Blogroll Category: People I don't know

I read blogs, as well as write one. The 'blogroll' on this site reproduces some posts from some of the people I enjoy reading. There are currently 139 posts from the category 'People I don't know.'

Disclaimer: Reproducing an article here need not necessarily imply agreement or endorsement!

A Tight Argument

Blog & Mablog - 10 hours 45 min ago

“Denial of fruitfulness will result—follow me closely here—in lack of fruit” (Same Sex Mirage, p. 177).

The post A Tight Argument appeared first on Blog & Mablog.

Categories: People I don't know


Blog & Mablog - Wed, 14/11/2018 - 16:51

Bear with me for just a few moments. This will get livelier, and a lot more interesting, in just short while.

I am not seeking to qualify my point, as should become apparent shortly, but I do need to state my qualifications to make the point. Those qualifications, as I hope you will acknowledge shortly, are sterling, and a central part of my argument. We are struggling with different definitions of the word qualification here. In speaking to this issue of the coming demise of the PCA, I have the qualifications to make no qualifications.

I am not a member of a PCA church, nor have I ever been a member of a PCA church. I grew up in Southern Baptist circles, and after my hitch in the Navy, found myself pastoring a Jesus-people-like baptistic fellowship. That church started to grow, and so I couldn’t really get away to seminary. I finished my formal schooling in philosophy, and then turned to an OJT reading program in theology. As a result of books—a series of dangerous books—I began to careen through some of my paradigm shifts, like I was a exegetical pinball or something. I started out a conservative evangelical of baptistic mien, and in the mid-eighties I became postmill. Then in 1988 I became a Calvinist. One thing led to another, and by 1993, I was a paedobaptist.

Me becoming a paedobaptist caused no little consternation on the session of our church, and so the elders began the process of removing me from the pulpit. We then had a heads of household meeting in which the congregation (still mostly baptists or agno-baptists) told the elders in no uncertain terms that they did not want to divide over this issue, and that they wanted the elders to work it out. After that crisis, the church did eventually come to a “baptismal cooperation agreement,” which enabled our baptists, paedobaptists, and agno-baptists to work together.

The reason this is relevant is that it essentially cut off any real prospect of us joining a confessionally Reformed body like the OPC or PCA. We did send one delegation to a meeting of the Northwest Presbytery of the PCA, but nothing came of that. I did not want to join a historically Reformed body if the price of that admission was me double-crossing the baptists who had stood by me in our baptismal crisis/controversy. And so that brought in the Groucho Marx rule as applied to presbyteries—I didn’t want to join one that would have us. I didn’t want anyone to water down their standards on baptism (heh), and I also didn’t want to desert the men who had stood with me.

So there we were, and that set the stage for the formation of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), which also accommodates differing views on baptism.

Yes But . . .

Now I know that some of you may be looking at your watches. This seems like it should be filed under that’s-all-very-interesting-but. Are you not simply tracing for us the very shadowy outlines of your fairly oblique connections with the PCA? And thus establishing for us the uncouthness of your rudeness in pronouncing a funeral oration—as it is apparent from the title of this post—over a body you never had anything to do with? How am I not taking a passing dog by the ears?

But here is the point, and it’s a hummer. The PCA was formed in 1973, and I think it is safe to say that from that time down to the present,one of the biggest controversies that that denomination has ever gone through was the Federal Vision controversy. That controversy spanned many years, many presbyteries, and included pronouncements of the General Assembly. Numerous PCA men were charged with doctrinal heterodoxy in PCA courts (Leithart, Wilkins,Meyers, et al)with varying results but with no one convicted of heresy. Conferences were held, books were published, phone calls were not returned, invitations to speak were withdrawn, anathemas were hurled, and so on. A Niagara of words poured over the lip of the falls. As said above, this was one of the biggest controversies, if not the biggest,the PCA has ever had.

And I was one of the central combatants in that fray. I was smack in the middle of it. That position gave me a peculiar vantage.

Most of my contributions to the polemical back and forth were published here on Mablog. I recently pulled all those posts together in one book, see just below, and the word count for that book came in northwards of 300,000 words. I had a great deal to say, and almost all of it was in response to what others were saying, usually pretty loudly. And those incoming accusations, many of them, most of them, were from the PCA.

And so here is my foundation premise, the one I want to argue from. Lick your pencil, and write this down.

I believe that no one in North America has a better grasp than I do on what it means to have the PCA deal with something or someone they consider a threat. I honestly think that I am the world’s leading expert on this topic. No one knows better than I do what it looks like when the PCA swings into action to deal with a problem. On this one, I know my onions first hand.

The Mills of the Gods:

Now I have heard from some good people in the PCA that the Revoice business is being attended to. The mills of the gods . . . exceeding fine . . . slow, painstaking . . . Presbyterians are all about process . . . patience, patience, patience.

Excuse me, and please see above. I know how the PCA is capable of responding to a perceived threat, and I know (in addition) the comparative threat levels they have assigned to the various positions in all this. Consider this carefully.

As some know, I have discontinued identifying myself as an advocate of the Federal Vision. I explain all of that here.

But prior to making that disclaimer, I used to describe the Federal Vision advocates in terms of different kinds of beer. I was an FV amber ale, and Jim Jordan was an oatmeal stout. I considered my amber ale to be a version of classic Westminsterian theology, and the other end of the FV spectrum was an amalgam, as critics saw it, of Reformed theology, Biblical Horizons, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and some deep weird. I am not saying this in a pejorative way—my point is elsewhere. So the most outré enemy for the PCA during that tumultuous time was, taking their take, an odd form of Lutheranism, and the denomination went absolutely bonkers over it. I mean, the place looked like the floor of the orangutan cages after a bout of diarrhea swept through the zoo.

There were no mills of the gods grinding away, exceedingly fine. No, there was yelling, and shouting, and pushing, and blogging, and books, and yelling, and resolutioning, and charges brought, and anathematizing, and more blogging, and names called and names named.

The courts of the PCA were certainly involved—but they were involved because of the larger controversy. The ministers of the PCA cared about the issue, and acted like they cared about the issue, and acted in public like they cared about the issue.

I am not here addressing whether they got all the issues right or wrong. I am simply observing—as someone who knows first-hand—that the PCA knows how to react if they think someone is trying to bring some funny business from outside, from Canterbury or Wittenberg say, to their Geneva. Assuming a perceived threat, they know how to do it.

