[In case you missed Part 1, you can go HERE. Below is where my brain was going with that portion of this post…]
Of late, I’ve read where bloggers are a bit disconnected from the reality of “facts”. Bloggers really shouldn’t be writing about the things on their minds or challenging anyone for almost anything–especially if their opinion differs from one published in a bonafide news outlet. To do so is as silly as a “journalist” writing and talking about President Obama’s birth was in Kenya instead of Hawaii.
Oh. Wait a minute. That is what the news media has been talking about ad nauseum as it challenged those silly “birthers” fanatical musings. So we can’t just “make things up, that facts are not facts.” {Obama, press conference regarding his birth certificate release.) Personally, I’m like Bart Barber; it’s not so much that President Obama was or wasn’t a natural born citizen–it’s that there are no checks and balances to assure all Americans that a candidate for President of the United States of America has fulfilled requirements of the U.S. Constitution. It should never have been an issue in the first place, because it should already have been checked before any candidate is allowed to be put on the ballot.
If you ask me, and I know you haven’t, journalism today has slipped like a California mudslide into a sea of opinion, innuendo and wiki-leaks. When we think of credible “voices” in secular mediums, whose name pops into our minds? What makes that person’s “voice” credible? What does it take to be considered a credible voice in the “faith” community for instance? Is it because that “voice” is respected by the periodicals in which they are published? or is it because they are renowned by their peers and their fellow Believers? I can’t help but wonder.
Last Friday I read a comment from a writer (not sure if he considers himself a journalist or not), on a blogsite which I read and scan, now and again. I clicked on his name, “Jonathan Merritt”, to see what he had to say for himself. (Cute young man, by the way.) His bio says:
“Jonathan is a faith and culture writer who has published over 200 articles in respected outlets such as USAToday, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, BeliefNet, Christianity Today, The Huffington Post, and CNN.com.”
He’s also been interviewed by another impressive list of places: ‘ABC World News, PBS’ Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, Politico, Fox News, The New York Times and The Washington Post.”
Don’t know about you, but I’m impressed. Do 200 articles make him a journalist? Does the fact that news outlets interview him and recognize him give him an edge over we, uh hmmmn, lowly bloggers? Well, sorta. After all, he probably got big bucks for those renderings. Us? nada. His name recognition will probably even give him easier access to an audience with folks like Dr. Albert Mohler, SBTS President, or an audience with most any past president of the SBC, or present leader in the SBC. I can’t do that…so Jonathan must have a leg up on we bloggers.
Jonathan has written for the “masses”, as Merriam-Webster credits toward journalists. The periodicals are certainly among what most writers consider journalistic, expose` and news worthy…definitely not the rag-tag reporting found in tabloids. Although–now that I think about it, sometimes the articles in those so-called news mediums are about as rag-tag as reports in the tabloids.
I remember reading something about Jonathan when SBC Voices had their March Blog Madness that a blogger inquired about Jonathan Merritt’s blog. I don’t think his blog even made it to the first round….would go check that out, but I don’t consider myself a journalist–check it yourself if ya want. LOL. Just kidding folks, it doesn’t really matter, except to show, perhaps, that Jonathan is not in our league of inaudible “voices”. I digress.
Merritt’s site says, “Jonathan is known for his ability to tackle difficult issues through both the written and spoken word.” It quotes him as saying:
“I believe that it’s vital to navigate the toughest, trickiest, most controversial conversations,” he says. “I think we need to throw the hush off of the hidden things and blow the dust off the subjects we’ve stored in the attics of our minds. In bravely honest conversations, we find the power to radically change the Church, the culture, and the eternal destinies of men and women.”
“This passion has made him a sought after speaker by colleges, seminaries, churches and conferences on cultural and religious issues.”
I have a confession to make, friends.
As a house-robed, traditional-thinking, retired minister’s wife, who hardly meets the criteria of a journalist, I have to say Jonathan’s words bother me a bit in light of his article on homosexuality and his unwillingness to support traditional marriage in the cultural conversations which he is so well-respected to write about in the bonafide “news mediums”.
