hearts, just make sure you're not taking it out on Frank for something you may not be avoiding in other aspects of your life.
And Frank, show more grace! I think I remember a post about a bookstore owner...
Frank: OK -- not for nothin', but I am still the least-read and least-posting Pyro, and the odds of me reversing that any time soon are slim and none.
I clicked on this blog twice to you help you on your numbers. I'll go one better.
I'm commenting on your meta twice to help you on your numbers.
Thought I would comment one more time to help your numbers but also to ask about your pyrostore. Is this a joke? I mean, you really sell this stuff. I played with the homeboy thing and put Martyn Lloyd Jones and everything comes in Martyn Lloyd-Jones and well, Martyn Lloyd-Jones is my homeboy. So, is this stuff for real, if I put in a order you do this stuff?
That is a VERY good article. Thanks for the link, Frank.
Oh, and Frank, keep up the good fight against prudery.
I didn't see the original graphic, but the current one made me chuckle pretty soundly. :)
I'm just a lurker who only reads blogs from the Google Reader which probably doesn't get included in counts, but for what it's worth, I like your posts the best (seriously).
God bless CR, a bright ray in a somewhat dark meta.
Brass, you didn't miss much. A slight touch of shadow, Frank didn't abase himself in ashes (but did "clean up" the image), hilarity ensued... except not so much.
Until CR.
(c:
Jon said, "As for those that didn't like the image and Frank's response, I have a question. Do you watch TV, movies, or magazines that might have images of women that may dress like the original pic? If so, then do you immediately stop watching?"
What kind of question is that? That's not the point. The implication of that kind of question denies a host of biblical exhortations.
My answer is, I don't watch much TV in the first place, but yes when something questionable comes on I have no problem anymore turning it off.
This is not a question of prudery.
What has become obvious on this blog is that the high claims to gospel one week are essentially muted the next week by arrogant comments like "hilarity ensued", denying the real love for the gospel and the brethren which should be the consistent and observable character.
It's wrong to sign a moral declaration with Roman Catholics when TeamPyro says it is, but if TeamPyro says a prurient image is OK, then don't question them lest you become their target.
It is a pity that TeamPyro has become so self-assured that it strains out the gnat while swallowing the camel.
Where else can a true Christians be more mercilessly antagonized by true Christians?
Oh, Stephen, grow up.
And this is good, too:
On the one hand: "It's wrong to sign a moral declaration with Roman Catholics when TeamPyro says it is.... It is a pity that TeamPyro has become so self-assured that it strains out the gnat while swallowing the camel."
That is: compromising the Gospel is no big deal, calling self-identified members of Gospel-perverting sects is nothing, "TeamPyro" is making something of nothing, exalting moral issues over the purity of the Gospel is a "gnat.'
On the one hand: A little bit of shade on an actress' chest?
Big, big thing.
Stephen, if you don't have something grown-up to say about the content of Frank's post, quit.
Feel free to put this on my Big Old Meanie account.
As for those that didn't like the image and Frank's response, I have a question. Do you watch TV, movies, or magazines that might have images of women that may dress like the original pic? If so, then do you immediately stop watching?
Ladies and Gentlemen, meet the "Tu Quoque fallacy" which states that a person may not make a point about something because they aren't always consistent in the point they are making. Of course a person's inconsistency doesn't make the point any less valid or true, but that's why they call it a fallacy. If you want to get technical, Jon here is using a variation of "Tu Quoque"; the "IMPLIED Tu Quoque".
Ok, now that we've established that it's not a valid question (because fallacies by their own definition can't be valid questions), I'll answer it:
Regardless if it is news, opinions, blogs, street ministry (when you preach about lewd behavior, often it brings out the worst in lewd people), entertainment, waiting in the grocery store line, and/or other day to day life activities, I do my best to avoid provocative imagery. If I know it's coming, I change the channel, look in another direction, or whatever. If i don't know it's coming, I'll try to get away from the situation as soon as I can.
For guys like me who have a real battle with this sin, the internet is often a big weakness of ours, and a great source of temptation, because it was often such a large part of the nature of the sin. Many of us, myself included, had, or perhaps even have, issues with pornography.
Perhaps we should cut out the internet for it is better to enter the kingdom of heaven without internet than to enter hell with internet. Perhaps. That's another question for another time.
Either way, when we are coming to a Christian blog that often edifies us and builds us up, it would be nice to not have to be tempted to sin as well, however un-intentional (and this was certainly un-intentional) the temptation may be.
Remember that Satan prowls around like a roaring lion seeking whom he may destroy. He cares not if you are a Christian blog, so long as you are useful to his goal of killing, stealing, and destroying. He is cunning and clever. He'll use even seemingly innocent things to twist around in your head and get off of the right path. For guys like us, pictures like what Frank originally posted are a perfect example of that.
Look, I'm not asking you to completely understand it. I don't wish this struggle on anyone. All we're saying is that when we are respectfully requesting you not cause us to stumble (again, no matter how intentional that may be), that you not make fun of us in the process.
