If Christians Listened to Punk, Would They Be Upset about Phil Robertson?

The complaints about A&E mount:

I read that you are indefinitely suspending Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty after he quoted the Bible and said that the homosexual act is sinful. I get it, guys. I do. You punished the Christian guy for being a Christian because you got some angry emails from a bunch of whiny gay activists who lack the spine and maturity to deal with the fact that there are still people out there who have the guts to articulate opinions that they find disagreeable. In so doing, you’ve kowtowed to a pushy minority of vocal bullies who don’t even watch your channel, while alienating the fan base of the one show that keeps your entire network afloat.

___

Yesterday the hucksters we invite into our living rooms and onto our computer screens suspended Duck Dynasty’s patriarch, Phil Robertson, from his show.

Turns out it’s not Phil’s show or our show. It’s their show. The spawn of Woody Allen who run the Arts and Entertainment Network have given Phil the boot for the offense of quoting God right there in his own life. Speaking for God is a hate crime now, and that’s the real reality show.

Duck Dynasty provided the biggest national screen possible for gagging God. So now, every Christian in America has learned the lesson that, if you preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you’ll get what Phil Robertson got. So shut up, you fool. Zip it! Some things are best said in the privacy of your own home. Or prayer closet.

Unless, of course, you’re like Phil Robertson and you’ve invited Hollywood cameras into your home and prayer closet. Then, you’re outta luck ’cause you’re never alone.

___

Religious believers who think they can avoid the issue are deluding themselves. While we may not have a hit reality show that we can get fired from, we will be pressured in numerous ways to make it clear that we will not speak or act publicly in a way that supports the biblical view of homosexuality. The objective of the activists is to marginalize Christian views on sexual norms until they can be outlawed in the public square. Many Christians have already and will continue to gleefully work to ensure this becomes a reality. But for faithful Christians, allowing our biblical witness to be silenced is not an option. Like Phil Robertson we must all say, “My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.”

The solution is not 2k. It is Punk Rock:

Punk music has its feet firmly on earth and deals with the nitty gritty of a world in chaos, scrambling for some moment of sanity. Think of The Clash in their song “Straight to Hell.” This song addresses in rather painful fashion the mistreatment of immigrants, as well as the love children of American G.I.s who procreated with the unfortunate female population of Vietnam during the war. Gritty, painful, dirty. Punk lives in the here and now–the already, rather than the not yet. Or consider a song by The Dropkick Murphys called “The State of Massachusetts,” which faces head-on the effect that drug-abuse has on families.

Maybe if Christians were known less for their seeker-sensitive cultural preferences and more for living quiet and peaceful lives, Phil Robertson’s fate would not matter (except to him and his family).

This entry was posted in Christ and culture, Wilderness Wanderings and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

80 Comments

  1. Tom Van Dyke
    Posted December 26, 2013 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    D. G. Hart
    Posted December 26, 2013 at 9:13 pm | Permalink
    TVD. “only because people who could have been taking the rhetorical lead on these things”? Only!!??!! That’s come careful analysis, there.

    And you’re really going to pretend to be defending biblical morality? Above it all, Tom? Is true worship part of biblical morality? Is keeping the Lord’s Day holy part of biblical morality? Sarah Palin is selective, just like you.

    Perhaps. Again you reserve your fire for those who endorse Biblical morality, not for those who wish to eradicate it.

    But as I said, you may be turning out to be correct. At this point–as Protestantism ceases to be the American ethos–

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/001-the-death-of-protestant-america-a-political-theory-of-the-protestant-mainline-19

    the religious liberty of the minority is the key issue, not gay marriage but whether they’ll take your business if you don’t bake cakes for it. Perhaps that’ll raise a few r2k hackles, although by your track record, I don’t expect it.

  2. Andrew Buckingham
    Posted December 26, 2013 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

    Tom, our shared continent simply is too boring. Why every mention it? The real action is happening across the pacific. Duh.