What exactly does he mean that we need to “find the power to radically change the Church, the culture, and the eternal destinies of men and women”? His words have me all wadded up in a mass of confusion. What exactly does radical “change” look like in the “church, culture, and eternal destinies of men and women”? Is it anything like former “candidate” Barack Obama said when he told his supporters, “We are just…days away from fundamentally changing America”?
If so, I need to go on record, here and now, and say I don’t like President Obama’s fundamental changes.
Jonathan wrote (at that other aforementioned blogsite), a teensey bit like he wasn’t too concerned about the words pumped out by the likes of me, or you, “a blogger” who uses “second-hand sources” to write. He chastized:
“This is the beauty of journalistic writing that still exists in some places today. It attempts to tell a story based on things like facts and interviews–all those pesky obstacles that get in the way of bloggers.” (emboldened mine)
Perhaps we bloggers are a bit inconsequential in the scheme of things since we aren’t “true” journalists who interview people and then write what we think they said without quoting sources or informing readers that we have firsthand quotes. I don’t know. It seemed to me that Jonathan didn’t like the fact that a mere blogger wrote an op which conflicted with his views on Southern Baptist treatment of homosexuality. It appears the “blogger” dared question the clarity of Dr. Albert Mohler’s asserted views as written by Jonathan.
Personally, in light of Jonathan’s quote, I’d kinda like to know if Dr. Mohler thinks we Southern Baptists have “lied about homosexuality”. I haven’t been lying. I don’t want to lie. I haven’t been whitewashing other sins as if they aren’t registering high enough on some supposed spiritual Richter scale warranting discussion. Why would the president of one of our most prestigious seminaries, broadbrush the King’s bride’s gown like that? I can’t imagine. I’ve read some of Dr. Mohler’s writings and I don’t come away from those with the same idea with which Jonathan punctuates his views.
My husband and I have done far more talking and counseling of people with those so-called menial sins and struggles than those with homosexual desires. Just saying. I’ve had a few gay friends I’ve witnessed to and I treated them with as much respect as I would anyone in need of Jesus’ saving grace. However, I don’t agree with Merritt that we need to condone their sin any more than we condone murder, or cheating, or stealing.
While I agree that some Christians can sometimes get overzealous in preaching the Word on homosexuality, I don’t think any born again, evangelical Christian considers the sins of gossip, adultery, etc. any less worthy of confrontation than homosexual behavior. The thing is, the news media doesn’t show up to report that Christian preachers speak against gossip, gluttony, drunkenness, pride, and any number of other sins. No. That would be a bit like attacking the 1st Ammendment, now wouldn’t it? But to read Jonathan’s ideas, I come away believing a person’s sin trumps the first ammendment. All we need do is take a deep breath and blow the dust weevils off the traditional mindset of the majority of Southern Baptists and we’ll all live happily ever after in our insignificant housecoats.
Then again, maybe I just don’t have enough “facts” to overcome and scale those little “pesky obstacles” that get in the way of we bloggers who fail to understand this thing about culture effecting one’s faith. Maybe I should just resign as a contributor to this website and turn in my laptop. What say ye, my friends?
This is what I took away from Mr. Merritt’s article. The “lie” that is referred to here is the idea that a person simply wakes up one day and says “I think I’ve decided to be attracted to people of the same gender”. I’ve heard this over over again. Not that homosexual behavior is a choice. Everyone agrees that it is. But rather that same sex attraction is merely a choice.
No where does Merritt say, or imply that Mohler says homosexual behavior isn’t a sin. No where does Merritt say, or imply Mohler says that same sex attraction is genetic or inborn.
If same sex desire is, as many are coming to believe, far more complicated than simply a choice that someone makes, then indeed many in the evangelical community have spread false information if they claim that it is. It doesn’t make sin any less sin. But it ought, perhaps, to modify our approach.
Perhaps Mr. Merritt should not have disparaged bloggers as a whole, but that quote in context was a response to what was essentially an accusation that he was a liar.
Bill Mac, didn’t read it the way you read it.
