This quote has been making the rounds as something attributed to Machen:
For Christians to influence the world with the truth of God’s Word requires the recovery of the great Reformation doctrine of vocation. Christians are called to God’s service not only in church professions but also in every secular calling. The task of restoring truth to the culture depends largely on our laypeople. To bring back truth, on a practical level, the church must encourage Christians to be not merely consumers of culture but makers of culture. The church needs to cultivate Christian artists, musicians, novelists, filmmakers, journalists, attorneys, teachers, scientists, business executives, and the like, teaching its laypeople the sense in which every secular vocation-including, above all, the callings of husband, wife, and parent–is a sphere of Christian ministry, a way of serving God and neighbor that is grounded in God’s truth. Christian laypeople must be encouraged to be leaders in their fields, rather than eager-to-please followers, working from the assumptions of their biblical worldview, not the vapid clichés of pop culture.
From what I can tell, it may have originated at a Facebook page for Table Talk. Most recently, Rabbi Bret posted it and attributes it to Christianity and Liberalism. It definitely does not appear in that book. I don’t think anything from this quotation came from Machen. He never to my knowledge wrote in print about film makers. And the phrase “pop culture” was not common until the 1950s, long after Machen’s death.
I originally thought this might be part of what Machen wrote in his essay, “Christianity and Culture” (1912). But here is what Machen says there about culture:
Instead of destroying the arts and sciences or being indifferent to them, let us cultivate them with all the enthusiasm of the veriest humanist, but at the same time consecrate them to the service of our God. Instead of stifling the pleasures afforded by the acquisition of knowledge or by the appreciation of what is beautiful, let us accept these pleasures as the gifts of a heavenly Father. Instead of obliterating the distinction between the Kingdom and the world, or on the other hand withdrawing from the world into a sort of modernized intellectual monasticism, let us go forth joyfully, enthusiastically to make the world subject to God.
If the W-Wers want to count this as evidence of Machen’s neo-Calvinism, they should check out how he ends the essay. There he strikes a much more confessional or churchly note:
The things which are seen are temporal; the things which are not seen are eternal. What will become of philanthropy if God be lost? Beneath the surface of life lies a world of spirit. Philosophers have attempted to explore it. Christianity has revealed its wonders to the simple soul. There lie the springs of the Church’s power. But that spiritual realm cannot be entered without controversy. And now the Church is shrinking from the conflict. Driven from the spiritual realm by the current of modern thought, she is consoling herself with things about which there is no dispute. If she favors better housing for the poor, she need fear no contradiction. She will need all her courage. She will have enemies enough, God knows. But they will not fight her with argument. The twentieth century, in theory, is agreed on social betterment. But sin, and death, and salvation, and life, and God – about these things there is debate.
Either way, someone out there is making up quotes from Machen. Does a Christian W-W include telling the truth?
67 Comments
Machen: “The reading of selected passages from the Bible, in which Jews and Catholics and Protestants and others can presumably agree, should not be encouraged, and still less should be required by law. The real center of the Bible is redemption; and to create the impression that other things in the Bible contain any hope for humanity apart from that is to contradict the Bible at its root.”
I’m convinced that one of the signs of the apocalypse is the proliferation of quotations without proper attribution and citation.
“If you bring culture and Christianity thus into close union – in the first place, will not Christianity destroy culture? Must not art and science be independent in order to flourish? We answer that it all depends upon the nature of their dependence. Subjection to any external authority or even to any human authority would be fatal to art and science. But subjection to God is entirely different. Dedication of human powers to God is found, as a matter of fact, not to destroy but to heighten them. God gave those powers. He understands them well enough not bunglingly to destroy His own gifts. In the second place, will not culture destroy Christianity? Is it not far easier to be an earnest Christian if you confine your attention to the Bible and do not risk being led astray by the thought of the world? We answer, of course it is easier. Shut yourself up in an intellectual monastery, do not disturb yourself with the thoughts of unregenerate men, and of course you will find it easier to be a Christian, just as it is easier to be a good soldier in comfortable winter quarters than it is on the field of battle. You save your own soul – but the Lord’s enemies remain in possession of the field.”
This sounds pretty neo-calvinisitic to me.
Not that a Google search is conclusive, but http://greatchristianquotes.com/Topics/Vocation.htm attributes it to Gene Edward Veith’s essay in Here We Stand. I couldn’t find a copy to confirm that.