So, how do you think they responded when someone proposed bringing queer treasure into the New Jerusalem? How do you think they responded when a PCA church sponsored a conference using all the LGBTQ+ jargon? Don’t you love that plus? What’s under that, I wonder? Actually, nobody wonders. We all know what’s under there. And how do you think they responded when Covenant Seminary cozied up to the event, keeping just the right distance, thus demonstrating their expertise in plausible deniability?

Stop. You’re making me yawn.  

Where Did All the Valiant-for-Truths Go?

The last time I came through these parts, there were thousands of men, Tarzan-like, beating their chests and crying out, solasolasolafeeeeedei. Where’d they all go? I have married a wife, I have bought me a cow.

I am going to put this as bluntly as I can. The threat facing the PCA over the sexual revolution, and all its attendant issues, is many times greater than the threat posed by the Federal Vision. This would even be the case even if everything that all the critics said about the Federal Vision were true, and were true clean through.

Ponder this. The threat of the sexual revolution, the sexual tsunami that is about to hit the PCA beaches, is a gargantuan threat, and there has been virtually no response to speak of. The wake caused by the FV speedboat sloshed over their feet, and carried somebody’s flip flop out into the river, and the whole denomination came unstuck.

Why No Response?

The Revoice conference was a vanguard move. It was an incursion into the world of the PCA to find out how hard—or soft as the case may be—the defenses were. Behind those initial forays by technically-celibate Christiany speakers are the massed armies of the secular world

Why no fight? Why no valor? I am reminded of the definition of valor in Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary.

VALOR, n. A soldierly compound of vanity, duty and the gambler’s hope.

“Why have you halted?” roared the commander of a division at Chickamauga, who had ordered a charge; “move forward, sir, at once.”

“General,” said the commander of the delinquent brigade, “I am persuaded that any further display of valor by my troops will bring them into collision with the enemy.”

Declaring war on the Federal Vision got you some inside-baseball orthodoxy points, and was a good career move within the denomination. But declaring war on the sexual revolution might get you in some real trouble. It might cost you something substantial, out in the real world. You see, that handful of Revoice presenters represented what most think will be the future of the country, and therefore the PCA, and what not a few want to be the future of the PCA, and the country.

Cowards on the ramparts. Cowards in the citadels. Cowards in the corridors. Cowards in the seminaries. Cowards in the publishing houses. Cowards at the conferences. Cowards on the sessions. Cowards in the presbyteries. Cowards in the pulpit. A sea of frothing pink cowardice.

I know basic ecclesiastical physics. I know where your rock is, and I know where they have placed the fulcrum. I know how long and how sturdy their lever is. I can see what they are doing, and it doesn’t really matter how many individual people you might know who “disagree” with it. When the mainline Presbyterians lost their denomination, about eighty percent of their ministers were still orthodox and evangelical. They also didn’t know where the fulcrum was, and where the lever was.

“Doctor, how is it possible for him to have died? I can’t believe it. Most of his body didn’t have cancer . . .”

To all this, the technically and ostensibly orthodox will want to wail:

“But the situation is so complicated, and seems so hopeless.We don’t know what to doooooo . . .”

“I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you pretend that, instead of saying that we should ‘bring queer treasure into the New Jerusalem,’ the presenters at Revoice had said something really bad, something that sounded like Norman Shepherd, something like ‘justifying faith working through love.’ Take it from there. Start throwing things.”

So here it is. If you are in the PCA, barring a miracle from heaven, your denomination is finished. You demonstrated first in the FV brawl that you knew how to fight, and are demonstrating now, when the threat is orders of magnitude greater, that you can’t be bothered. There is therefore no excuse.

In Conclusion, Let Me Make Myself a Litmus Test

Unless and until your leaders stop caring what all the respectable people think about Wilson, and start caring, a whole lot more, about what Wilson thinks about all the respectable people, your church is deceased. Departed. Toast. Finis. Caput. Bought the farm. Done. Handed in its lunch bucket.

“Yeah, well, we would have been willing to listen to some of your insights if you had not gone off on that southern slavery jag. You’re the one who wrecked it.”

“The fight about southern slavery was not an apologetic for slavery at all. It was an apologetic for the plain teaching of the Bible. And we were fighting that fight, decades ago, back in the nineties, because we saw where they were placing the fulcrum, and what lever they were going to use. We saw what sexual direction the rock was going to flip. And everything is unfolding just as we predicted. You should have listened then also.”

Either believe the Bible, all of it, or just cut to the chase and call yourself a liberal. And once you are a liberal, there will be absolutely no remaining principle of resistance when the LGBTQ plussers are speaking as confidently as all dammit at the microphones of your General Assemblies.

So whatever you say, apart from massive repentance, your beloved denomination is going to assume room temperature shortly. Count on it.

There is a good bit more to say about all of this, but I think this is sufficient for now. I am quite done.

I Was Told There Would be Free Books . . .

The free Kindle book that goes with today’s post is Same Sex Mirage, which is my treatment of the illusion that two bolts or two nuts can cinch just as tight as any tradition bolt/nut combo. Your free copy can be obtained here.

The post PCA, R.I.P. appeared first on Blog & Mablog.

Categories: People I don't know

Liberal Theology, Liberal Politics

Peter Leithart - Wed, 14/11/2018 - 11:00
In her book on Benjamin Constant, Liberal Values, Helena Rosenblatt examines the intertwining of religious and political concerns in the work of Constant and his lover/collaborator, Madame de Stael. Through his early study of liberal Protestant theologians in Germany, Constant “hit upon what would be a central principle of his mature liberal philosophy – that […]
Categories: People I don't know

And They Can Even Have Some of the Honeydew

Blog & Mablog - Wed, 14/11/2018 - 02:00

“I don’t want liberty for secularists because secularism is true—it isn’t. Secularism is an opium dream, complete with flashing eyes and floating hair. I want liberty for secularists because Jesus is Lord” (Same Sex Mirage, p. 174).

The post And They Can Even Have Some of the Honeydew appeared first on Blog & Mablog.

