Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts

26 June 2015

Tweeting the Supreme Court's latest face-plant: forcing "gay" "marriage" on America

by Dan Phillips

So now we  know, if we didn't already, that the American Congress actually has 509 seats, given that the unelected tyrants sitting on the Supreme Court regard it as their job to create legislation and impose it on their subjects.

Through the day, I'll expand this post to include my tweets on the subject, along with other noteworthy additions.

First: this one I actually scheduled simply from my reading of Revelation, without a thought to the Supreme Court. Yet it was published after, and applies perfectly:


Others:

















Dan Phillips's signature


Labels: , , ,
14 comments
Posted by DJP on Friday, June 26, 2015

15 May 2015

Some Here, Some There — May 15, 2015

by Dan Phillips

Priorities allowing, I'll try to expand later. First thing in the morning I'm doing a podcast on BibleWorks 10.

UPDATE: here's the link to the podcast.
  • Russell Moore has seen the Avengers sequel, and he finds in it a theme that I think might infuriate self-proclaimed "angry atheist" writer/director Joss Whedon. But even Whedon, witty and creative as he is, can't change the way he's made and what he innately knows to be true, despite his angriest efforts (Romans 1:18ff.).
  • A reader points me to a new site started by friends called Defending Marriage. Its ambitious aim is to be a clearing house of news, material and information for Christians on marriage-related issues in the news. It looks interesting, check it out.
  • Doug Wilson has been on one of his rolls in recent weeks. If you haven't read And all God's people said "Wut?", you must. It's about N. T. Wright and Genesis. Then he talks about the differences between Wright and C. S. Lewis on the evolution issue.
  • Doug's first post reminded me of this post and this post from years ago. What's particularly interesting is looking at some of the outrage against me and us for even asking questions about Wright's very own words, because he is so wonderful about the Resurrection. Look at his trajectory in years since. It's an interesting case-study.
  • Lyndon Unger continues his thorough examination of "Christian" cohabitation over at Cripplegate.
  • Kevin DeYoung gives six reasons why church membership matters, and they're worth pondering and using. 
  • Kevin's article isn't primarily a Biblical exposition of the topic. This sermon works hard to deliver the goods Biblically and persuasively, and has been distributed a lot as well.
  • Denny Burk reviews DeYoung's recent book on homosexuality, which I'm looking forward to reading.

Dan Phillips's signature



Labels: , ,
15 comments
Posted by DJP on Friday, May 15, 2015

05 May 2015

Brain trust: how to prepare local churches for the coming Gaystapo

by Dan Phillips

The "Gaystapo" is on the march. We're where we are thanks to years of rampant relativism, the gospel of "follow your heart," postmodernism, and Christianoid defection and/or timidity. Any day we may find it knocking at the door of our church, no matter where we are. That this is just one tentacle on an octopus of rebellion against God is beside our point, which (as is my wont here) is very focused.

I mean to pose to you the question I find surprisingly absent from the blogs I'd expect to take lead on it:
what language do we need to put 
in our church Constitutions 
to proof us (to any degree) against lawsuits?
I don't ask in the interest of evading all persecution. I think that's coming, and Christians shouldn't be surprised. But I would sure like to spare churches the waste of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours each frivolous lawsuit, even the "successful" ones, always mean.

So here's what I want from you:
  1. Not just "I think" and "we probably oughta" and "gee I don't know."
  2. But either (A) link us to an online Constitution that actually has included such language, or (B) refer us to an online article giving useful and specific direction, or (C) transcribe for us what your church's constitution has included.
We're being told we'd better prepare, we'd better put in in our Constitutions. Probably so. Using what words?

This topic is vital to faithful churches across the land. So let's see what we can do, to serve local churches of Christ.

Contribute if you have it to give, or get out the word.

UPDATE: m'man Denny Burk, who has been doing some first-rate, very helpful writing in these areas, has responded with pointers to very helpful resources. If Denny's blog isn't a regular stop for you, I commend you make it so.

Dan Phillips's signature



Labels: , , , ,
40 comments
Posted by DJP on Tuesday, May 05, 2015

21 April 2015

Let's pretend: imagine an even-handed media

by Dan Phillips

Suppose political reporters wanted to pretend to be anything vaguely approximating even-handed.