The term “pop culture” (as opposed to “popular culture”) apparently didn’t appear until the 1960′s. Thus Machen didn’t write it. Someone is quite confused.
I’m pretty sure that the genuine author of that quote is Gene Veith, but I don’t have time to track down the source right now.
DGH,
I asked you about this quote here on Old Life several weeks ago when I first saw it on the Tabletalk Facebook page and attributed to Machen. I asked TT/Ligonier on FB about the source of the quote, but they didn’t respond.
If memory serves, someone else here also mentioned that the Q does seem to be from Veith’s essay in Here We Stand.
“Does a Christian W-W include telling the truth?” Not only telling the truth, but doesn’t a Christian Wv include basic, sound research methodology? It would behoove one to rely on more than “FamousChristianQuotes.com” (or whatever) as your source. Yeesh.
Thanks, Tom. My Googling didn’t go beyond page 2.
DG Hart,
These folks seem like their forcing a softer, gentler, imperative on believers. They seem to indicate that vocations are worthless unless driven by ministry imperatives. I have called this ministry monasticism before….This was prevalent in places like Liberty University, which exudes more fundamentalist tripe than confessional orthodox. We would be wise as reformed believers to distance are self from such idealistic madness. The logic seems to go like this: without Christians donning the evangelical jumpsuit (riffing off Mr Zrim), vocations are to be guises for the smuggling of redemptive contraband. I cannot in good conscious agree with this kind of tripe at all. These monastic brethren may have good intentions–––but it’s just more law with fuzzier fingers. I hold onto Galatians 5 and WCF #20 with a passionate grip. I am not saying Christians will not do secular vocations in different manners than non-believers. Probably they will depending on the circumstance. But I could never call what is required in a film/cinema/motion pictures to work (do its intended dramatic purposes) to be distinctively “Christian”. Movies by nature are dramatic art forms glimpsed by people and not confessional art forms told to people. Alas, they are no good at interpreting ultimate reality (where the anthesis belongs). Instead, movies imitate universalist human experience. Death, loss, depravity, love, hope, violence. Not dogma. When movies exude dogma, audiences tune out. That’s not supposed to happen with drama. Not good drama anyway. Good drama is always true––but is only powerful in its universalist confine. There’s a lot of preaching going on by folks like this, who fail to understand the profession or its inherent skill-sets required. It’s like reinventing surgery to be ministerial in some sense.
It’s just not the point of surgery, sorry.
An obligatory reminder from a past president: “The problem with Internet quotations is that many are not genuine.” – Abraham Lincoln
Joel, I knew it wasn’t Al Gore who invented the Internet. Glad for the confirmation.
This illustrates the importance of not being second-handers and pressing into the scriptures (as best we can and as ambiguous as they can be) as the final source of truth.
Machen did say the following in ‘The Origin of Paul’s Religion’. It does not sound neo-Calvinist to me.
“The Greek Gods were simply men and women, with human passions and human sins – more powerful, indeed, but not more righteous than those who worshiped them. Such a religion was stimulating to the highest art. Anthropomorphism gave free course to the imagination of poets and sculptors.” (214)
The superlative part, “highest”, was almost all finished before the advent of Christ if we speak of persons like Phidias and Sophocles.
Gnostic, et. al,
I don’t know what happened here. I am currently reading “Christianity and Liberalism” to my congregation during Sunday Evenings in 15 minute increments and I have been excerpting quotes from it and posting them on Iron Ink. Sometimes I’ll go home after Evening service and look up what I’ve read on a PDF of Machen’s book from the net and then cut and paste portions of what I’ve read to my site. The only thing I can figure is that when I thought I cut and pasted from the PDF I actually cut and pasted from something besides the PDF I thought I was working from. On Sunday Nights the mind is weary.
However, here is a great quote that is from Machen that reveals Dr. Fundamentalist neo-Calvinist bona fides.