I agree. I have talked to many homosexuals who were abused as children and then taken into that world by the person who abused them without the child even being aware until he was caught up in it.
hmmn, maybe. doesn’t clear it up for me, though. selahV
I think your characterization of Jonathan could be a bit more charitable. I have been reading Jonathan Merritt for several years now. I like him, enjoyed his book very much. That said, can you show me where Jonathan stated that “we need to condone their sin.” I’ve never seen him make such an assertion.
I wasn’t surprised by the Mohler quote. I think more context was needed for the reader to better understand what exactly Mohler meant with the “lied” line. But in light of his many articles on the subject over the years, I sense that Mohler was hinting at the way Southern Baptists have generally failed acknowledge the existence of different sexual orientations.
Someone can correct me if I’m misreading Mohler, but Mohler I think has generally distinguished between orientation and behavior. He likes nuance. Even though I regularly disagree with Mohler’s main argument, I think he does make some worthy points along the way. He’s a thinker whose analysis and interpretation is rarely expressed with simplistic statements. So, I understand the debate over the quote you mention. Mohler isn’t really a sound-byte kinda guy. He needs room to elaborate and offer qualifications.
Aaron,
While JM has not “condoned” homosexual behavior provided by that you mean to suggest he has not explicitly approved of it. I agree. I certainly have neither implied such nor do I necessarily read the OP as implying such either. On the other hand, if by “condoned” one means to suggest overlooking or disregarding homosexual behavior, then JM is surely kissing the threshold, Aaron. The thrust of the article I cited attempts to squelch evangelicals’ using Scripture to ‘clobber’ gays. In addition, his citing evangelicals’ “respectable sins” running rampant in the church’s hallways further indicates his attempt to lower the volume on gay behavior. In short, it is not necessary to explicitly approve behavior in order to condone behavior.
As for more context being needed to better understand what Mohler meant with the “lied” line, I cannot agree more which is, I think, the kernel of this piece (which, by the way, makes me wonder why you think SelahV is being uncharitable).
I do find it difficult to accept your supposition on why Mohler said what he allegedly said. You “sense that Mohler was hinting at the way Southern Baptists have generally failed [to] acknowledge the existence of different sexual orientations.” Well, no that would not necessarily be a “lie.” That could very well be ignorance, sincere misinterpretation of the “facts” or any number of other things. But JM quotes Mohler to say, “We’ve lied about the nature of homosexuality and have practiced… homophobia.” Accordingly, JM has given us words allegedly from Dr. Mohler which, apart from any context for the assertion, have framed both the belief and behavior of evangelicals/Southern Baptists as being deceitful, dishonest, and disgraceful toward the gay community not to mention the public at large.
For my part, this can hardly be described as Dr. Mohler hinting at the way Southern Baptists have “generally failed” in acknowledging the existence of different sexual orientations. Indeed, JM goes on to suggest Mohler asserts we exploited “choice” language when it was “clear” sexual orientation “was not merely a matter of choice” indicating again dishonesty on our part.
This is not going away. JM refused to offer context for the quotes. Hence, it seems to me Dr. Mohler is obligated to offer it.
With that, I am…
Peter
I was using condone to mean affirm, accept, approve. Actually, I don’t know anyone who believes that “we need to condone their sin” with “their” referring to homosexuals.
I do think anyone who invokes gluttony, gossip, etc. is attempting to downplay the issue to some extent.
I think you have a good point. The word LIED is rather strong. Mohler has used strong language before but that quote provided does need additional context.
Thanks for the return, BDW. For me, the crux is the “we’ve lied” part. Mohler has, to date, been one of the stronger and more enlightened critics of not only the gay community, but also on so many other social ills concerning which most Southern Baptists agree (only a few exceptions exist like his strange conflict against yoga). Hence, the enigmatic nature of this quote.
Frankly, I’m surprised that a media outlet sympathetic toward or supported by the gay community has not already grabbed the quote and run with it.
Grace, Aaron. I trust your day well.
With that, I am…
Peter
Johnathon may not be a left winger, but he’s left winger friendly. But he’s all for support of whack-job environmental-gestapo policies and I would guarentee you that he would have no problem with a gay couple becoming members of his church. He needs to go crack open a Bible if he owns one and try reading it.