Hey, I said suppose. Stop laughing. Use your imagination, and work with me here.

We know they're going to ask every Republican presidential candidate deep and probing vital-issue-of-the-day questions like:
  • Should "gays" be stoned?
  • Would you go to a "gay" "wedding" if you were invited?
  • Would you go to a "gay" "wedding" if it were your son or daughter?
  • Is being "gay" a choice?
...and so forth. I don't need to do their work for them.

So what if they were even to pretend to be even-handed on this issue? What questions could they ask of the Democratic candidates?

I'm absolutely serious about these, and I've come up with the lot of them on the run, without even breaking a sweat. Here goes:
  • Should people act on every sexual impulse they have? How can they tell which is which?
  • If someone has a homosexual impulse, does he have a choice as to whether or not to act on it?
  • Should adult children whose hearts move them to marry one or both of their parents be legally allowed to? Why or why not?
  • How about adult siblings whose hearts move them to marry one or more of their siblings?
  • Is being homosexual like being black or Asian? How is it different?
  • Christians believe that Jesus can free people from being enslaved to destructive sexual impulses. Are they wrong?
  • Jesus said that it was wrong to act out some sexual impulses. Was He wrong?
  • If your son or daughter married a Christian who believed that homosexuality is a sin, would you attend the wedding?
  • Followup: should bakers be required by law to cater such a wedding?
  • Do you think Christians who believe in the Bible should be allowed to hold public office?
That's just without really trying.

Feel free to offer your own.

Dan Phillips's signature


Labels: , ,
20 comments
Posted by DJP on Tuesday, April 21, 2015

10 April 2015

Some Here, Some There — April 10, 2015

by Dan Phillips

Here's today's assortment. Come back for updates through to noon, Texas time.
  • You may have heard about this:
  • Even a "Reformed Episcopalian" wonders, "Is an organization committed to unity around the Gospel in danger of losing the Gospel?"

Dan Phillips's signature


Labels: , , ,
12 comments
Posted by DJP on Friday, April 10, 2015

31 March 2015

Repost: The most offensive verse in the Bible

by Dan Phillips
If life is funny, blogging is a laff riot. The oddest thing I've learned about it is that predicting the impact of my posts is — at least for me — completely impossible. More times than I can say, I've posted something that by rights should have created a tsunami response... and then, biff! Nothing. 

Then on the other hand, there are posts like this one. The thought occurred to me as I described, I sat down and dashed it off, and it became our most popular post, ever. It has been reprinted, cited by AIG's Dr. Georgia Purdom, used by Doug Wilson in debating Andrew Sullivan about "gay mirage," and so forth. As I write, it's received 38,716 views. The next runner-up received 29,173.

I'm deeply grateful that folks have found it helpful, but I never would have predicted it.

Today at 2:00pm, Texas time, Janet Mefferd and I will have a chat about the post and its implications. I thought it might help to make this easily available.
In the Sunday School class at CBC we're doing a series called Marriage, the Bible and You. In the second lesson of the series, I brought up the subject of secular talk shows and how they like to try to beat up on Christians of any size, shape, and significance about whatever topic they think is most embarrassing and controversial. Of course, at the moment it's "gay" "marriage," or the topic of homosexuality at all.

In the course of the lesson, I remarked that I think — from the comfortable quiet safety of my study — that I'd take a different approach.

When Piers or Larry or Tavis or Rosie or Ellen or The View or whoever tried probing me about homosexuality, or wifely submission, or any other area where God has spoken (to the world's consternation), I think I'd decline the worm altogether. I think instead, I'd say something like,

"You know, TaPierRosEllRy, when you ask me about X, you're obviously picking a topic that is deeply offensive to non-Christians — but it's far from the most offensive thing I believe. You're just nibbling at the edge of one of the relatively minor leaves on the Tree of Offense. Let me do you a favor, and just take you right down to the root. Let me take you to the most offensive thing I believe.

"The most offensive thing I believe is Genesis 1:1, and everything it implies.