And some more from Machen’s work “Christianity & Culture”
“The Christian cannot be satisfied so long as any human activity is either opposed to Christianity or out of all connection with Christianity. Christianity must pervade not merely all nations, but also all of human thought. The Christian, therefore, cannot be indifferent to any branch of earnest human endeavor. It must all be brought into some relation to the gospel. It must be studied either in order to be demonstrated as false, or else in order to be made useful in advancing the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom must be advanced not merely extensively, but also intensively. The Church must seek to conquer not merely every man for Christ, but also the whole of man. We are accustomed to encourage ourselves in our discouragements by the thought of the time when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. No less inspiring is the other aspect of that same great consummation. That will also be a time when doubts have disappeared, when every contradiction has been removed, when all of science converges to one great conviction, when all of art is devoted to one great end, when all of human thinking is permeated by the refining, ennobling influence of Jesus, when every thought has been brought into subjection to the obedience of Christ.”
Now we can return to all the charitable talk that was pillorying me for a honest mistake.
To whom or to what did Machen think Christianity should be “applied”? Institutions? Nebulous “societal structures”?
It seems from what you quote supra, that he had a narrower view:
“The Christian man believes that evil can only be held in check and not destroyed by human institutions, and that there must be a transformation of the human materials before any new building can be produced.”
Thanks for the C&L quote. On p. 105, whence you quoted, right after the part you pasted we read this:
“And even before the salvation of all society has been achieved, there is already a society of those who have been saved. That society is the Church. The Church is the highest Christian answer to the social needs of man.”
Doesn’t this suggest at least the possibility that Machen meant something different by the “transformation of society” than does the average neo-Calvinist?
David, exactly. And if you look at the last two pages of Christianity and Liberalism, where Machen puts the Christian consolation, you’re not going to find a lot of resonance with neo-Cal triumphalism. What is also striking is that Machen’s critique of liberalism was directed at a form of Christianity that was all about transformationalism. This makes Bret’s remarks all the more poignant, since there he is a minister in a communion that went batty and arguably liberal in the pursuit of cultural transformation.
And maybe the way Calvin can be read with post-Constantinian lenses, Machen can be read with post-Protestant liberal and Religious Right lenses. Both men were inspired but not infallibly. Maybe Machen’s words need some moderating: if he meant something different by the “transformation of society” than the average neo-Cal then maybe the neo-Cal lingo should be revised.
I dont’ know, I’m still not convinced that neo-calvinism = Christian transformationalism. It seems to be a broad (hence unfair) generalization. Is it possible to be a neo-calvinist and not transformationists/theonomist/postmillenial?
John, sure. we put a man on the moon didn’t we?
It would appear that Bret has vindicated himself, nice pick up Bret! In fact, the new quote, is even a stronger validation of transformation, than the prior. Machen, would obviously, be on the side of what’s being called “Neo-Calvinism”, and the dreaded transformational label. I do have a question for Hart and company: How do you understand the “Kingdom parables”? Especially the women who puts leaven in the meal, until it’s all leavened? If that’s not the transformation of the world, and the fulfillment of the Great Commission, then what else could it be?
@DGH, how about re-naming this post: Machen said wa-a-a-a-y more than that!
It would seem in your zeal to point out Bret’s (what now appears to be an honest mistake), he’s proven Machen to be even more “transformational” than the quotes that were not in Christianity and liberalism. I personally rejoiced, and agreed with each Machen quotation; did you?
It’s not clear to me how one could argue that Machen’s comments–even quoted selectively–support the neo-Cal gospel of Christian transformationalism.
Machen is making the simply observation that God’s general revelation pervades all aspects of human endeavor. And because general revelation is God’s revelation, Christians ought to immerse themselves in it and study it to the glory of God. Further, he suggests that God’s general revelation is a sufficient means through which we can engage in the culture and transform society.
In this sense, Machen’s is implicitly criticizing two approaches to culture. Primarily, he is criticizing Christians who deem the culture to be evil and withdraw from it. Machen suggests that this is wrong because it fails to recognize that God’s general revelation permeates the world in which we live. Withdrawal from culture is therefore a sinful withdrawal of ourselves from the benefits of Christ’s general revelation to us.
But Machen’s statement may fairly be seen as a criticism of transformationalism. Neo-Calvinism rejects the notion that Machen expressly affirms: that is, that general revelation serves as a sufficient basis for cultural engagement and even cultural transformation. Machen nowhere suggests that special revelation should serve as the foundation of the Christian’s cultural engagement.
The classical Reformed (2-kers) don’t reject the notion of cultural transformation. To the contrary, we welcome efforts to transform society, so long as those efforts are rooted in God’s general revelation. We only reject efforts to transform society when those efforts attempt to find their justification in special revelation.