    Pardon my wiki:

    The current number of Christians in China is disputed. The most recent official census enumerated 4 million Roman Catholics and 10 million Protestants. However, independent estimates have ranged from 40 million to 100 million Christians. According to the China Aid Association, State Administration for Religious Affairs Director Ye Xiaowen reported to audiences at Beijing University and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences that the number of Christians in China had risen to 130 million by the end of 2006, including 20 million Catholics.[50][51] This has been officially denied by the Foreign Ministry.[52] According to a survey done by China Partner and East China Normal University in Shanghai, there are now 39 to 41 million Protestant Christians in China.[citation needed] These include Christians in registered and unregistered churches. All other numbers previously mentioned were rough estimates that never have been substantiated. The survey was done with 7,400 individuals in 2007-08 by China Partner in all 31 provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions. Another survey done with 4,500 individuals by East China Normal University in Shanghai reveals up to 40 million.[citation needed] Other studies have suggested that there are roughly 54 million Christians in China, of which 39 million are Protestants and 14 million are Roman Catholics; these are seen as the most common and reliable figures.[53][54][55][56]

    Today, the Chinese language typically divides Christians into two groups, members of Jidu jiao (literally, Christianity), Protestantism, and members of Tianzhu jiao (literally “Lord of Heaven” religion), Catholicism (see Protestantism in China and Catholicism in China.)

  3. Posted December 26, 2013 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

    Tom, again, you refer to biblical morality as if you believe in it. I am questioning whether you or Sarah do. You have heard of Protestant liberalism, right? Well, the first fruits of the Religious Right was the Social Gospel which tried to make the U.S. Christian (and keep the ethnics and Roman Catholics out). They thought their morality was biblical. But they elevated the second table above the first. Can you believe it?

  4. Zrim
    Posted December 26, 2013 at 10:23 pm | Permalink

    TVD, you suggested that somehow 2k and approval of gay marriage go together. I’m still flummoxed as to how, other than you merely mean to provoke those who adhere to an old life plank. What are you talking about?

    You for some reason invoke Sarah Palin. But you are to her what the Callers are to the magisterium–naive and starry eyed. You sound high on her, but like the Callers with Francis and religious celebrity, you miss the quest for political celebrity which is what she is 95% about. How do you miss this, for such a smart fellow I mean.

  5. Tom Van Dyke
    Posted December 26, 2013 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

    D. G. Hart
    Posted December 26, 2013 at 10:10 pm | Permalink
    Tom, again, you refer to biblical morality as if you believe in it. I am questioning whether you or Sarah do. You have heard of Protestant liberalism, right? Well, the first fruits of the Religious Right was the Social Gospel which tried to make the U.S. Christian (and keep the ethnics and Roman Catholics out). They thought their morality was biblical. But they elevated the second table above the first. Can you believe it?

    Yes, I linked to Jody Bottums’ excellent history of the Protestant mainline, and its destruction by liberal theology. If you have any disagreements with his piece, I’d be thrilled to read them. I’d also think you’re aware of the new prevailing thesis

    http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/22/how-mainline-christianity-lost-its-institutions-but-won-the-culture/

    Believe it or not, my positions have shifted somewhat as a result of reading you all these years. If the culture is [and always was] hopeless–that “Christendom” as an ethics is dead–there is still the question of religious liberty, which for Calvinism Calvinists has been a historically core concern, as always in 2nd or 3rd place behind Catholicism, Lutheranism or Anglicanism.

    Even if you have given up on America and the debasement of its culture by the two-headed monster of liberal Protestantism/secular progressivism, there is still the question of religious liberty. At the moment, R2k intends to remain MIA on that as well except for bland and ineffectual protest.

    [As for your shot at Sarah Palin or me as to our motives and beliefs, nice try, but we both know that around here, any personal disclosures can and will be used against you.]

    [As for "Well, the first fruits of the Religious Right was the Social Gospel which tried to make the U.S. Christian (and keep the ethnics and Roman Catholics out)," I almost follow it but can't quite do the rest of the work of making a coherent argument out of it for you. Yes, Protestantism has often been accused of being little more than kneejerk anti-Catholicism, but I'm not sure that helps whatever case you're trying to make.]

    [I don't argue from worst-to-first, but from the ideal down. Your style seems to argue that every exception disproves the rule, as in "Pope Sixtus the Seventh thought the sun went around the earth therefore the Catholic Church is toejam." That sort of thing. Now, I do share your Calvinist skepticism of man, but don't accept that human failings negate the ideal.]

    [As always, D. Birds gotta whomp dem Cowgirlz or it'll all be a little empty.]

  6. Tom Van Dyke
    Posted December 26, 2013 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

    Andrew Buckingham
    Posted December 26, 2013 at 10:01 pm | Permalink
    Tom, our shared continent simply is too boring. Why every mention it? The real action is happening across the pacific. Duh.

    Pardon my wiki:

    The current number of Christians in China is disputed.