Categories: People I don't know

Letters in November

Blog & Mablog - Tue, 13/11/2018 - 16:28
An Overview

Thank you! We, as Christian Americans, must publicly and graciously stand up for our Biblical beliefs, such as: (1) marriage is of two biologically different genders (male and female) Genesis, (2) the killing of a child (whether identified as fetus or baby) is simply a choice to kill a growing human being, which is unambiguously contrary to God’s word, Matt. 19:16-22 and (3) obedience to the law is a requirement of every citizen (and non-citizens) that wishes to be citizens. (Romans13). Your thoughts?


This is the letters section. Mr. Collins wrote letters too, and that’s your tie-in.

Daniel, it seems so simple when you put it that way.

You Tell Me That It’s Evolution . . .

My wife and I discovered Blog & Mablog a few months ago. It’s been a delight. I did feel compelled to make a comment on this post because I believe that, though it be NQN, perhaps some qualifying arguments could have been included rather than resorting to calling Darwinism profoundly stupid without a clear explanation. If agitation or humiliation of Darwinians is the goal (so it seemed by the tone, which I love by the way) do you think you gain any ground by simply laughing at it? I’m not convinced you do. I think your position can work (cf. Raymond Tallis), I’d love to see follow up the coaxing by pulling a few punches. Thanks.


Jordan, let me qualify it here. My main focus here was not to call Darwinians names, but rather to get non-Darwinian Christians to stop ceding the respectability point in the privacy of their own heads.

But Doug, you’re obviously unaware of theistic evolution! It allows us to continue to hold our heads up in polite company, as well as to send our kids off to university without worrying as to whether they will lose their faith while there due to the challenge of materialism. We just cause them to question it and likely lose it BEFORE they go, since the biblical witness on origins (including Jesus’ views on it) is mere myth.


Jim, right. Why leave the task of sowing the seeds of unbelief to the unbelievers? They might be rude in how they do it.



Douglas, thanks.

To pile on to the longest paragraph of your “Evolution as an Uncommonly Silly Idea” post: The LORD: “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? (Job 38:2-4) Job (as a stand in for any sane person): “Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but I will proceed no further” (40:4-5). “Therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (42:6).


Bryan, amen and amen.

On evolution, Dr Jason Lisle posits that mathematics is where evolution always exposes itself as foolish. Here’s the relevant clip, but the larger, longer presentation is fascinating, as well. This is why some are attacking mathematics on the basis of identity politics. There’s your fusion of Marxism and Darwinism. “I was told there would be free books” . . . is this a Milton reference? Please register my approval with the captain of the pirate ship!


Ron, thanks for the links. And no, not a conscious Milton reference.

I sympathize with what you are saying. And when it comes to biology, I agree that evolution as a theory has ENORMOUS problems. Enormous doesn’t begin to cover it. But conservative Christians don’t help their cause one iota by insisting: 1) Genesis 1 & 2 are literal 2) Genesis 1 & 2 must prescribe a young-earth view where the universe is between 5,000-10,000 years old. Such a view is as ridiculous as those who hold fast to evolution as a tenet of faith. Young earth creationism is absurd nonsense UNLESS one is going to say that God created the universe already looking old. But most young earth creationists I meet won’t even admit that it looks old. Which immediately shuts down all discussion. Which is insane.


Jeff, there are many issues here, but let me just address one of them. We want to be careful with the argument that the world looks old, when we don’t have a-known-to-be young earth to set beside it for comparison’s sake. What would a 6,000 year-old earth look like? Put another way, I think it is reasonable to argue that the appearance of antiquity of the rocks we are looking at is a paradigm projection. Couple this with the fact that the terrain around Mt. St. Helens looks as old as you might want it to be . . . and I am older than it is.

Shepherding the Wind

A study of Ecclesiastes can be life-changing. It was for me and started with Joy At The End Of The Tether. This book is so worth the read. Then I would recommend following that up with Jeffery Meyers, A Table In The Mist. It will give you a handle on why life is beautiful and worth living.


DC, thanks. JATEOTT was originally a series of sermons at Christ Church, and I believe that was actually a pivotal moment in the life of congregation.

November Has Been a Fun Month

Man, I am thoroughly enjoying this No Quarter November! It is like a breath of fresh air or a cold drink on a hot day to hear someone calling out the fact that the Emperor has no clothes on in a simple and articulate voice.


Anton, thanks.

On a commercial break during college football this Saturday I saw a pair of new commercials that made me realize something new about you, Doug. First the commercials: 1. A little girl is at home alone with her burly good looking father. The phone rings. The girl answers the phone and it’s her mother in a world away deployed with the United States military. The dad runs over and smiles at his daughter while they talk to mommy off fighting a war in a distant land. 2. Jared’s Diamond shop (or whatever they called it) ran an ad for engagement rings. First up two men are on a stage singing when one leaves only to be called back up and proposed to by his boyfriend. Next up are a man and woman at a party when the narrator says “For when you ask him!” and then the woman gets on a knee and proposes to the man. He, of course, puts his hands to his face in shock and joy! “What a lucky gal I am!” he seems to be saying. Now for my realization: I think you’ve been far too easy on our culture. Think we can find a rich donor to sponsor a Super Bowl commercial where you sit on a burning couch and read Romans 1?


TF, I am afraid the existing authorities would not allow us to spend our rich donor’s money in such a hateful way.

I am from the Dominican Republic, but I spent almost 10 years (2007-2016 from 18 years old old to 27 years old) in the States between Logan, Utah (yeah), Rochester, New York, and Dover, New Hampshire for bachelor of science in Computer Science, master of science in the same field, and working as software developer in Liberty Mutual, respectively in those cities. I returned to the Dominican Republic two years ago as part of a two-years-home-residency requirement. I have been impacted by your ministry and work a lot, and I appreciated it, and to be honest, I will be very willing, interested, and open to collaborate, work and/or volunteer for you even if it is remotely. I think this article like many others and your books (plus other works) are very powerful, gold, and liberating. Another good one from you. Praise God. This No Quarter November series are fire, and I love the part about the free books. That Rules for the Reformers is a great blessing. If I had the permission, I would love translating this one into Spanish and even some of your other works that you allow, but at least this one . . . or at least bring the suggestion for you to do it. Thanks very much!! God bless you!!


Eliot, thank you. A number of Canon titles have been translated into various languages, and so you could certainly contact them with a proposal.