Joe, don’t know that Jonathan doesn’t read his bible. We’d all do well to crack open our Bibles and read them a bit more. Don’t know whether he’d have a problem with a gay couple becoming members of his church or not. He’s a bit confusing insofar as I can tell. I’ve read that Cross Pointe is conservative. Also, his father (whom we knew during our first pastorate in Salem Association) didn’t appear to be liberal leaning at all. Seemed very conservative to me.
Your rather blunt but “joe-ish” description of his positions may well define his challenge to others on his website that: “In bravely honest conversations, we find the power to radically change the Church, the culture, and the eternal destinies of men and women.”
I really don’t get what he’s doing. Working with students in a conservative church and writing entres for the liberal media…baffling. Can’t discount that his website says he wants to radically change our culture, churches and define relationships and eternal destinies. Just don’t know what way he plans to gain the “power” to make all those radical changes.
As far as the earth-stuff, I’m all for planting trees and caring for God’s creation. Just not into a lot of the political blather about it all. Don’t see that as the priority for the SBC in a world dying without Christ and losing ground with each passing year. selahV
p.s. Joe, try and keep your comments a bit less nippy, okay?
Aaron, you could very well be right. I could always be more charitable in any characterization, however I wasn’t trying to characterize Jonathan, himself, just his views. It a free country, he’s allowed to say whatever he likes. I just don’t happen to agree with his pronouncements. Here, in this post, I was just looking at his words, his description–in light of my wool-gathering about bloggers versus bonafide writers. That’s all. To give a total characterization of his writings I’d have to read his 200 articles.
Given the appetizer I’ve had, it’s unlikely that I will do so, though. I don’t guess you’d be surprised that I’m not surprised you like his writings, Aaron. Right?
Blessings upon your doctorate work. selahV
S,
Personally, I do not think it an accurate description to frame your piece as being uncharitable toward JM. As I mentioned to BDW, one does not have to approve of bad behavior to condone bad behavior. Instead one only need ignore or even overlook bad behavior to condone bad behavior. Even so, I think a larger question is moral naivete in discerning what constitutes socially destructive ills and what does not, a serious deficiency in JM’s entire moral trajectory.
With that, I am…
Peter
Well, thanks Peter. My understanding of the word “condone” is that one seemingly overlooks a particular issue. Guess I’ve misunderstood the meaning of the word “condone” all these years. Hmmmn. Seems like a lot of words are changing their meanings. When I was growing up, “gay” use to mean happy, lighthearted, carefree. But today, one cannot say another is gay without implying something sinful.
Semantics seems to be everything these days. And I just have a difficult time with any one “voice”–be they respected amongst the liberal medium or sitting in their recliners with housecoats on–being hailed as the voice we must hear.
I really have only one Voice to whom I feel obligated to obey or follow. And other “sheep” will know it, too…or be led astray. I’m finding it harder and harder to understand what the “voices” are trying to show the “masses” in light of what I read scripture saying. To hear some tell it, about all the practices in the SBC is suspect…unbiblical…or based on some man’s idea. Confusing…wads up one’s brain. Well, then again, maybe it’s just me. I probably need to drink more veggies or stay away from coffee. That’s probably all it is…everyone else has the pulse of culture and faith. Yeah…it’s probably me. selahV
But it seems you have misrepresented his views. Can you show me where Jonathan stated: “we need to condone their sin”
Aaron, no…I cannot show you where he stated we need to condone their sin. His embracing of legal recourse that force employers to employ them regardless of their (the employer’s) convictions is what I am talking about in specifics. I concede I may put a bit too much leverage on his statement about “his generation” as if it implied he was speaking “for” that generation. His site seems to suggest it….that’s why I said I’m confused by what I’m reading. Perhaps he is not speaking for his generation but against his generation’s bend…it appears as though he is embracing it in some respects. To state that we should support such action as he suggests for employers is, in my opinion, saying I should be forced to accept their sinful behavior as “special” circumstances should I have a business, etc. (Guess this goes to prove exactly what I suspected, I’m not a journalist, huh?) 🙂
It may open another can of worms, but I have gone to his site and been trying to read those horrendous white on black posts till I’m nearly blind. And there is one post where he actually spells it out in quite plainly that he does not condone homosexual practice of sin and also he says he supports traditional marriage. Hope this helps clarify my words. If not, hit me again.