    The Chinese Communist gov’t has appropriated the Catholic Church, appointing its own priests and bishops. I was going to mention that above, how the state with its swords and guns has historically been the one to control the church, not vice versa.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy

    This crap about the GOP and an “American Theocracy” is a narrative that has little basis in our history. Why I chafe at this r2k business, which feeds that narrative and lends aid and comfort to the forces that are eradicating Christianity from American public life.

  7. Tom Van Dyke
    Posted December 26, 2013 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

    Zrim
    Posted December 26, 2013 at 10:23 pm | Permalink
    TVD, you suggested that somehow 2k and approval of gay marriage go together. I’m still flummoxed as to how, other than you merely mean to provoke those who adhere to an old life plank. What are you talking about?

    You for some reason invoke Sarah Palin. But you are to her what the Callers are to the magisterium–naive and starry eyed. You sound high on her, but like the Callers with Francis and religious celebrity, you miss the quest for political celebrity which is what she is 95% about. How do you miss this, for such a smart fellow I mean.

    Mr. Z, you have always been a righteous correspondent. Thank you.

    I am glad Sarah Palin is making her way back to well-earned obscurity. What I’m saying is that the reason she and Phil Robertson have risen to significant levels of [Christian? Evangelical? Conservative?] national support is that they have the guts to speak out, while their “betters”–among Christians, mind you–sit back and lob smug spitballs at them.

    Cowards. And by that I mean all of us, not just their Christian critics. We let them do the dirty work and then complain they don’t do it well enough.

    Are you good with your prepubescent children being taught the Barney the Dinosaur version of human sexuality?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/334702/s-indoctrination-kevin-d-williamson

    Hey, mebbe you are. If so, I respect that. But if you’re not, and you stay silent, I’m not good with that. That’s what I’m about here. Darryl and r2k have a point about not aligning the Gospel with free market economics [or Social Gospel economics]. But there’s a fundamental truth in that fundie shibboleth “God made Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve” that transcends mere culture war.

  8. Bob S
    Posted December 26, 2013 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

    Darryl and r2k have a point about not aligning the Gospel with free market economics [or Social Gospel economics]. But there’s a fundamental truth in that fundie shibboleth “God made Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve” that transcends mere culture war.

    Wonders never cease/only at Old Life.
    At long last we find ourselves agreeing with The Véronian Disciple.
    What’s so hard to figure out that the millionaire maker of duck calls has just as much right to his opinion as the duck suckers? Yeah, he quoted a religious text in a secular interview horror of horrors, but he also said it was not logical. The duck suckers and their allies then said he was preaching hate and not the real religion he professes to believe and therefore should be hung out to dry even before burning in [four letter word that they don't believe in].
    IOW whatever 2k really is, the toleristas are not tolerant, just like the romanists are not catholic. Duh.

  9. Tom Van Dyke
    Posted December 27, 2013 at 12:23 am | Permalink

    Bob S
    Posted December 26, 2013 at 11:42 pm | Permalink
    Darryl and r2k have a point about not aligning the Gospel with free market economics [or Social Gospel economics]. But there’s a fundamental truth in that fundie shibboleth “God made Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve” that transcends mere culture war.

    >>>Wonders never cease/only at Old Life.
    At long last we find ourselves agreeing with The Véronian Disciple.

    What’s so hard to figure out that the millionaire maker of duck calls has just as much right to his opinion as the duck suckers? Yeah, he quoted a religious text in a secular interview horror of horrors, but he also said it was not logical. The duck suckers and their allies then said he was preaching hate and not the real religion he professes to believe and therefore should be hung out to dry even before burning in [four letter word that they don't believe in].

    IOW whatever 2k really is, the toleristas are not tolerant, just like the romanists are not catholic. Duh.

    ;-)

    Is that against the rules around here? How about

    :-D

    Yes, perhaps we are achieving common ground that religious liberty might be the line, not just control of the culture, a battle we may already lost. Back to the catacombs, people.

    we find ourselves agreeing

    We hope this is the “royal we” and not some creepy “us against them” club, Bob, as in everyone to the left of MarkMcMac might as well be a papist.

    just as much right to his opinion as the duck suckers

    “Duck suckers.” Heh heh. Killer, dude. I dunno what it even means, but it works regardless, even better than the lame and perverted “tea baggers.”

    Yeah, he quoted a religious text in a secular interview horror of horrors, but he also said it was not logical.

