I don't have one big cohesive post; several are in the works...or, well, close to the works. In the same city as the works. City, continent, whatever, they both start with "C." As does "cosmos."
So in the spirit (but not the letter) of old-school blogspotting...
Say, did I say "C"? (Say that out-loud.) I honestly expected to be just one voice of many on Harold Camping's latest false-teaching FAIL, coupled with Family Radio's reported "So, yeah, then that happened" plea for funds. It may simply be that smarter writing heads see that Camping is all done and, at 90, unlikely to do much more damage.
There'd be some irony, there, though, wouldn't there? Many are (rightly) keeping a sharp eye on younger men who are flying under cover of formal affirmation of the doctrines of grace, yet doing damage. I'd suggest that here's an older man who entered the Reformed community, complete with a nasty set of unrecognized baggage, and came to do great damage.
So now Camping has pronounced the Church Age over and done with, and falsely set three dates for Christ's return. Yet he continues to have an international platform, and still that platform can plead for prayers and money that they can "continue to minister to you, and to teach God's word daily." Roll that over a bit. What are they saying? Family Radio is saying that they have been ministering, and have been teaching God's Word, while Harold Camping has continued teaching and misleading many (and shaming Christ's name) on that station.
While we are looking for concrete expressions of repentance among younger spokesmen who have erred in significant ways, is it amiss to seek the same from Camping, or the platform which exposed international audiences to his false teaching?
Since writing that, Jeff Jones brought this article to my attention. Now, the writing-style is a bit odd, and it's third-hand, so I'm not sure what to make of it. But (if it's to be believed) there's Camping quietly retiring, privately changing his mind, and so forth. But what of all the damage done? What of the teaching that is still out there, and the people still radiating the message?
This should be the topic of a post, but let me just say: the circle of the offense should equal the circle of repentance. You don't broadcast false teaching, then whisper "I may have been mistaken" to someone. You don't slander a public figure publicly, then drop him a private email saying "Oopsie, sorry, my bad" — and leave up the slander.
So if Camping has repented, if Family Radio has repented of being any part of giving him an international platform, I look for something a whole lot bigger. As big as the circle of deception, to be precise, if not bigger.
Speaking of dubious teaching in reformed-type circles, note the Sola Sisters' expression of concern about Mark Driscoll's little "My Chats With Demons" bit. It's just classic Driscoll though, isn't it? A sprinkle of sex, some really good and solid affirmations about Christ and redemption and the Bible, and then just some whaaaaat? stuff, all wrapped up in a Micky Mouse t-shirt. It can't be new; Driscoll alludes to the then-forthcoming Death by Love, a book with just those same features. Well, not the shirt.
Enough on that. Now turning to the less-alloyed:
Trevin Wax had a pretty terrific post titled How I Wish the Homosexuality Debate Would Go. Wax envisions a very clear-headed brother on a show where a host tries haplessly to land the usual "gotcha" moments, and finds his guest not to be as easy a target as others have been. In the course of landing many golden points, Wax has his preacher say:
...Christians believe people are more than their sexual urges. We believe that human dignity is diminished whenever we define ourselves by sexual urges and behaviors. Consider this: married men are sometimes attracted to multiple women who are not their wives. Does this mean they should self-identify as polygamists? Not at all. And surely you wouldn't consider it hateful for Christians to encourage married men not to act on their desires in an effort to remain faithful to their spouses. It is the Christian way, after all.tried to make in a number of ways, and which Denny Burk recently expressed very effectively.
Now Trevin's envisioned TV interview intersected with another current topic to give me an idea. One of the current presidential candidates who says that he is pro-life found himself in some miry muck under what should have been completely predictable questions about abortion and rape. That led me to develop how I wish the abortion-for-rape debate would go.
Finally, if you don't regularly visit Fred Butler's blog, you really should. Fred doesn't blog every single day, but when he does, it's "cherce." Take this post linking to an almost three-hour discussion/debate between a couple of well-behaved atheists and a couple of presuppositionalist Christians, one of whom is Sye Ten Bruggenvarfman, or some name like that. (I actually love everything that Sye does; he just needs to change the name to Johnson, or Turk, or something like that.)
The brothers completely demolish the atheists' non-position position, and it's instructive.
Just goes to show you: Listen and listen and search and search, and still the atheist position just can't get beyond "Oh yeah? Well our nothing is 'way better than your something! Because! So there!"
So there are some chewables for you on this fine Tuesday morning. Er, afternoon.