Without a doubt, the fact that in some cases homosexual perversion has been given the same protected status as gender and race in employment law is just another example of the moral decline of this country. The fact that pretend chrisitians like Johnathon Merritt and other moderate baptists want to elevate a personal preference to the same level as race or hadicapped simply shows the intellectual bankruptcy of their argument.
Joe, I think you are quite right in your analysis.
We will soon reach the time when homosexual behavior will be as common in the church as it is in society — much like divorce and remarriage, abortion, gambling or a host of other moral turpitudes.
This apostasy is prophecied. We are commanded to fight against it, and at the same time, we must realize we will ultimately lose the battle for the soul of this world.
The only comfort to me that makes this battle worthwhile (I never liked having to fight when I knew the outcome would be less than favorable) is that while we will lose the battle for the soul of the world, we can win some souls from the world.
It has been a while since Joe has declared a professed Christian an an unbeliever. Things are getting back to normal.
Unbeliever? Well maybe that’s overselling it a little bit. Definitely not a brother in Christ. More like a 3rd cousin once removed.
Christians don’t go around claiming we’ve “lied” about homosexuality or saying that we better get all liars, gossips, and fat people (gluttons) right with God before we EVER even HINT that homosexuality is a sin.
If people want Christians to shut up about homosexuality (the desire and the act) always being a sin then maybe they need to zip it regarding telling people that “You can be gay and be a member of this church” (a la Broadway Baptist).
That’s an interesting juxtapostion: Joe and normal in the same sentence.
Sorry, Brother Joe, I could not resist.
Frank
“Doh”!!!!!
Joe, other than the “pretend Christian” point, I agree. I don’t know anyone’s heart. Some folks are just misguided and led astray by the water they drink. I just figure I only have at best, 20 or so years left, to drink anything. After that I’ll be dining at the table of the Lord. What a day that will be! selahV
Joe,
For my part, I do not think it follows from JM’s position on social ethics to question his Christian faith or “other moderate baptists” for that matter. Why would we jump to such unfounded assertions as “pretend christians”? Is it possible “pretend” Christians could actually be right about a particular ethical issue and “real” Christians to be decidedly wrong about the issue? I surely think so.
Hence, it’s hardly reasonable–biblically or otherwise–to thrust into the discussion a slur on JM’s faith. It’s much more appropriate to show his ethical position mistaken.
With that, I am…
Peter
You know something–you’re right.
Joe, Happens quite often when Peter talks about one’s personal faith. We’d all do well to guard our tongues and fingers when considering another’s heart. My faith in Christ seems challenged by the mere fact that I’m friends with some folk.
Well, if they were questioning it because you were friends with Peter, then I can se…..err, I mean, yeah. LOL
Well, no, Joe, I think, for some, it’s cause I’m friends with, uh…well, you… 🙂
(Snort, larf) You know, that Diet Dr Pepper really burns your sinuses. I’m just sayin’….. LOL
So Selah, do you think that gays should not be able to make a living? Will that force them to admit their sin? Starve them to death and make them homeless? I would disagree. Does that make me condone sin?
Did she say that! Shame on her.
Frank, Frank, Frank…haven’t you learned yet? The Debbie doesn’t have to deal with what people actually SAY. She gets to DECIDE what they really meant and assign those words to them. Tsk, tsk. Shame that I have to remind you of that. (/sarcasm)
Debbie: No, and No, and No, and As always, and no idea–your imaginary speculations leave no room for concrete analysis.
“”No, and No, and No””
Thank you Harriet for expounding on your position.
Frank, you are welcome, my friend. 🙂
Also…to expound a bit…one needn’t concern oneself with expounding a position with dear Deb. she will do it for you as she so clearly illustrated with her short litany of ridiculous queries. I am only expounding here because you didn’t add a smiley face, so I took you quite seriously. 🙂
one needn’t concern oneself with expounding a position with dear Deb. she will do it for you
Ok, you owe me a new computer monitor for the Diet Dr Pepper I just spewed on my screen when I read that. To quote Martin Lawrence “I know you ditn’t”.