    I sorta remember that, about it not being “logical,” and that would be what Mark Noll called

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/003-the-scandal-of-the-evangelical-mind-a-symposium-33

    ..that there isn’t much of an evangelical mind. That’s why the Catholics are trying–and somewhat succeeding–in exposing the evangelical mind to “natural law,” the law written on the human heart, that well, even in the words of Brüno [hi, Erik, movie fan]

    So hypothetically according to you, I can admire a man’s penis in the shower but the moment I put it in my mouth some sort of line has been crossed?

    Sure I’m agitating, but I’m just trying to figure out when some sort of line has been crossed. In your opinion, Darryl & the Crabby 2Ks, not mine.

  10. Posted December 27, 2013 at 12:39 am | Permalink

    Tom, it’s a trap. But whatev. Of course, our host has class, and good movie taste to boot. A belated Merry Christmas to you.

  11. RL
    Posted December 27, 2013 at 12:43 am | Permalink

    TVD:

    Selective non-engagement and non-acknowledgment is at least as valid a strategy as perpetual outrage. I don’t want kids to learn about sexual morality from a government school for the same reason that I don’t want them to learn it from a celebrity duck hunter or politician. These topics aren’t avoided because they’re not important. They’re avoided because the people who are talking about them are unimportant. The only way to affirm that public opinion is irrelevant to sexual morality is to ignore public opinion.

  12. Tom Van Dyke
    Posted December 27, 2013 at 12:57 am | Permalink

    RL
    Posted December 27, 2013 at 12:43 am | Permalink
    TVD:

    Selective non-engagement and non-acknowledgment is at least as valid a strategy as perpetual outrage. I don’t want kids to learn about sexual morality from a government school for the same reason that I don’t want them to learn it from a celebrity duck hunter or politician. These topics aren’t avoided because they’re not important. They’re avoided because the people who are talking about them are unimportant. The only way to affirm that public opinion is irrelevant to sexual morality is to ignore public opinion.

    I didn’t quite understand all that, RL, but thx for the respectful reply. A lawyer friend just wrote me privately:

    Any time a conservative carries on an argument without first firmly establishing that the liberal has the burden if proof, he’s conceded his built-in advantage. And then when he gives the fraudulent evidence and reporting bias a pass, he’s conceded the rest of the debate. By the time he trots out the merits, it’s a dead man walking. He’s a denier, an ideologue, uninformed of the (right kind of) facts from the (right kind of) experts, a bigot, on the wrong side of history, etc.
    Was starting to think in terms of developing a practice guide for conservative advocates, mapping out the red herrings, misdirections, sophist tricks, and making plain that the liberal always has the burden of proof. The merits are easy. Hell, Dennis Prager developed an entire online catalog of courses explaining the middle east conflict, how we won Vietnam before the Left lost it, etc., each just 5 minutes long. Explaining the facts is easy. But conservatives need first to clear away all the muck and slime that obfuscates the facts.

    “He who dares not to offend cannot be honest.” – Thomas Paine

    “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” -George Orwell.

    Truth is just another social interest–and a very poorly funded one.

    Do you people call yourselves “evangelicals?” I don’t even know. If so, you have the best minds I’ve found, but the least guts. At least the Jesuits are interesting. Nobody would even bother to throw you out of their country. ;-P

  13. Posted December 27, 2013 at 1:52 am | Permalink

    Do you people call yourselves “evangelicals?” I don’t even know.

    TVD, not really, no.

    I don’t mind if you find us boring, personally. For some reason, Cat-licks seem to get all upset and stuff at Darryl’s thoughts out here. Whatev. It’s always interesting to see what they come at us with.

    Ciao.

  14. Bob S
    Posted December 27, 2013 at 1:56 am | Permalink

    Memo to self.
    Don’t feed the troll even if occasionally they make sense.

  15. RL
    Posted December 27, 2013 at 2:05 am | Permalink

    TVD:

    I’ll try to explain by keeping with your lawyer-friend’s courtroom analogy. If the question to be litigated is whether homosexual activity is sin, the proper question is who bears the burden of proof but whether or not the court of public opinion has jurisdiction. I hold my belief that homosexuality is a sin to be beyond judgment. A corollary to this way of thinking is that public opinion doesn’t matter to me, and I don’t think is should matter to others when forming their opinion about sexual morality. Because I believe that public opinion is irrelevant to the formation of a person’s sexual ethics, I treat it as irrelevant. I ignore it.