Doug,
So would you ever say this to ministers? Would a neo-Calvinist?
Aren’t plumbers stewards of the mysteries of God?
Bob, if you are a localist and a traditionalist as I pretend to be, you’d prefer to speak of preserving local communities and particular cultures than of transforming society. Transformation is really a modernist project.
All fair enough, Bob. Though even as general revelation is sufficient to govern common life, I can’t help but still wonder if the language should more along the lines of the preservation of culture, instead of transformation. It may seem a negligible point, but it sure does seem that when the question is what sort of posture to take with regard to human society there is a significant difference between saying transform/change/progress/improve/exact and preserve/cultivate/maintain/participate/proximate.
DGH & Zrim:
I agree. I used the word because Machen used it. But Machen’s notion of “transformation” appears to be much more modest than that envisioned by neo-Cals.
@Darryl, I try to resist labels, therefore, I don’t like terms like Neo Cals. Because I don’t fully understand what people mean by the term. And I wouldn’t put my stamp of approval on the small quote above.
I do know this much: Machen believed that *every* human institution needed to become subservient to the Gospel. (Psssst, it’s called transformation) And that we should punish criminals by the Law of God. And by *law*: Machen did not mean Natural Law, or General revelation. He meant the Law found in the Christian Scriptures. (As in the general equity) You know, the *Law* you claim is no longer valid for Governing Civil society; as if justice and morality are capable of change.
P.S. So Darryl, when are you going to admit that Machen was Theonomic?
Have a blessed Lord’s day, one and all!
Doug, when are you going to blessedly pound sand?
Listen Darryl, I’m really interested in you interacting with Machen’s quote here:
“The Christian cannot be satisfied so long as any human activity is either opposed to Christianity or out of all connection with Christianity. Christianity must pervade not merely all nations, but also all of human thought. The Christian, therefore, cannot be indifferent to any branch of earnest human endeavor. It must all be brought into some relation to the gospel. It must be studied either in order to be demonstrated as false, or else in order to be made useful in advancing the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom must be advanced not merely extensively, but also intensively. The Church must seek to conquer not merely every man for Christ, but also the whole of man. We are accustomed to encourage ourselves in our discouragements by the thought of the time when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. No less inspiring is the other aspect of that same great consummation. That will also be a time when doubts have disappeared, when every contradiction has been removed, when all of science converges to one great conviction, when all of art is devoted to one great end, when all of human thinking is permeated by the refining, ennobling influence of Jesus, when every thought has been brought into subjection to the obedience of Christ.”
Wow!! It sounds like Machen thinks even science needs to bend the knee to the gospel. Machen wouldnt be happy until every enemy has been brught into subjection to the obedience of Christ! Amen and amen! He even believes that’s true for Government! What say you?
Doug, yes, this is the same Machen who was a Democrat and a civil libertarian and defended the civil rights of Communists and Roman Catholics. At some point you need to figure out how to read someone in the context of their life and actions.
Plus, you need to discern possible differences between a man who had not seen war and someone who saw the horrors of World War I. The project of Christian civilization looked a lot less attractive after the civilized nations of Europe beat each others’ brains out.
Darryl, let’s interact with *that* paragraph, please. Machen clearly wasn’t talking about Natural Law, or General revelation, transforming all of life. He was talking about the Christian Scriptures, called the Gospel. That’s what *you* guys don’t seem to be willing to admit. Come on Darryl! It’s time to fess up; Machen believed that our Government needed to be submissive to the Bible! Not just Natural Law or some nebulous standard you never seem to be able to put your finger on.
Machen is talking about Special Revelation, not Natural Law. You keep wanting to *say* you believe in the Law of God. Then you redefine God’s Law to mean Natural Law, over against Special revelation like they’re in some kind of conflict. And you scream like a stuck pig, when a brother suggests that the moral essence of the Mosaic Law (general equity) needs to be adhered too, because morality is universal. And then you mock and ridicule how Neanderthal you think *we* (Society-Civil Magistrate) would be, to execute young men who beat and curse their parents.
Will all you men (Darryl, Bob, Zrim) now admit that Machen was referring to Special Revelation in those quotes above? Please, can I get an admission?
