Happy day after Thanksgiving, y'all. Hope your yesterday was fun and familial and grateful.
Here's the first edition, 8:44 TX time. I plan to add through the morning as I can; have a hospital call pretty soon, so...limited! Enjoy.
- We're not all married here... so, was this anyone's yesterday? Yikes, I hope not!
- That was Thursday. Now it's Friday.
 |
| H-T this tweet: http://bit.ly/1xQRWzu |
- So John Piper thinks (in a piece from 11/6) that bullying pastors abuse their authority and should be rebuked. Seriously, he does. Does say that.
- The article doesn't relate whether Piper was asked if those who have promoted and shielded bullying pastors despite repeated warning bear any responsibility or should be subject to any rebuke or expected to offer apologies or show repentance.
Has @ctmagazine crossed the Tiber? Not quite, but we honor #PopeFrancis's witness in our Dec issue. - @KatelynBeaty pic.twitter.com/fuhvkzslXo
— Christianity Today (@CTmagazine) November 25, 2014
- What does Fred Astaire in a beanie have to do with it, though?
- Anyway, my reply was:
- No response.
- One more in that general area: another person John Piper elevated despite a flood of pleas and warnings was Rick Warren. I wonder if this will bring a "Do you regret partnering with Rick Warren"/"I don't regret befriending Rick Warren":
Anyone who can talk like this has no business anywhere near a Christian pulpit: . Farewell, Rick Warren. http://t.co/qFXiZHKJpq
— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) November 27, 2014
- I quote James White about as often as he quotes me; that said, I'm in total agreement with this sentiment:
Your video capitulating to Rome and betraying the Reformation, @RickWarren , breaks my heart—and should be a warning to all.
— James White (@DrOakley1689) November 28, 2014
- Maybe someone needs to direct Warren to PA#27?
- Hm; that post is almost ready to become Forty Days of Phillips' Axioms, isn't it?
- Any post with lines like "The goal of the pansexualist movement is to remove all creational distinctives," and "They want to batter down every border, every barrier, so that when we are all done, every sentient being has been melted down into their great cauldron of lust.," and "I would rather be on the wrong side of history, as they see it, than on the wrong side of stupidity, as God sees it," probably demands to be read.
- Now the Ferguson section.
- I wonder what people see when they compare Russell Moore's Ferguson and the Path to Peace with this post.
- If Moore were the sort who interacted with his readers, I would have asked this question in the comments: "You say 'we ought to recognize that it is empirically true that African-American men are more likely, by virtually every measure, to be arrested, sentenced, executed, or murdered than their white peers.' If true, that is incontestably a tragic, sad statement, period. But why do you think it is an inherently meaningful statement? What do you think it means? What is your solution? ("Church," he says, and that is part of the answer — which, again, I ask that you compare to this answer.)
- Reformation21 has a writer who tells white people what they may and may not say to black people; but as a sort of balance, he also tells blacks what not to say to whites. Interestingly, his first dictum to whites is "Don't tell us we make everything about race" — and yet he writes for an organization self-named Reformed African-American Network. No further comment.
- (Which of course reminds me of the time I NEVER, EVER wrote for an organization called Reformed Pudgy White Guy Network.)
- By contrast, even though it's on TGC, this post by Voddie Baucham is really, really good. You'd swear he and I'd been in collusion, as if we'd agreed "You focus on this aspect, I'll focus on that, and we'll meet in the middle." But we didn't.
- On the other hand, Thabiti Anyabwile — a brother I like, love, learn from, and count as a friend — thinks the Grand Jury outcome is an injustice. Concerning my post, Thabiti was kind enough to say:
I think I’m in complete agreement with everything that’s said here, tho not everything is said here: http://t.co/LvA3m2Mdev @BibChr
— Thabiti Anyabwile (@ThabitiAnyabwil) November 26, 2014
- (Aside: Challies also recommended the piece, which we appreciate; it apparently not visible to TGC writers.)
- Then Thabiti wrote FourCommon But Misleading Themes In Ferguson-Like Times, which at least seems to offer push-back to both Voddie (primarily and by name), and to yr obdt svt.
- I'll offer this: to the degree that every one of my prescriptions were followed, it would certainly reduce the rate of theft, imprisonment, death and all the related miseries. If every one of Thabiti's suggestions were followed... arguably could mean fewer dead innocents, more dead policemen, both, or something else.
- Now to finish on non-Ferguson topics...
- Somehow I missed the brilliance of Andrew Wilson's Case for Idolatry. I hereby correct that omission, and raise it an Accurate Parody.
- "Sologamy"? Wouldn't a better term be "ipsogamy"?
11 comments:
Dan,
I know you're trying to be funny with the Charles Manson comic and all. But really? Would you say the same thing to Jesus or Paul (or quite a number of other godly people in the scriptures who were not married?)