I have been hammered by Federal Husband. Smashed into a thousand little pieces and I have just begun to know what it means to be a husband and a father. I finally had to throw away my pen due to excessive underlining and margin notes. This book has been a great blessing to my family, especially my wife as I love her as Christ loved the Church and laid down His life for her. My children have also been blessed as I have begun to catechize them. I plan on sending these books as gifts to most of my family and friends. Also we are loving “No Quarter November.” It stings . . . Keep it up. Thanks,


Santos, thank you. Glad you found the book helpful. Thus far in November, we have given away over 12K titles. Hope they all find responsive readers. Thanks for reading with an eye on application.

Classical Paganism?

The problem with classical education is that it’s based on the Greek model and the Greeks were completely corrupt and pagan. Why would we want to emulate a system designed to raise pagans?


Lance, for the same reasons that God choose the Greek language to give us the New Testament. The wild olive branches were no good growing where they were growing, but when they were grafted into the Abrahamic root, the results were just what God wanted. He wanted that ex-pagan tang in His olive oil.

What Race Issue?

“Presbyterians and Woke Baptists” & “Alt-Righty Then” From an SBCer living off the continent . . . show me where we have gone down that path that got us ‘sunk’ on race. You’ve given explicit examples of the mainline issues yet not about the SBC race issue you refer to. Are you referring to your post: “Alt-Righty Then?” More specifically, you wrote there about the alt-right & the SBC, that, “. . . There would be an uproar because, while the theology was righteous, there would be legitimate suspicion that there was a surreptitious (political) agenda in the selectivity of the identified villains. And so there would be. And this is why, when representatives of Jesus Christ are denouncing hateful bigotries, and they take it upon themselves to repudiate what star-bellied sneetches have done to the non-star-bellied sneetches, they must also take care to address any problems that have run the other way. This must all be done at the same time. Otherwise, the church is being played. In the New Testament, the Jews have to love and accept the Gentiles, and the Gentiles also have to love and accept the Jews. Everybody does this, and all at the same time. True communion at the Table of Christ must run in every direction. No one is permitted to come with any grievances in hand. All of us must set all of them down.” Your excellent point well taken, but I don’t see how the SBC is “sunk” if this is what you are referring to. If our leadership and church members are finally coming around to figuring out how to publicly address systemic race issues in our communities and even in our churches, can’t we hail that is a “win-win” v. call it a full out fail for not having gone far enough? I’m game with Thabiti A and others @TGC, etc. who are helping the greater Evangelical Christian community deal with these issues, yet I wouldn’t go far as to say the SBC is sunk over this issue. We SB’s sure are not all kosher on these issues, yet just not sure how the SBC got lumped into the same sentence, let alone post, as those who have a dim view of Scripture. #NotGettingUrPoint P.S. Love the conversation starter of lighting the coach on fire! Thanks for being willing to “Go There” on these and other issues.


Bill, my point is not that the SBC has not gone far enough with critical race theory, it is that they have accommodated far too much of it already. And yes, the “Alt-Righty” post is about precisely this issue.

I was hoping to hear a little more commentary on how the two large evangelical denominations are going metaphorically south. I’ve been to a good seminary of one of them and the pastoral ministry class was rife with references to standing with Black Lives Matter, belief in corporate guilt regardless of who your ancestors were but based on skin color, and the apparently agreed upon notion among thought leaders that the word “evangelical” no longer has meaning because so many voted for Trump. I suppose that is more of a comment than a question, and I guess I want to encourage you to keep shining a light on this. It can be a real bait and switch when one attends a ministry with a conservative reputation only to find out after many years and thousands of dollars later that Marxism is readily endorsed as consistent with Evangelical belief. Of course it’s not always as obvious as when I was at Wheaton and they handed us Marxist authors for assignments. One time I asked concertedly “this sounds a little bit like liberation theology” to which the professor responded “of course, he was one of the founders of it.”


Luken, thanks. I intend to continue to pursue all of this. It is really bad out there.

The USS Arizona Was Already on the Bottom

Forgive me if I sound a bit pedantic, however I feel compelled to observe that USS Arizona blew apart and sank to the bottom by 0819, during the first wave of the attack. There would have been no sailors (alive) on her at all during the third wave—the survivors having long abandoned—to have made any insightful observations about the attack.


Daniel, point taken, and yes, a bit pedantic. But at least I will never make that mistake again.


Re: “And Which Is Where We Are Headed” On tyranny and consolidated, arbitrary power: We premillennialists have been saying for a long time that this is coming to a world order near you. What’s your post-mill take on the same subject?


Steve, I believe the globalists really want to do everything the premills imagine, and worse. It is just that I believe two basic things about it. In the long run, stupidity never works and, also in the long run, God’s promises are always fulfilled, and they will fill the face of the earth with fruit.

These Things Happen

We currently are members of a large reformed Baptist Church “somewhere in North America,” in the vein of John Piper. Your daughter Rachel and you have converted me (and my husband) to paedo-baptism. What do we do now? We haven’t told our pastors or any small group families, though I want to tell everyone because it makes so much sense!!! We have ­­­__ young kids. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church around us is not favorable towards you . . .? The What Have You podcast has been such a blessing to me, your daughters are so amazing! We are loving our first year of classical school with our first grader! Thanks for your ministry . . . Can my name be kept anonymous if you answer publicly?

Suzy Q

Sure, “Suzy,” and thanks for the kind words. I wish I could be more of a practical help. But God knows your circumstances, having placed you in them, and He knows who the like-minded people are in your area. Start praying that He would introduce you.

A Few Pointed Education Questions

Here are a couple questions I’d like you to tackle if you would please. 1. Do you think all Christian schools are created equal? Furthermore, do you think all homeschooling families or classical Christian school (or rather that thing that we are pulling kids towards if we pull them out of public school) are created equal? 2. The other side of the last question. Do you think all public schools are created equal? 3. The big problem I have with your thoughts on this matter is that in your desire to let the biblical principles of educating children speak to your audience you have created a binary choice that does not exist. Unfortunately, it just isn’t enough for me to hear you say “public school bad and Christian school good” anymore. I am genuinely curious of how you deal with these questions if you so wish to tackle them.