We feel like dirt enough of the time without being made to feel like undue burdens amongst our own brothers. Gal 6:1-5.
Please pray for us, brothers and sisters.
I kind of like that Mormonism has finally found a place where it actually fits in... that is, in a fairy tale filled with demons posing as nice guys/gals.
Can I have my planet now?
WWMD
Oh and Frank . . .
I never said thank you for you accommodating my request. I'm sorry about that.
Please consider this my thank you, I really do appreciate your accommodation.
Dan, your attitude is a mess, and you have utterly miscalculated. What comes out of a man's heart is a precise refleciton of his heart.
Collect your comments over the past couple of years and read them, Dan.
I am one of a bunch of Shepherd's Fellowship pastors out here who are tired of the sinful, arrogant rhetoric like your response, Dan.
Clean it up TeamPyro. Your lampstand is in jeopardy.
Obviously that's a very important topic for you, Stephen. Though I directed you back to the post (see Rule 4), you felt you'd not said enough. I hope you feel you have now, because it's no longer a suggestion: if you'd like to discuss the subject of Frank's post, have at it.
Otherwise, be content to know that your feelings are out there for all to see, and leave the meta to others who find Frank's topic worth discussing. As it is.
Here Frank posts a worthy article for discussion and myself and others derail it. No longer my friend!
Frank, did you see any glaring problems with what the article presented about the Twilight books? I'm not a huge Mormon history buff, so it would be somewhat easy to state things that aren't exactly accurate without me catching them.
Then there's the can of worms of this statement:
Instead of man working in synergy with God to receive and be transformed by his grace, Mormonism advocates a can-do spirit of works, which, if performed in conformity with God’s teachings in the LDS church, will result in one’s drawing ever nearer to God in this life and in the next.
"Then there's the can of worms of this statement:
Instead of man working in synergy with God to receive and be transformed by his grace, Mormonism advocates a can-do spirit of works, which, if performed in conformity with God’s teachings in the LDS church, will result in one’s drawing ever nearer to God in this life and in the next."
Jon, I thought the same thing. Having ministered often to Mormons, I can tell you they would probably say that they hold to the "synergy" statement, at least on its face.
As far as the article, he stated Mormon beliefs go back to 1660? Anyone know what he's talking about?
I'd pay $50 for that graphic on a t-shirt...
Another good set of reviews is available at the new Credenda site. Wilson is less appreciative of Ms. Myer's writing style.
The anonymous prophet "Stephen" from Louisville has spoken. For God, I guess.
Back later to sift through the rest.
Oooooh, Pyro's a church now, because it has a lampstand. That means I can just come here for church and ignore all those inconvenient flesh-and-blood people that bother my theology so much.
Besides, have you seen what ladies are wearing to church these days?
"I am one of a bunch of Shepherd's Fellowship pastors out here who are tired of the sinful, arrogant rhetoric like your response, Dan."
I have never taken Dan to be arrogant nor sinful.
I would think you need to apologize for such an accusation Stephen. Especially if you're a pastor of the Shepherd Fellowship.
[And of course it goes without saying, (or at least it should), that all of us can surely be too self-righteous at times.]
I wonder what the Shepherd's Fellowship is? Must be quite an elite group from the sounds of it. I have something to Google now.
OK, googled it and it came right up. Just read the first few lines of their website and apparently they have something to do with Bernie Madoff.
The accusation I make is that there is too much of an unkind attitude, and too coarse of a tone against Christians from the authors of this blog.
A man requested, in a respectful way, for restraint on an image.
But that request received a peurile retort.
The question is, "Why?" Why not simply fix the image, and say, "I'm sorry, brother. Happy to do it."
That's the accusation, for which no sin is being committed and no apology is forthcoming.
Can I be honest? I had a really full 48 hours just now. I have no idea if the rest of you were busy, but I was B-U-S-Y. And part of me wants to invest an hour in fisking the patented lunacy bounded by self-appointed prophets (cessationist prophets, if you follow their confessed carefully) on one side, indiscriminate lechers on another, and on the third side of this unholy alliance the ham-handed handlers of Scripture and its moral principles.
But you know what? That's a complete waste of time. There is absolutely no point in explaining to these people (and there may only be 3 of them; there may actually only be 2 of them) that one had better actually be speaking for God when one says he is, AND that there is something ridiculously self-incriminating (read: more than regular sin-nature incriminating) about admitting that even the bare shoulders of a young girl make you think sinful thoughts, AND that Rom 14:4 is actually one of the bases of my complaint against the porno-phobes, AND that it turns out that when both the tragic Emerg* and the huffy Fundies have the same reaction when they receive the same lashing it speaks to how similar they actually are.
So rather than explain all those statements, I'll lament that I can't post a T-shirt of the original image because that would cause all manner of legal problems, but I can point out that all the items at the pawn shop really are for sale, and really do make great stocking stuffers.
Comments closed. Take it to a higher power.
Post a Comment