"That is, I believe in a sovereign Creator who is Lord and Definer of all. Everything in the universe — the planet, the laws of physics, the laws of morality, you, me — everything was created by Another, was designed by Another, was given value and definition by Another. God is Creator and Lord, and so He is ultimate. That means we are created and subjects, and therefore derivative and dependent.

"Therefore, we are not free to create meaning or value. We have only two options. We can discover the true value assigned by the Creator and revealed in His Word, the Bible; or we can rebel against that meaning.

"Any time you bring up questions about any of these issues, you do so from one of two stances. You either do it as someone advocating and enabling rebellion against the Creator's design, or as someone seeking submissive understanding of that design. You do it as servant or rebel. There is no third option.

"So yeah, insofar as I'm consistent with my core beliefs, everything I think about sexuality, relationships, morals, the whole nine yards, all of it is derived from what the Creator says. If I deviate from that, I'm wrong.

"To anyone involved in the doomed, damned you-shall-be-as-God project, that is the most offensive truth in the world, and it is the most offensive belief I hold.

"But if I can say one more thing, the first noun in that verse — beginning — immediately points us forward. It points to the end. And the end is all about Jesus Christ. That takes us to the topic of God's world-tilting Gospel, and that's what we really need to talk about."

I mean, why quibble about minor offenses, when we know how to take them right to the mother lode of all offense — that God is God, and we are not?

Dan Phillips's signature


Labels: , , , , , ,
4 comments
Posted by DJP on Tuesday, March 31, 2015

06 January 2015

Top Ten Pyro Posts of 2014

by Dan Phillips

It was a good year for Pyro, thank the Lord. Reports of our death were premature. Our traffic just about doubled over 2013, which is not too shabby for some "middle-aged white Reformed guys."

Lists! Everyone's doing it and it looks like fun. So I asked Frank, and he was kind (and smart) enough to figure out which were our top ten posts of 2014. Actually, he figured out the top 100, but I'm only listing the ten!

Note: these aren't necessarily the top ten written in 2014, though the second, third, fourth, fifth... well, some are.

Here you go:
  1. Pornographic divination. Really terrific post by Phil from 2011; really upset a lot of people; really prescient. Pity it wasn't heeded more robustly.
  2. John Piper and Mark Driscoll: Lessons Not Learned? Hated by the Top Men's egoguard, but others found value in it.
  3. Seven revelations of Ferguson. Finding preventative answers in the Gospel and God's Word, not in endless fuelling of bitterness, resentment, self-pity, statism, and career victimism. Yet Bryan Loritts says (white) evangelicals are silent on such matters, and no one challenges him. Ditto Frank Turk's powerful posts on the subject.
  4. Truth worth dying for? Anyone? Bueller? Today, anyway? About the vital nature of truth, and the airy chatty indifference of professed leaders in dealing with truths for which our theological forefathers actually and literally died.
  5. Some here, some there —” September 12, 2014 (special #TGCBlockedParty edition). More fun than Bibley types should be allowed to have. Yet have it, we did.
  6. A. W. Pink: glorifying God by disobeying Him? This one continues to gather a trickle of angry attempted comments. Invariably they reflect no interaction with the post's contents, and can be reduced to "But he's A. W. Pink! He was a great man, because: books! How dare you! You're guilty of horrible sins!"
  7. The most offensive verse in the Bible. This actually is our most popular post, ever, if I'm reading the stats right. It's been used by Dr. Georgia Purdom of AIG, reprinted, and noised about. Even some whose official position is that we don't exist in any significant way noted it, which is nice. For my part, it just feeds my slow-coming conclusion that I can never predict a post's impact. This one just bubbled up and was easy to write, and quickly written. Other posts that I was sure would have a far greater impact fizzled with a muted pop. Thank God for the uses others have made of it.
  8. Of leprechauns, mermaids, and "loving homosexual couples." Biblically cutting through the gooey squish of modern religious thought.
  9. Answering Todd Friel about the emblematic charismatic Michael Brown. 
  10. Pyromaniacs: Some here, some there — September 5, 2014. Not sure why; maybe it was The Elitists' Crisis Management System flowchart?

Dan Phillips's signature


Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
11 comments
Posted by DJP on Tuesday, January 06, 2015

19 December 2014

Some Here, Some There — December 19, 2014

by Dan Phillips

NOTE: an important announcement about the conference is included below.