James, no, I certainly do not believe that all good choices are equally good. Nor do I believe that all bad choices are equally bad. Nor are all foolish parents equally foolish. And for those parents who—in this climate, in these days—enroll their children in government schools, not all vain hopes are equally vain.

And Another Thing

Hi, Mr. Wilson mentions in his article “The Sexdollification of Western Women” that he is going to address the analogous problem that men in the West have; can you send that article to me? Thanks


Ryan, sorry. I don’t think I ever got around to that specifically.

The post Letters in November appeared first on Blog & Mablog.

Categories: People I don't know

Kantian v. Kantian

Peter Leithart - Tue, 13/11/2018 - 11:00
  Gillian Rose (Hegel Contra Sociology, 21-24) examines how sociology attempts to overcome Kantian problematics, but remains within them all the same. Neo-Kantianism, she argues, “founded two kinds of ‘sociology,’ two logics of the social: a logic of constitutive principles for the sociology based on the priority of validity, and a logic of regulative postulates […]
Categories: People I don't know

Free Grace and No Free Lunch

Blog & Mablog - Tue, 13/11/2018 - 02:00

“There is a straight line blessing that runs from free grace to free men, and from free men to free markets” (Same Sex Mirage, pp. 173-174).

The post Free Grace and No Free Lunch appeared first on Blog & Mablog.

Categories: People I don't know

Male and Female

Peter Leithart - Mon, 12/11/2018 - 16:36
Barth is no feminist. In his discussion of man and woman (CD 3.4), he insists on the created differences between male and female. Men and women must resist the temptation “to exchange their special vocations, what is required of the one or the other as such” (154). Instead, “each man and woman owes it not […]
Categories: People I don't know

Evolution as an Uncommonly Silly Idea

Blog & Mablog - Mon, 12/11/2018 - 14:00

Prolegomena to the Skylarking:

One of the things a writer must do, if he is planning on running with the big boys, is demonstrate his erudition and learning as he starts off the proceedings, and to do so by means of judicious citations. What better way to set the tone than by quoting the trenchant expertise of others? And because I am going to be tackling a view held by virtually all the real brains of the scientific world, that ratio being settled by the Credentials Office of the Cartel, who better to cite than a business management consultant and a journalist?

Peter Drucker once made this observation, one that holds true outside the world of business, out to the edge of the universe in fact.

“The only things that evolve by themselves in an organization are disorder, friction, and malperformance.”

And Malcolm Muggeridge, no slouch when it came to astute observation, once said this:

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has.”

Actual Introduction:

The initial presenting problem is how and why highly intelligent people can believe and do extraordinarily foolish things. We see this in day-to-day sorts of situations, as when a very smart woman makes obviously bad romantic choices, or when a statistician, who actually knows the actual odds, throws a bunch of money away in some gambling spree. A shiny hot car can have a superb engine, along with a tachometer that bounces crazily on the right side of the dial, and still be on the wrong road.

This has corporate and societal applications also. In the history of dumb ideas—we have agreed to speak frankly throughout the month of November—the gold and silver medalists would have to be Darwinism and Marxism. Marxism believes, for example, that it can cost a dollar to make a loaf of bread, and that we can make everybody sell it for 50 cents a loaf, and yet, at the end of the day, still have bread. This is tantamount to believing that 3 is bigger than 5, and yet the fact remains that the people who actually believe this are clustered in our major universities. You know, our grand societal thinkery-spots. 

And Darwinism! But I must restrain myself. Don’t want to get out over the fronts of my skis. Gotta pace myself here.

Set the Stage:

Spider webs that are marvels of structural engineering, millions of them all over the globe, made by spiders with the intelligence of an arachnid with a teeny little brain . . . not to mention the intelligence of a trained structural engineer. Migratory Arctic terns which fly from Antarctica to the Arctic and back again, mysteriously finding their way each way. Eons ago one bright tern said to another one, “You know, given the tilt of the earth’s axis, I’ll bet it is summer on the other end of this globe when it is winter here . . . you know?” And because one good tern deserves another, the two of them set off, and eventually persuaded all the others that this was the way to enjoy endless summer. Then there are the beetles, over three hundred thousand species of beetles, careening around in the backyards of who knows how many of us. Salt water salmon heading up fresh water rivers in order to spawn, letting nothing whatever interfere with their urgent need to get there. Monarch butterflies, which have never been to the particular spot in Mexico where they all spend the winter, make a trek there by the millions. Trillions of cells in one human body, each one of them orders of magnitude finer than an exquisite watch, all of them synchronized and working together. Then consider a particular kind of caterpillar, which when frightened by a predatory bird, has a rear end that swells up into the shape of a venomous viper head. Another butterfly, bright blue when its wings are spread, folds them up together to look for all the world like a brown, dried-up leaf. Down at the microscopic level, DNA replicates itself like it was a factory filled with exquisitely-tuned robotic machines. Another insect, stumbling onto the aforementioned dried leaf strategy by blind, stupid, purposeless chance, looks exactly like a different kind of dried up leaf. Blind impersonal forces really enjoy that dried leaf trick. Protein chains fold up elegantly, just like that garden hose in your shed over the winter that doesn’t ever get tangled. Oh, your hoses do get tangled? You must not be trained in science.

And then keep in mind the fact that I have listed here a small handful of marvels, which when compared to all the marvels which could be listed, are like one little tiny BB, rolling around on the concrete floor of an empty CostCo warehouse.

What do you get when you take a “just so” story, and multiply it to the 178th power? You get the assured results of science, you fundamentalist ninny-hammer, and why aren’t you bowing down to the sound of the cornet, flute, dulcimer, and sackbut?

Dullards, Dogberry, and Darwin:

A common emphasis among Christians is that folly, biblically defined, is not the same thing as stupidity. We are told, ad nauseam, that biblical folly is a moral category, not an intellectual one. It is claimed that a fool in the biblical sense might do very well indeed on an IQ test. Moreover, since we are speaking frankly, my interlocutor might say, a fool in the biblical sense might run IQ circles around, as the Victorians might put it, the present writer. The present writer is perhaps standing out there on a wide flat surface of some pretty pedestrian assumptions about common sense science, as he probably is, while the bosses of the world spin scientific Brodies around him. Thus the narrative goes, as we are constantly cautioned to remember—we are dealing with very smart people.