Joe…you’re so easy 🙂
Harriette: I was simply going by what you said in your comment.
Sure if by going by what you said in your comment you meant “making something up that had nothing to do with your comment and putting words in your mouth”. If that’s what you meant, then, yes, what you put was exactly what Harriette meant.
Debbie, I disagree with what you disagree with.
correction: I disagree with that which you disagree with that I said or implied, or imagined, or dreamed up, or condoned, or seemingly condoned, or whatever else is out there in fantasy land. 🙂 hope this helps expound a bit on that which I am trying desperately to convey in the clearest words possible. 🙂
Hi Hariette,
I’m glad you clarified your comment to Debbie.
The wording “I disagree with what you disagree with”
might possibly be construed by some as a ‘double-negative’, which was not what you intended to convey with that phrase.
lordy mercy, Christiane…what in the world could deb do with a double negative…I have enough trouble dealing with single ones with her. 🙂
Hi Hariette,
What I meant was that a ‘double-negative’ cancels into a ‘positive’, which I’m pretty sure that both you and Debbie would agree is not what you intended to convey to her.
I do agree with your point on bloggers not being journalists. For one thing Journalists cannot ethically accept any free stuff to try out and write on. 🙂
Somewhere in my library of 12,000 plus volumes (it is somewhere between 12 and 20,000), I have a volume in which a noted speaker early in he 20th century stated that journalists and the people of that ilk who write for papers and magazines (and I would add to them the tv reporters of today, etc.) were paid prostitutes. Let them take a position anti what the owners advocate and they will find themselves unemployed muy pronto. Journalists are like the preachers who are always trying to be relevant. They surely wind up being irrelevant very shortly.
To this we must add that there is a mindset, a secular mindset in the fourth estate (is that how they refer to the writers and recorders of events, etc.?). Consider how the literary world presented the Scopes trial. We hear of how Bryan crashed and burned, how Darrow scored mightily, how Bryan was a real dummy (they might not have used those words, but they surely implied as much). But what were the facts. Darrow was a low life cunning lawyer who got two murderers off from the death penalty, two young men who murdered a boy for the thrill of it. And Darrow was mostly self-educated. Years ago I could not locate wat schools he had attended, etc. In that day you could read for law, and that is what he had done. Bryan on the other hand had three earned degrees, a Bachelor’s, a Master’s, and a Bachelor of Laws. His remark concerning the tooth of Nebraska man that for all he knew it could be a pig’s tooth turned out in providence to be very fortunate. It was a peccary, an early form of the pig. As to the legal presentation, the brief was written by Philip Mauro who had been winning cases before the Supreme Court for many years and the Judge would decide for the prosecution…though the fourth estate would have you believe that Darrow won.
I have a friend whose father attended the trial, and my friend told some of the highlights of it.
In any case, my information on Bryan and his education (he had by the way served as Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson) stunned my professor whose sympathies were with Scopes and Darrow. Bryan was accomplished speakr and political statesman with the education to back it up.
Never be overly impressed by the Press’s claims or the claims of the journalists and those who recommend them. Simply look at what s written and ask the usual questions. What are the facts in the case? Has the journalist handled them properly and correctly? Or has he slanted his interpretation? Note the reality of today that the fourth estate does little reporting on honosexual rapes and violence. It is always the other way around, but, as one threatened once by one who turned out to up on murder charge before he graduated from high school, I can tell you it will give you a chill to think that one who was also a murderer has threatened you.
Our biggest problems these days is that we have forgotten that the Bible teaches us caution and careful investigation. We are even to examine ourselves, and, certainly, we are to investigate others and their claims. We are all likely to fall prey to propaganda which can be so appealing and is designed to manipulate one into a course of action that later findings will reveal to be unconscionable.