Here you go:
  • Last week I mentioned the "celibate gay" Christian Wheaton hired to be... well, I guess to be a "celibate gay" Christian, and I made and linked to commentary. Now see also Robert Gagnon's comments.
  • Through the one-way glass: on the subject of "gay Christians," Owen Strachan says much that we've said, and more, and very very well.
  • If you missed last Monday Music — well, for shame. And here.
  • Reviewing anti-Christian filmmaker (is that a tautology?) Ridley Scott's Exodus: Gods & Kings, Brian Mattson says that if Scott's target had been Islam, he'd spend the remainder of his life in a bunker in an undisclosed location. 
  • It is interesting to note how those brave Hollywood liberals (is that an oxymoron?) pretty invariably target those whose very religion prevents violent response.
  • I think of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary as the little (?) seminary that could and does. Were I seeking a seminary today, I'd look very closely at them. The DBTS journal is excellent, and its blog is always worth checking. In this article, Ben Edwards notes one of many TGC inconsistencies, this one relating to dispensationalism. You don't have to be a dispie to nod. Another case of natural co-belligerents being split by the unreasoned prejudice (or elitism?) of one party.
  • BIG NEWS about the Sufficient Fire Conference. Providential turns have resulted in our moving the conference from the Berry Center to Copperfield Bible Church. The program is unchanged. But this move brought us substantial financial savings, which we've translated into offering free registration. If you already paid for your tickets, your money will be refunded in PayPal. The conference is not free to the sponsor, of course, and your financial support would be right and appreciated. But note carefully: only register if you will come, God permitting. Seating is limited, so don't take the seat of someone who would come if one were available.
  • What is the one sentence pastors most dread hearing? Thom Rainer offers his opinion, explains it, and offers a solution. I think he's made an excellent pick. Another would be when someone faults you for not accomplishing, in your sermon, what you never set out to accomplish — but I can't reduce that to words. Like you've pulled out all the stops and poured your heart out to glorify God's eternal gracious love, and someone says he didn't see how that helps him be a better WalMart greeter, or something. What's your nominee?
  • Do you know anyone who's just too darned happy? Try sharing some Werner Herzog Inspirationals.
  • You may be aware that there was a panel discussion ostensibly on racial relations chaired by a very scary-looking Ed Stetzer. Here it is (a sort of registration is required). It evidently was called by Bryan Loritts; if you don't know who Bryan is, you need to know this, and this as well. Anyway, it may quite astonish you — you particularly — to hear Loritts say, in the context of racial reconciliation, how he "wondered aloud, 'Where are the conservative, evangelical voices?'"
  • If you were watching, you may have said back to the screen, "Well, I know where two of them are, at least: on Pyromaniacs! One recent post at least was a sweeping Gospel-centered address the whole situation. In fact, didn't Thabiti Anyabwile say he was in agreement with that post?" Indeed he did:
  • So (I continue) you may have thought, "Pyromaniacs is high-traffic, hardly invisible. How can Loritts say 'silent'?"
  • One could hazard a guess:
  • Re. Bell: as usual, you-know-where was well ahead of the curve, and more than once. Sadly, this gracious entreaty and invitation from Frank Turk was ignored.
  • Because, you know, the important thing today isn't that these timely warnings, if spread and heeded at the time, might have prevented much misery and harm. The really important thing is not to note that fact, so that nothing will improve going forward.
  • Because nowadays people seem to celebrate folks who come on a burnt building and intone sage, measured, nuanced, judicious remarks about the ruins, more than they do people who say of the still-standing building, "Say... I smell smoke."
  • Because you know, these days, only shielding the elitist celebrity culture from even the most obvious criticisms and calls for accountability and reform is deemed conduct becoming us Christian serfs.