So, we are assured, yet again, that when Scripture says something like . . .

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God”(Psalm 14:1).

. . . fool does not actually mean, you know, fool. The point is earnestly made that this is a moral folly, not an intellectual deficiency. Never, ever assume that unbelievers are operating foolishly in the intellectual realm. They are very smart people. If they were not smart people, how could we look up to them, yearn after them, and wish we could be like them? Well, that’s foolish too, and it seems that we are becoming like them.

But the Scriptures teach us that such moral folly results in intellectual darkness.

Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart” (Ephesians 4:18).

Where does the darkness of understanding come from? It comes from the blindness of their heart.

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom. 1:21).

A refusal to honor God as God, and refusal to give Him thanks, results in what? Darkness of heart, and vanity of imagination.

So while it may be technically true, so far as it goes, that a smart person (by a stipulated and narrow set of measurements) can deny that God made the world and all that it contains, it remains the case that such a person is thereupon called upon to affirm, with a solemn countenance, a series of propositions that are stupid—and I mean stupid with three o’s.

All this means is that a genius need not be dullard in order to be a fool. The fact that the fool is not brain-power rpm impaired simply means that his stupidity does not have an explanation that is located in his natural mental limitations. The stupidity—and it is very real stupidity—must therefore be coming from somewhere else. In fact, when the person involved is not mentally handicapped that actually makes the stupidity more stupid, not less.

If a simpleton assured you that wet streets cause rain, we can attribute the stupid claim to the stupidity of the source. But if a man with perfect GRE scores and three graduate degrees tells you the same thing, it remains stupid. In fact, the stupidity is compounded by the “ought-to-know-better” component, not diminished. And so as to keep our eye on the ball, to claim that a little yellow canary is a blood cousin to the sea lion is a more egregious howler than thinking wet streets cause rain.

The point I am building up to is this: Darwinism is not simply an error. It is not an understandable mistake. It is not a reasonable theory that has one unfortunate downside, that condition of happening not to be true. No, Darwinism is incoherent, disordered, and jumbled. It really is ludicrous, risible, and stupid. Moreover it is the kind of stupidity that rises to the greatest heights of stupidity, in that smart people are peculiarly attracted to it. What we call smart people are often very vain and conceited people, and they do not want God over them. And rather than submit to the wisdom of God, they will go for anything.

“For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe” (1 Corinthians 1:21, ESV).

Their wisdom is our folly, and vice versa.

The apostle Paul once said that the sins of some men go before them, while the sins of others come behind (1 Tim. 5:24). The same thing goes for stupidity. When someone like Dogberry does his thing, everybody can see it, right out there in the open. It goes before him.

“One word, sir. Our watch, sir, have indeed comprehended two aspicious persons, and we would have them this morning examined before your worship.”

But when Sir Richard Houghton III says something like . . .

“As Witherton demonstrated in his landmark study, the transitional forms between Orcinus orca and Bos taurus or Bos indicus would have to be considered to include, at a minimum, a diminutive form of Lepus roseus.

. . . our temptation of course is to go whoa—that’s some high-flying education right there. But what he just said was that orca whales came from cows through the intermediate staging area of little pink bunnies, and that Witherton, who hasn’t been locked up yet, also thinks the same thing. And yes, I know that actual evolutionary theory does not include the bunnies. I put those in to make the whole thing more realistic and down to earth, to keep from straining credulity to the breaking point. You know, to provide some verisimilitude. The cow > whale scenario needed something to keep us all from laughing out loud.

So Who Do You Think You Are?

So when I say that Darwinism is stupid—someone might interject—am I not setting myself up against the entire world of accepted and accredited learning? And not only have I done that, he continues, I have first called their science into question, and then I descended to personalities. I am not simply maintaining that Darwinism (happens to be) false, which is a serious thought crime in itself, but I am also maintaining that it is ludicrous, ridonkulous, preposterous, farcical, an idée fixe thrown from the high cliffs of evidentiary knowledge onto the rocks of blinkered ignorance. And if I am asked for my authority to speak with such confidence on such things, I can produce . . . what? An MA in philosophy from the University of Idaho?


“I have more understanding than all my teachers: For thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts” (Psalm 119:99–100).

Kneel before Your Maker

The central problem is the conceit of man. Because of an establishment-wide ignorant pomposity, strictly enforced by tenure tribunals, it has become impossible to draw the most obvious of conclusions—which is that the Creator is an artistic engineer of infinite majesty.

“O come, let us worship and bow down: Let us kneel before the Lord our maker” (Psalm 95:6).

Because the Lord is our Maker, the posture we should have before Him is that of kneeling. The secular evolutionist does not want to kneel, and therefore it is necessary for him to deny that he has a Maker. He can follow a logical argument to that extent. For if he had a Maker, kneeling is the obvious thing to do, and he is too proud to kneel. Too conceited to kneel. Too vain to kneel. Too puffed up to kneel. Too bloated with intellectual gasses emanating from his head to kneel.

Because he valued his mind over the glory of his Maker, this is the reason he has lost his mind. You would not have your God as God, and so it is that your cisterns can hold no water (Jer. 2:13), just like your arguments. He valued science over his Maker, and this is the reason he has lost most of his science already, and will lose the rest of it when he finally makes it to the outer darkness. Denying God does not just mean losing God. Denying God means that you also lose the thing you substituted in for Him.

Remember kids, that robotics factories can obviously build themselves, having all those robots to do it with . . .

If you substituted science for God, then you lose God, and your soul, and science along the way. More than that, worse than that, all the bumpkins that you used to look down on, despising them for their know-nothing approach to science, will come to know far more of real science than you do. You have done post-doc work at Oxford and Harvard, and the average graduate of Buffalo Breath Bible College knows more about what is going on in the natural world than you will ever know.

You do not know what you think you know. Because it is not well with your soul, your mind has become diseased and scarred. Your mind cannot bend in the right ways anymore, cannot bend to fit around the evidence, but the way to fix all that is to start with your knees. The knees have to bend first.

I Was Told There Would be Free Books . . .

The free Kindle book that goes with today’s post is Joy at the End of the Tether, which can be obtained here. We also have a few titles directly on today’s topic of evolution,which you can see here and here, but they are the regular price. We couldn’t get them to be free for you because of some Amazon timing restriction. So if it is free you want, you will have to settle for a book on the lessons of Ecclesiastes.