@Bob are you sure you’re okay? Machen clearly intimates, that *everything* in society, the arts, industry, agriculture, and even state and federal government needs to be submissive to the gospel of Christ. Psssst, that means the dreaded “special revelation” of the Bible, yikes! As in all 66 books! Machen believed that a homosexual was worthy of death, in a social political sense. Machen, thought a lot like Greg Bahnsen.
J. Gresham Machen, was Bahnsen’s hero, and *one of* if not the most admired Christian saint in the last five hundred. The man Greg would most like to meet, if you could play that game, who would you most like to meet, except for Jesus and the Apostles? Greg Bahnsen said for him, it would be J. Gresham Machen. So please try to stay focused, and interact with Machen’s actual quote, it will amaze you! Machen was clearly talking about Government both Sate City and Federal submitting to the Christian Scriptures found in all 66 books of the Bible. Machen believed in punishing crime by the *written* word of God. So put that in your pipe, and smoke it.
“Machen believed that a homosexual was worthy of death, in a social political sense.”
Hi Doug. I asked this of you before and didn’t get an answer, but can you please produce evidence that Machen believed this above?
thank you
Doug, if Machen believed we should be “punishing crime by the *written* word of God” then Machen was wrong.
But how could Machen (or anyone) have possibly believed that? Where in the *written* word of God are there sanctions for any number of crimes? Even if, which I don’t grant, all violations of God’s law are to be punished by the civil authority, your word “crime” is in a different category. On your explanation, one must either think that all crime is immoral or that everything immoral should be a crime. It’s not the case that everything illegal/criminal is immoral, like Machen’s cherished jaywalking. Did Machen think that jaywalking should be punished by the written word of God? Where in the *written* word is the sanction for jaywalking? So if it not all crime is immoral, then maybe everything immoral should be a crime. The biblical sanction for disobeying parents under the theocracy of Israel is in the written word, but where is the sanction for coveting? How would we even know when someone is committing the “crime” of coveting? Self-incrimination? It’s a non-starter.
Sowers:
I’d suggest that you’re reading more into Machen that is there. In the selected paragraph, Machen is clearly arguing against cultural withdrawal. When that paragraph is read within the larger body of Machen’s writing, it is abundantly apparent that he is not urging us to transform society along the lines of special revelation. It strikes me as a bit childish to attempt to define Machen’s theology using a single paragraph taken out of context, where he is addressing an entirely different question that the one we’re discussing.
I don’t see the evidentiary relevance of your allegations concerning Bahnsen. I admire and revere Judge Richard Posner, and would love to meet the man; that doesn’t mean that I don’t disagree with him on a number of points.
Doug, what you know about Machen is about what I learned my first reading of him while a student. If you think the brightness of your mind can make up for years of study, then as I say, pound sand blessedly.
Doug, you are speaking nonsense. Machen actually believed in removing the Bible from public schools. Put that in your ear and twist it.
@Darryl, ahem,ahem, my brother in Christ, please cease and desist. Dr Machen didn’t trust the “Government schools” to teach anybody, (just about) anything! Hyperbole aside
He was looking ahead to a day, when the knowledge of God, would cover the world, like the waters cover the sea. This is the mission of the Church, please come on board!
Rest in his completed work,
Douglas
1
David C. Noe: While God didn’t give us exact details on punishing every sin, as well as crime, in every context, in society, he gave us enough. With the fruit of the Spirit, the Bible, the great thinkers, our best creeds, we can certainly apply God’s written Law, in a New Covenant context. Perfectly?! Of course not! But more and more sensibly, as God continues to give us more enlightenment. Let’s never deprecate God’s written holy law. Is it against grace? God forbid! May it never be!
Doug,
That’s the second time I requested that you prove your rather outrageous assertion that Machen believed practicing homosexuals should be put to death and you failed to answer. Is it possible that those who clamor most strongly for the Law of God are those who cannot be trusted?
Todd, “outrageous assertion”? LOL! You haven’t been paying very close attention, how about re-reading Machen’s quotes up above. Of course Machen believed in Capital Punishment for homosexuality! Shouldn’t the punishment fit the crime? Wasn’t that what “eye for and eye” meant? Of course.