  • If you tweeted a snatch from a cult's hymnody as if expressing your own words, wouldn't you want to know? Yeah, me too.
  • On to another cult: on the 12th we reminded you that the Piano Guys were Mormons. A few days later Challies offered some very good expansions and warnings about Mormons and their prosyletizing methods. (I can't call it "evangelism"; there's no evangel there.)
  • So, amid the bad news, wouldn't some good news be nice? Here you go: reader "Rowdie Jones" pointed me to a series of posts (beginning here) in which former Assemblies of God charismatic Dan Michael Cogan explains his journey from the mess that is charismaticism to affirming the sufficiency of Scripture.
  • Courtney Reissig has a good word for wives, but it works just as well for husbands. Be grateful for the 80%, trust God with the 20%.
  • Dear bro David Murray (who himself has a wonderful Scottish accent) shows us what "a depressed Scottish S'more" looks like:

Dan Phillips's signature


Labels: , ,
14 comments
Posted by DJP on Friday, December 19, 2014

12 December 2014

Some here, some there — December 12, 2014

by Dan Phillips

If you're one of those misguided souls who only drops by on Fridays, be sure to see the extra-edition SHST posted last Tuesday. I think many missed it.

So, let's see... what day is it today? Oh yeah.

On with it:
whether she's struggled similarly to put her finger on just what she believes about rape, murder, Arianism, Roman Catholicism, lying, theft and other sins. Like when she mentions a "celibate homosexual Christian" friend — does she have child-molestor-Christian friends, atheist-Christian friends, murdering-Christian friends, Sabellian-Christian friends?

Dan Phillips's signature



Labels: , , ,
27 comments
Posted by DJP on Friday, December 12, 2014

21 November 2014

Some here, some there — November 21, 2014

by Dan Phillips

Here's the first burst. I'll start some major adds after my Bible etc. reading, so check back. Priorities!

  • I go to Doug Wilson's site daily. But it may be a week, two or three, before something grabs me. Then when Doug's in the ten-ring, he is just In. The. Ten. Ring. Like this brilliant takedown of Greg Boyd.
  • Friends don't let friends indulge their revulsion against God's sovereignty. See Pinnock. See Boyd. See a host of others.
  • It often seems to be the case that when Doug is brilliant, he's brilliant by clusters. So the above was followed soon thereafter by Remanded to Sensitivity Camps, which is, well, brilliant. It's a thought from the same seedbed as this post, which even Challies admitted seeing.
  • Which makes it hard not also to recall:
  • Pause to reflect on the commentary that subsequent history added to both Tweets.
  • Now, to be fair: if anyone knows of any retractions and apologies — which is to say, any welcome deviations from PA#2 — let me know so that I can share.
  • Not related, and not theological, but still fairly awesome.
  • To us:
  • To the Pope:
  • In between? Don't know.
  • Used to be that Multnomah Press was a sure sign of Biblically-faithful Christian books. No longer. But in a rarity, the publisher is splitting into two labels, to deal with conservative titles and those that aren't so much. They're being up-front with buyers, that some of their titles are going away from Biblical fidelity. You know, just like Eerdmans, Baker, and Zondervan didn't.
  • Remember how Houston's lesbian mayor Annise Parker was seeking sermons and correspondence from some local pastors touching on homosexuality, her conduct in office, related matters? Remember how her legal team launched it, she doubled down, then she retracted? Turns out it seems to be ongoing.