The post Evolution as an Uncommonly Silly Idea appeared first on Blog & Mablog.

Categories: People I don't know

Open Communion

Blog & Mablog - Sat, 10/11/2018 - 16:19

Here at Christ Church, our practice with regard to the Lord’s Supper, which we observe weekly, is called open communion. What does this mean, and what does it not mean? How do we fence the Table? Why do we fence the Table?

As you have probably noticed, we have a statement in our bulletin that warmly invites participation from any baptized disciples of the Lord Jesus who are under the authority of the Lord’s body, the Church. By such participation as a visitor among us, you are telling us that you acknowledge that you are a sinner, and that you are trusting Jesus Christ alone for your salvation.

If we expected absolute sinlessness from all partakers, then you visitors couldn’t come. But then again, neither could we. But is the sin being dealt with? Is it being addressed? I therefore want to emphasize and note our use of the word disciples. A disciple is someone who is self-consciously under the authority of Jesus Christ, intending to live in the way He instructs His disciples to live. Excluded is the option of saying Lord, Lord, and then refusing to do what He says. If there is good reason for thinking that the Lord will say depart from me at the last day, then that should not be heard as somehow meaning come to me here. But because the Lord is objectively saying come to me here, this means that He is also saying depart from sin.

So if someone is living a disordered life, and they belong to a church that permits such disorder, what should they do about it? They should come to this Table this morning, resolving to address the issues in a definitive way, which means changing churches if necessary, and asking God to strengthen them for what they know they need to do. This broken body and shed blood are all gospel, and should therefore be received in a spirit of true evangelical repentance and faith.

If you are a member of a church, you are not in charge of whether you partake of communion here or not. You must come. Even if your home church should have disciplined you and didn’t, you still must come. But you must come in a way that is consistent with a true response to the gospel. The same thing goes for members of our church. You don’t have the authority to excommunicate yourself because you had a bad week, or because of some hidden sin. Come while asking God for the strength to put it right.

As we pray, sing, and confess we are cleansing our hearts in preparation for the entire worship service, including the culmination of the service in the Lord’s Supper. Let us do that now.

The post Open Communion appeared first on Blog & Mablog.

Categories: People I don't know

Theocratic of Necessity

Blog & Mablog - Sat, 10/11/2018 - 02:00

“All societies are theocratic, with the only thing distinguishing them being the nature and attributes of the reigning theos. Since our current theos happens to be a bloodthirsty maniac, and because I am not a devotee of that particular religion, I would urge my fellow citizens to turn away from him and turn to our heavenly Father” (Same Sex Mirage, p. 172).

The post Theocratic of Necessity appeared first on Blog & Mablog.

Categories: People I don't know

The Very Best . . .

Blog & Mablog - Fri, 09/11/2018 - 16:33

The post The Very Best . . . appeared first on Blog & Mablog.

Categories: People I don't know

Like a Barn Door

Blog & Mablog - Fri, 09/11/2018 - 02:00

“Everybody in the Israelite army thought Goliath was too big to defeat. David thought Goliath was too big to miss” (Same Sex Mirage, p. 171).

The post Like a Barn Door appeared first on Blog & Mablog.

Categories: People I don't know

The Content Cluster Muster (11.08.18)

Blog & Mablog - Thu, 08/11/2018 - 17:00
I Could Go for That

As always, more here . . .

New Canonball!

A brand new release for Canonball Books! Meet Dave and Licia Radford of The Gray Havens, and pick up their brand new book Gray Flowers!

— canonballbooks (@canonballbooks) November 6, 2018 Why Venezuela is the perfect example of what socialism results in

Venezuela proves that democratic socialism can lead to socialist totalitarianism if it holds onto power for long enough—and that the terrible long-term economic results of all socialism will only be corrected democratically by voters who doubt socialism.

— FEE (@feeonline) November 7, 2018 Get Rigney’s Audiobook FREE!

Free audiobook download of @joe_rigney's excellent book on "The Things of Earth: Treasuring God by Enjoying His Gifts"

— Justin Taylor (@between2worlds) November 1, 2018 Keep Portland Normal? (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); = id; js.src = ''; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));Every Hipster in Portland

Every Hipster in Portland

Posted by John Crist on Wednesday, November 7, 2018 As the kids say…the next 2 years are gonna be lit! (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); = id; js.src = ''; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));Trump Explodes On Acosta!

"You are a rude terrible person" Donald Trump explodes on acosta at a press breifing.

Posted by The Daily Caller on Wednesday, November 7, 2018 In defense of Classical education

Make classical education great again

Categories: People I don't know

Sex in Genesis

Peter Leithart - Thu, 08/11/2018 - 11:00
Genesis describes sex with a variety of terminology: 1) The command to “be fruitful” (Genesis 1:28) implies sex. 2) Adam “knew” (yada’) Eve and she conceived (4:1, 25). The same term is used for Cain (4:17), for the Sodomites who attack the angels (19:5). “Not known a man” is a description of virginity (19:8; 38:16). […]
Categories: People I don't know

And the Issues Have Been Clarified

Blog & Mablog - Thu, 08/11/2018 - 02:00

“As an insightful sailor on the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor might have said, as the  third wave of Japanese bombers flew over, ‘The time for nuance is passed’” (Same Sex Mirage, p. 169).

The post And the Issues Have Been Clarified appeared first on Blog & Mablog.

Categories: People I don't know

Horny Presbyterians and Woke Baptists

Blog & Mablog - Wed, 07/11/2018 - 17:24
Mamas Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Preachers

Mothers naturally want their children to be safe, and to remain safe throughout the course of their lives. But wise mothers don’t value that safety above all things. Better to be the mother of a son who dies valiantly in battle than the mother of a coward who lives long—“come back with your shield or on it” really is a noble sentiment.

So in a time of hot persecution, there is a natural affection that would certainly tempt a mother to want her son to “stay safe,” which would mean staying out of front line ministry. This is a natural inclination, and it must be mortified. But there is also a love for God—in days like ours when cowardice is deemed cool—that should prevent mothers from wanting their sons in that kind of ministry. Why should she want him to be preeminent among all the woke cowards?