Todd, call *Covenant media foundation* or look them up on line. Listen to Greg Bahnsen’s lecture on J. Gresham Machen. #20 on Theonomy. When you get done hearing that, you can repent and confess the obvious. What’s the obvious you say? That Machen believed that we (America) should punish crime by the Law of God. And when he said the Law of God; he meant the general equity of the Mosaic Law, which is perpetual. You see Todd, morality and justice are coterminous. Machen believed that only a Nation that based its civil laws on God’s Word could arrest the evil in the Natural man. Machen also believed that only God’s Law could arrest the decline of Western Civilization. , by setting boundaries for sin.
Doug, your theonomic certainty is the most terrifying thing I have ever encountered in the whole of my Christian experience, frome Pentacostalism to Charismatic to Reformed. And if it only took listening to Bahnsen on Machen to “repent and confess the obvious”, then we would all likely be theonomists, now wouldn’t we. But it doesn’t and we aren’t. It seems to me that you look to prove your theonomy with the text rather than allow the text to speak for itself, on top of the fact that no theologian’s thought remains the static throughout his lifetime, it changes and matures as he learns. Something to think about. And I read the article you quoted from, not so sure myself that you “got” him.
Doug
Since you have heard the lectures why don’t you provide the quote. Until then i’ll assume you cannot prove your assertion. Last time you were using Machen to support your theonomy you had never actually read a book of Machen’s. I wonder if that has changed.
Adam, don’t be a “fraidy cat”
I used to attend a charismatic church in the eighties, and didn’t come to a “reformed” understanding of the Bible until around 88 or 89. I didn’t know about Theonomy until 92 when Greg Bahnsen taught our elders systematic theology, at a charismatic church of all things!. Over the last twenty years or so, I have yet to hear a clear cogent answer to Theonomy. Sure, there are tough and thorny problems for both sides. But the large majority of our reformed hero’s of the faith were all theonomic, and that includes Calvin, Bucer, Turrenten, and many more.
@Adam, the thing that won me over to Theonomy was the Bible, not Bahnsen. Bahnsen just made it obvious that Machen thought we needed to look to God’s revealed Word, when it came to punishing crime. That we form our eithics from the Scriptures, and that the Scriptures are the final court of appeal.
Doug, don’t mistake me, not scared at all.
But to be bold enough to make the statement that any of the men you mentioned were theonomic in the sense you mean it is fairly reductionistic. I know how you feel though, I went through a theonomic phase when I first became reformed, it was sort of like youthful zeal without knowledge. And I forgot to add, to even in jest, suggest that the non theonomic should repent is simply not confessional behavior. And the argument that says “the bible convinced me” is smells of biblicism. Not that I’m implying you’re a biblicist.
Adam, you’ve come to this a little late. I said Tod was going to have to repent for suggesting that Machen wouldnt want to *look* at special revelation when it comes to punishing crime.
Please read the Machen quotes above
That is a ridiculous position to take, that misrepresents Machen. By the way, Machen went much further than just looking at special revelation when it comes to punishing crime, he felt even our Government needed to submit to the Gospel! Last I checked, the Gospel is given to us, in special revelation. In other words, Machen would not be on Hart’s side when it comes to the “how” we are to punish evil doers. Hart radically departs from the reformed tradition. Which is why some people call his theology “radical two kingdoms”.
Doug, I’ll respond in this fashion. Reformed theology isn’t monolithic and both sides of the Theonomy/Two Kingdoms debate claim the other departs from tradition. But, even if it is a departure, and I’m not saying that it is, departure doesn’t equal heterodoxy, it can entail progress and a better understanding. And Doug, theonomists have always said that the reformers were with “them” without, at least for me, sufficiently compensating for socio/historical context. And you keep talking about Government submitting to the Gospel, but there is nothing structural or civic about it. And you can’t proof text Machen’s theology, it’s just silly; telling me to read the above quotes as if I hadn’t, because well, I must not have because I don’t agree with you is fairly arrogant. Also, lets be realistic for a second, you talk about Machen’s thought in a very authoritative way, are you qualified to? Dr. Hart says one thing, you say another, why should I take your word over his? Or are you implying that he is intentionally duplicitous and maliciously deceptive. Because really, if it is so obvious, and he is so adamantly disagreeing with you, then he must just be dishonest, right? Or is it that he is simply academically deficient? Honest questions Doug. And I didn’t come late to the party, I just couldn’t hold my tongue any longer.
Adam, what does taking over every aspect of Government, and making *it* subservient to the gospel, mean to you? If not what you “call” Neo Cal theology? Can you sketch that for me on a black board? I’m really curious.