Dan Phillips's signature



Labels: , , ,
9 comments
Posted by DJP on Friday, November 21, 2014

07 November 2014

Some here, some there — November 7, 2014

by Dan Phillips

Here we go:
  • The next day David Murray posted a very fine expansion of Biblical thinking about such things, which I would apply to a whole slew of daredevil things men (husbands! fathers!) sometimes do, and sometimes die doing. Yet note the appalling comments. Perhaps they came from Challies, who commendably (reportedly) saw and linked to a good article. Whatever the reason, they clearly weren't prepared for a clear-minded, unsentimental Biblical analysis of the sort of thing Americans admire — men with wives and children acting like boys to prove something and accomplish nothing, at best, or a pointless death leaving a widow and fatherless children, at worst.
  • A couple of SHSTs ago we noted the leading-evangelical-ethicist-who-no-one-has-ever-heard-of, David Gushee, who decided to go with the world's thinking on a cluster of perversions while continuing to profess some sort of Christian faith. Worse, he professes to be an evangelical — and yet sets out a way of thinking and (ironically) of ethical processing that could hardly be more opposite.
  • Aside: I will understand if it irritates anyone for me to note this, but when I read this, I think that this is exactly why I wrote TWTG. What passes for Christian conversion these days is a shallow, pale, inconsequential minor course-adjustment. It isn't the radical earthquake of total paradigm-shift that the Bible envisions, and which I try to depict at accessible length.
  • It sounds as if TWTG anticipated the line adopted in a pro-homosexual video that Rick Phillips thoroughly takes down.
  • Denny Burke responds to Gushee appositely, as usual.
  • As you know, this is one of those topics on which Michael Brown is biblically sound, which is what makes his advocacy of Charismatic error so disappointing. As if in anticipation of Gushee's dismissive piece, Brown lamented that homosexualist advocates are averse to debate. And since Gushee slams Gagnon as well, it seems fitting to link a second time to Gagnon's excellent piece responding to Gushee's defection.
  • For the moment, thanks to a ruling from the Sixth Circuit, sanity reigns on the same-sex mirage issue for Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Even a glance at the majority opinion is like a breath of fresh air — if only a breath. (h-t Robert Sakovich)
  • I doubt I'm the only one who wishes we could hold non-threatening visitor-exit interviews. How did you decide you did not want to come back? Was it something non-negotiable, like our core convictions; was it a misunderstanding, that could have been clarified if we'd had a chance; or was it something easily-correctible that we should work on changing
  • Thom Rainer offers a list from a twitter poll listing top ten ways churches drive away first-time guests. The first two seem in conflict to me. What do you think?
  • Maybe the resolution in part is in the observation that people aren't so much looking for friendly churches as they are looking for friends?
  • That said, I still come back to my own bottom-line: if you're hungry for God, the preached word, and genuine Christian fellowship (in that order), you can work through a lot.
  • Here's a tract y'all might enjoy (h-t Sir Aaron).
  • You'll want to get this commentary on Philippians. Eventually, I'll likely review it. But I had the privilege of reading and offering comments on the manuscript, and it really is stellar.
  • Well well. The Vatican is hosting reps from many religions to talk about marriage. One of those religions is Christianity, represented by Rick Warren and Russell Moore. Would you go? (I would.)  What do you think you'd say? What do you think Rick and Russ will say?
  • Thinking of preaching or teaching through Philippians? Great idea... but I'd wait until late January...
  • You won't believe who this rapper cites as his main inspiration; at the end of the article.
Check back later for some more; but today's a Date Day. So probably not!

Dan Phillips's signature



Labels: , ,
23 comments
Posted by DJP on Friday, November 07, 2014

31 October 2014

Some here, some there — October 31, 2014

by Dan Phillips

Happy Reformation Day! I hope your family and/or church have something planned to lift up the glorious Biblical truths that were recovered and held high by this movement. It's my family's ~25th year, and our church's 3rd annual.

Feel free to share what you're doing to celebrate the Reformation's accomplishments in the comments. (Not you, Frank.) One of the traditional dishes the saints at CBC will be enjoying is the traditional Diet of Worms cake. Yum.