So, as already indicated, we are living in just such a time, which is why mamas shouldn’t want their babies to grow up to be preachers—at least the kind of preachers who have learned how to rebuke “sin” (now known as human flourishing deficit points) through six or seven layers of homiletical cotton wool. Woomfy woomf fuflowy!

The word of God preached right is sharper than a two-edged sword, separating the joints and marrow (Heb. 4:12). The word of God mumbled in a way that comports with aforesaid human flourishing is like swatting some tank of a badly-behaving toddler, delivering what sounded like a decisive whomp on top of his diapers and overalls. That’ll show him.

How Is This Possible?

So how is it possible for America to be so corrupt, as corrupt as she has become, and for us to have so many millions of evangelical believers, and to have so many thousands of men preaching to all of us, week after week, and not have hundreds of those men in jail? I am referring to men being jailed, not for throwing bombs, but for preaching the kind of sermons that matter.

How is it that our sermons present so little of a threat that they can be for the most part ignored?

“In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood” (Heb. 12:4, ESV).

God created the world through the Word (Gen. 1:1). He spoke and it came to be. God recreated the world, giving us a new heavens and new earth, and He did so through the Word. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). The Word then gave His apostles the ministry of subduing the world through the preached Word, and this was a mission that they passed on to their preaching successors (Matt. 28:19-20), which ought to include us. So in line with all that, we should be men who preach like howitzers in the field, and yet the effect is more like powder puff cannons in the circus.

The Nature of Our Cowardice

We are in a hot war, and yet we somehow have come to think it is actually an occasion for sitting on our kindergarten carpet squares in order to learn from the nice lady how not to run with scissors. Whenever somebody pulls off some fresh new outrage, we think it is sufficient to assure people who ask us about it that we firmly “disagree.” Oh, so glad you “disagree.” So we are all done then? We can then wait around patiently for the next theological atrocity so we can differ with that one also? Just so long as you differ. Just so long as you keep your own nose clean.

Comes now a Lutheran pastor lady who assures us that the use of porn is just fine, especially if the porn is “ethically sourced.” She has a book coming out soon, and because God loves to lay the irony on thick, it is entitled Shameless.

“But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols” (Rev. 2:20, ESV).

What does Jesus hate about you Lutherans? This is not a trick question. He hates how tolerant you are. That virtue you celebrate? That tolerance that you think is so fine? Jesus hates it, because, as all Bible readers know, Jesus is a hater.

Jesus hated the same thing about the Corinthians. They had a guy in their congregation who was getting it on with his stepmom, and certain woke Corinthians were proud of their go-along, get-along attitude about it.

“It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you” (1 Cor. 5:1–2, ESV).

But the Lord takes a dim view of all those rainbow decals. When the elements melt with a fervent heat, all of them are going to peel right off.

Now how hard would it be to find Lutherans who “disagreed” with the Rev. Porn-Lady’s approach? Not hard at all. Her approach to porn would have to be considered “problematic,” at least in some quarters. It certainly is “distressing.” Not a few are sick about it. It is also tolerated, by the way. We don’t need to look hard to find somebody who “differs” with this kind of thing. We do need somebody to put their foot through the side of it.

Yeah, but what Wilson apparently does not know is that this lady is from a mainline denomination. Everybody knows how messed up the mainlines are. All of us know that. That is a given. That is granted.

Where the mainline denominations came from is still a grand mystery, it appears.

All of the mainlines were at one time—within living memory—evangelical denominations, and slowly, imperceptibly, magically, inexorably, something happened, we know not what. These things just occur, and we can’t stop it from happening. If only we knew what was causing it!

Over the last two centuries, so many denominations, seminaries, magazines, universities, publishing houses, etc. have gone liberal that you would think that we knew what it looked like by now. Unlike the mercies of God, which are new every morning, the devil’s tricks are always the same. Why should he change anything up, when the same trick always does the trick?

Look, friends. This rot, this cancer, this corruption, this gangrene, this contagion, this oozing blister, has already settled down for a long stay in the two most influential evangelical denominations in America—the PCA and the SBC—and unless somebody does something different, the whole inexorable process is going to go exactly the same way. We therefore currently have two kinds of denominations in America—we have the mainlines and we have the future mainlines.

Note to anyone paying attention, on the off-chance that somebody out there is paying attention: There is a difference between “differing” and doing something “different.” In principle, the evangelical (for now) Presbyterians are sunk because of sex and the evangelical (for now) Baptists are sunk because of race. The progressives placed their torpedoes in different places in their respective hulls. The torpedoes did come from different directions—one from the northeast and one from the southwest, but the ships are both headed in the same direction, which is to say, toward Davy Jones.

The Presbyterians let Revoice sail right on into their New Jerusalem, bringing them apes, ivory and peacocks from the distant land of Oprah, and the Baptists are getting themselves racially woke. And if there is anything worse than a horny Presbyterian, it would have to be a woke Baptist. Know what I’m saying?

I Was Told There Would be Free Books . . .

The free Kindle book that goes with today’s post is Federal Husband, which can be obtained here. The problem we have in the pulpit, outlined above, is a problem that begins in the homes of ministers. Authority flows to those who take responsibility, and it flees those who evade responsibility. The place where many pastors need to learn the basics of this way of thinking—with masculinity understood as the glad and sacrificial acceptance of responsibility—is in the home. This book will be a start.

The post Horny Presbyterians and Woke Baptists appeared first on Blog & Mablog.

Categories: People I don't know

Origins of Speech

Peter Leithart - Wed, 07/11/2018 - 11:00
Where does my speech come from? Klaus Hemmerle (Thesen zu einer trinitarischen Ontologie) argues that the answer is more complex that we might think. On the one hand, the word originates from the speaker: “I speak the word, it’s up to me.” There’s no gap between me as speaker and the words i speak. I […]
Categories: People I don't know

And Which Is Where We Are Headed

Blog & Mablog - Wed, 07/11/2018 - 02:00

“The essence of tyranny is not found in goose stepping soldiers, missile parades, or dictatorial mirror glasses. The essence of tyranny is found in consolidated and arbitrary power” (Same Sex Mirage, p. 167).

The post And Which Is Where We Are Headed appeared first on Blog & Mablog.

Categories: People I don't know


Subscribe to aggregator - People I don't know
Additional Terms