Robert George said, "The Christian tradition holds an honored place for celibacy and singleness as a distinctive calling from God (including Protestants: Think of the Anglican pastors Charles Simeon and John Stott, and the Baptist missionary Lottie Moon). Celibacy is the opposite of sologamy, for it is based on interdependence and the radical service of love."
This is not the right time in our cultural history to denigrate people who endeavor to live faithfully during a single season or station of our temporal existence.
Otherwise, there are some excellent links in this edition.
Sorry the cartoon in itself struck you that way, Deb. And as to my thoughts, given that my entire remark — unedited — was and is "We're not all married here... so, was this anyone's yesterday? Yikes, I hope not!", I don't know how you can even be in any doubt, or think I'm in need of correction to be where you think it should be.
Fair enough. Call me overly sensitive. That said, thankfully, my day was not that way at all either. God bless!
Whenever people in my circles have lamented some aspect of the Ferguson issue, my response has more often than ever been: What would be the difference if the pastors and famous "reverends" spent their time preaching Christ and Him crucified, and the requirement for Christians to forgive and also bless those who persecute them?
Usually there's a moment of quiet and then they reply something like, "Well, I guess that would make a huge difference."
To which I reply, "Almost as if the Gospel changes everything about us in every way in which there is conflict with Christ's commands."
I've had some very interesting and fruitful conversations with people this way.
I've also said, "If only the pastors and 'reverends' would preach the Bible instead of politics," and seen lightbulbs flick on behind the eyes of others.
1. I too, respect Thabiti, but I don't think his piece is as thoughtful as it appears, and here's why:
He writes, "His [the Prosecutor's] job was to bring a charge for the grand jury to consider along with his case or theory for why that charge meets the probable cause standard."
First of all, it's incorrect to say he is to bring "A" charge. A selection of several charges is common.
But otherwise, Thabiti's assertion would be true IF the Prosecutor thought there WAS a charge meeting "probable cause".
The practical intent of "probable cause" in cases like this is concerned with what is called Prima Facie ("on it's face") evidence -- meaning that if the evidence available would clearly show a crime IF THERE WAS NO DEFENSE MADE, then yes, proceed and have a trial.
Thabiti is assuming that the Prosecutor had, and believed, in such a case.
But nothing indicates that he did. And it would be wrong for him to say to the Grand Jury that he did, if he did not.
Every indication is that if it were up to him, there would be no prosecution at all.
But because of the intense focus put on the case -- by everyone from legit and phony civil rights guys, to the White House -- he reasonably thought, "Okay, just in case I'm a biased blind idiot, and would be crucified for making a no-prosecute judgment on my own, I'm going to shift the decision to 12 people, give them instructions in several possible criminal potentials, give them all the evidence, and let them decide."
Remember, they don't have to decide whether Wilson was "guilty" or "not guilty".
All they had to decide was the following:
Was there a clear crime IF THERE WAS NO DEFENSE MADE? Prima Facie evidence.
And they said "no", even though they knew that their "no" would be heck to pay.
2. Note to Self (and Doug Wilson):
NEVER link to a disgusting degrading despicable slimy scummy web site, just to prove to your readers that you're not a liar.
An observation on much of the responses I've seen from Christian leaders of all colors on the Ferguson situation: ministers of the gospel are most effective and faithful when they stick to the gospel and its implications, and avoid straying into law, politics, criminal justice, etc.
Dan,
I thought the Manson cartoon was hilarious especially with your comment. I'm almost 51 and my family has given up asking me and for that I am grateful.
Meanwhile I'm praying for a 12 year old boy whose psychologist has convinced him he's either gay or trans. His family is very passive and are swallowing the lie whole. I've already gone to his dad to let him know who the boy was hanging out with so now they are cold to me. I'm not sure what to think of their pastor.
I have been single now for 6 years and I didn't have anyone to spend Thanksgiving with, but I laughed out loud at that Manson comic because I get humor (even at my own expense). I enjoy these Friday posts.
Rick Warren. Shocked, but not really surprised.
That Rick Warren thing - when the best possible defense is "Maybe he's just completely ignorant or extremely stupid?", it's not a good sign. But what else could you say in his defense? If he knows anything at all about this matter, what he has done is pure wickedness. Either way, he should never be anywhere near a pulpit, but that's not exactly a new revelation.
Of course, it's framed such that those of us who are still Protestants are the ignorant ones. If we only understood what they're really doing, we'd see it's not such a big deal after all. Of course.
When someone reads a glorious book like Daniel and comes away thinking it's about a diet plan, it's awfully hard to lower expectations enough for him. But somehow he managed to sink even lower. It would almost be impressive if it wasn't so tragic.
Post a Comment