  • Steve Lawson offers one of his marvellous little bio's on England's prime reformer, William Tyndale.
  • Religion writer Sarah Pulliam Bailey seems to be on a minor tear lately. First, this on Monday:
  • Of course, they did no such thing — unless it's accurate to report that a flag company "declined to sell flags with right-angles" when what they're refusing to sell is flags with swastikas. The couple in question refused to sell flowers for a "gay" "wedding." So Ryan T. Anderson rightly took her to task for it, as did yr obdt svt. (Brian Mattson has as well.) Bailey did not particularly express appreciation.
  • Then Bailey tweeted this Tuesday:
  • So; wow, it's a rough time to be trying to help homosexuals. Everyone's "denouncing" you! Well, Bailey did report one different viewpoint:
  • What do I think? I think if you're going to speak publicly about these matters, you have to know how you'll be spun. I think you have to know that anyone trying to help homosexuals find freedom from their destructive passions — or even suggesting that it can be done — becomes Public Enemy #1. I think you have to know that "denouncing" such groups will be misunderstood and misused. So I think you have to load your statements in some such way that can't be disentangled by the enemies of God.
  • Like this: "Much as I appreciate all goodhearted attempts to help folks who are in the grips of destructive and degrading perversions, mere therapy both mis-identifies goals and does not go far enough. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ transforms hearts, natures, complexes of attraction. Only Christ gives hope, life and freedom to sinners — of any variety."
  • Of course in my case, it probably would be reported like this: "Asked whether he believed that homosexuality was a sin, Phillips looked at the reporter as if he had sprouted a third eye, and said, enunciating with painstaking clarity, 'I'm a Christian. Look it up.'"
  • And now, a meta-item aimed at fellow-bloggers. The post I'm about to link to may be a good article. I don't know. But when you look at it, do you want to read it, aesthetically? My large work monitor fills with text, text, text. Whole screens without paragraph-breaks. So: do you want to be read? Don't overwhelm the not-already-sold with giant text filling a screen without the possibility of a scan or a breather.
  • Carl Trueman offers broad-ranging thoughts and historical perspective on the current fad of discovering that the Bible means the opposite of what it says about homosexuality. It's a worthy read both for substance, and for the introduction of "chattocracy" and an allusion to "finding dark thrills through collecting old pieces of string." That one was new to me. I'm sure the mayor of Houston is preparing a law to protect it.
  • I'm also sure you all heard that a "leading Evangelical ethicist" whom none of us has ever heard of ("David Gushee"; see, I told you) decided that he's all pro-LGBT and the rest of it. One of the leading thinkers from a more Biblical perspective, Robert Gagnon, has responded. It's a brutal takedown. I like it.
  • Interesting: apparently Gushee "TGC"-ed Dr. Gagnon from his Facebook page. Well, isn't that nuanced and scholarly?
  • There's good Bibley sanity in Matt Moore's I Love Jesus Too Much To Call Myself A Gay Christian.
  • Todd Pruitt lets us know he plans a series of sermons on Gender Confusion, Sexuality, and the Image of God, and he gives some book recommendations. To Todd's list, I would heartily add Rick Phillips' (no relation) Masculine Mandate, a book I used to great profit for this series.
  • Not our usual, but... a woman did a video walking through the streets of NY, and mostly seemed to be horrified that men said appalling things like "Hi" and "Good morning" and "God bless you." So Funny or Die sent a pale white guy through the streets, and...well, I pick "funny."
  • Biblical Christians are constantly frustrated in our attempts to reach out to Charismatics, frustrated both by them and by the cloud of open-but-clueless defender/enablers. I think I've figured out one reason for the disconnect: Critics deal with Charismaticism-that-is, while enablers defend an idealized dream that doesn't exist.
  • That's it. Write it down.
  • Let's try it this way. Show of hands: how many of you think that being near a heretic's corpse is a good way to seek an experience of the Holy Spirit? (Hands go up.) Besides Charismatics, I mean. (All hands go down.) Here's what I'm referring to:
  • Charismaticism-that-is is on constant display, on the TV, at YouTube... and at Charisma Magazine. You know Charisma: that's where you can read a person named Dutch Sheets who has a spiritual experience he attributes to God at the grave of an Gospel-perverting false teacher named Charles Finney. This is an article in which you can actually read the line "I reminded the Holy Spirit..." Seriously. Whether "the Holy Spirit" replied "Hunh, good point, thanks for that," is not recorded. (The article is worth accessing, if only for Lyndon Unger's comment, as well as a wonderful word from someone called OAM.)
  • Without the slightest nod to the irony, this same magazine which extols an experience at the graveside of a heretic also solemnly warns against letting demons into one's house.

  • ...and tweeted this:
  • Oh well, I'm sure there's a perfectly rational, Biblical response. Like, "Martin Luther hated Jews!" Or "Servetus!" Something like that.
  • Oh, and there's this gem from a year ago: open letter (from beyond the grave!) by Tozer to MacArthur. Once again, most valuable for Lyndon Unger's comment, but no less for Kofi Adu-Boahen's poignant question: "Why would Dr MacArthur not agree with this again?"
  • And now, just an interesting thought: while The Gospel Coalition has blocked me in Twitter, Charisma Magazine has not. Mull that one over.
Find some way of lifting the glorious Biblical truths of the Solas high today!


Dan Phillips's signature




Labels: , , , ,
17 comments
Posted by DJP on Friday, October 31, 2014
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)