Note the claims of our latest atheistic critics. Glittering generalities, appeals to authority figures (people who have supposedly done research and are accepted by all other scientists), and a host of other cunning approaches can definitely mislead even the sharpest of minds – when they are not alert. Having been an atheist, I usually want to howl with laughter at those who spout their mountains of unbelief and doubt that on closer inspection can be found severely wanting. Get yourself an education in the techniques of propaganda (google can help on this), look for the factual foundations of biblical faith. It might surprise you as to how hard nosed the Book can be about evidence and proof and facts. Many times through out history the Bible has persuaded its greatest critics, atheists, agnostics, antisupernaturalists, secularists, fervent followers of all kinds of error and heresies. Pause and give thought to this fact: If the Bible, as it claims, is inspired by the Omniscient God, then it follows that it might well reflect the supreme intellectualism of all ages, an intellectualism always relevant and able to speak to human minds that can grasp the depth of subtlety in a clarity that utterly defies imagination and thought. By the way there is a money trail behind our present day secularists and skeptics of supernatural Christianity, but that can only be introduced where it is obvious and once you have answered their arguments. Apologetics is a biblical idea. Paul speaks of giving a reason, a defense (apologian in the Greek) of the Gospel in Phil.1:17. There is also the inspired use of logic (logikan in Roms.12:2), rendered reasonable in the KJV, spiritual (?) in the NIV, etc. Don’t expect to be able to answer biblical critics at the start. It will require real and laborious research, and it can take years. I remember when I ran into the issue of the documentary hpothesis and evolutionary monotheism, I thought there must have been people who answered these ideas. Somehow or another I found that there was a professor at New Orleans, a Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski (spelling?) who was a D.Phil. from Oxford. I wrote hime a letter, and he answered providing me with a brief list of works. One I have in my library to this day which I purchased over 45 years ago, Oswald T. Allis, The Five Books of Moses. All I can say about it is, Wow!.” I also took about 200+ 5×8 notecards on Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitecomb’s The Genesis of Flood. Later I would join the Creation Research Society. To this day, I am aware of how weak the evolutionist case is. They are not at all as strong as they claim. Great swelling words of authority are not always backed up as much as those words assert. You often hear about a country rube being taken to the cleaners in a city, but sometimes the country boys are the ones who take the city slicker to the cleaners. The common man is not as dumb as some would have us think, and the Bible is not as superficial and simple and primitive as some argue. If as I maintain it is inspired by Omniscience, then it has a depth to it that will affect the person who studies it; it will deepen and enlighten that individual. Such has been my experience, and, having delved deeply in the intellectual realm, I have to say the written word of God for all of its simplicity is never wanting in profundity. The one problem is that when you think you can discern the bottom, the depth of what is presented therein, you will find by exploration that it is still beyond your full comprehension in so many ways and points. Having attended 10 institutions above the secondary level and having taught in three and even given a lecture at one ivy league school and having done years of research in various fields (History, Counseling, Bible, theology, etc.) and gathered some 10,000 5×8 notecards as well as many notebooks of materials, I conclude that I ve merely scratched the surface of biblical wisdom and its depth.. The nature of those ideas taught in the Bible are way beyond in perception and insight and understanding what most of today’s skeptics and critics think. Finding out that most of our higher criticism of today is merely and essentially old French Infidelity German sanctified, it is my belief that intellectually Scripture is the greatest challenge confronting us today. The holistic approach to biblical ideas that I have pursued showed me that the truths of the Bible are so designed to make the believer balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic. I have called my mtheod, crisonist, a combination of the words Christ and dissonance, sort of like Dr. Paul Halmos’ The Faith of Counsellors in which he set forth his theory of creative dissonance. Feistinger (sp?) and his Cognitive dissonance might have some bearing on this, too. The use of therapuetic paradoxes in the biblical teachings is also evident. I say again that the Bible’s greatest challenge is firt to the human mind. It is evident in the demand for repentance which is a change of mind based on refection before it ever becomes a turning around. Faith also has a factual basis. 500 witnesses to the resurrection suggest at the very least that biblical writers and witnesses were very much concerned with establishing the reality basis of the Christian Faith. That doesn’t mean we can answer all questions, but we can answer enough of them to establish an evidentiary basis for a true faith in order to distinguish it from gullibility.
is it just me or is it on purpose that the side bar lists someone else as being #47?
Dr. W, it’s just you.. 😉