    I’m not worried about offending people. I’m worried about people thinking that I can be offended. I can’t be. I don’t seek the approval of men. I’m not worried that people will call me close-minded on the issue. I’m worried that they won’t truly acknowledge that I am. The common ground that I have with progressive liberals is that we’re both intolerant. They don’t care what I think. I don’t care what they think. Thus I’m not willing to fake outrage in response their fake outrage.

    Now that’s not to say that just because homosexuality is a sin that it has to be outlawed. No one’s in a rush to outlaw greed or gluttony (two sins which are far more prevalent in the US than homosexuality). There also seems to be little interest in outlawing idolatry or the profaning of the sacraments. I’m just as convinced on the immorality of these practices as I am of homosexuality. But the only way to get along in a pluralistic, multicultural society is to not always acknowledge these differences. Religious liberty is celebrated as a virtue even when we know that the vast majority of Americans engage in idolatrous worship. If we’re willing to let well over 80% of Americans to profane the Christian sacraments, why aren’t we willing to let 3% of Americans do gay things with each other?

  16. RL
    Posted December 27, 2013 at 2:14 am | Permalink

    By intolerant I don’t mean that we can’t live peacefully together. I firmly believe that we can. What I mean is that I know their are certain issues that serve to only promote conflict if brought to the front of every public discussion. Some conflict is useful and necessary for progress, but constantly focusing our public discussions on positions where both sides won’t budge results in nothing but a race for the biggest megaphone.

  17. Posted December 27, 2013 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    I’m not sure why Tom feels sorry for Sarah Palin. She’s gone from Governor of Alaska to very rich woman because of her schtick. No sympathy required.

  18. Posted December 27, 2013 at 7:28 am | Permalink

    Tom, if you want to think about the connections between evangelicalism and the social gospel, you should read Timothy Smith’s Revivalism and Social Reform. I follow Smith (and more) in A Secular Faith, chs. 4 and 8.

    What destroyed Protestantism in America was the onslaught of sex and race that washed over the U.S. during the sixties — between feminism, sexual liberation, Civil Rights, and anti-war movements. In the 1950s, American religion was Protestantism. The Protestant churches were considered to be the bedrock of democracy, liberty, etc. And then people noticed that democracy and liberty hadn’t been so good for women and blacks and natives. So the churches had to go from pro- to anti-America. But that also meant the churches had to give up their privileged place within American society.

    John Turner’s continues to befuddle me. I don’t understand how you can lose members and institutions and win. Just because you are pro-gay marriage and a majority of Americans is pro-gay marriage? America didn’t become pro-gay marriage because the churches went there. It’s the other way around. When you start out adapting to culture, you keep adapting. Plus, the churches adapted in Jesus’ name. American’s don’t support gay marriage in Jesus’ name. How is that a vindication of the mainline?

    I don’t care what you say about my personal motives. Yours are the ones on display right now. And if you are going to champion biblical morality you have identified yourself personally (you’ve also taken a theological position — hey now). So it is fare game to ask how far your commitment to biblical morality goes. If you’re going to use it to challenge me, I can use it to challenge you.

    Your are not the umpire of the interweb.

    BTW, the MIA charge is nonsense. You don’t understand 2k. 2kers are involved in the culture wars. They aren’t engaged in Jesus’ name. That’s the point of 2k.

  19. Posted December 27, 2013 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    Tom, “smug spitballs”? Your complaining about smug? Really!!??

  20. Posted December 27, 2013 at 7:35 am | Permalink

    Tom and RL, yes, that’s the style we so much enjoy from TVD. A compliment about RL’s courtesy, and then a jab to the privates about having no guts.

    Tom, I don’t call myself an evangelical. At the risk of shameless self-promotion, I wrote a book to explain why.

    And your guts are revealed by posting comments at a blog? Such bravery.

  21. Posted December 27, 2013 at 7:44 am | Permalink

    Enough of this 2K. We need to get back to the days where creative ministers like Jerry Falwell were committed to taking back America:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3Gg8xxLKCI

    Lawyers and sound business practices be damned.

  22. mikelmann
    Posted December 27, 2013 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    TVD, you have seen the enemy, and he’s wearing ridiculous glasses, or at least did quite recently.

    I was actually touched by your comment in the other thread about elderly Bob Newhart being silenced by lefty activists. It shows a loss of decency & decorum, and reveals a deep fissure between Americans. But that’s what people do who are centrally political in their outlook. Your attorney friend has no solution to this, but only a right wing version that will tend to produce the same results from the other side. It’s like the Newton’s cradle phenomena, where one outlier on the left tends to produce an outlier on the right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_cradle But, in loving this world too much, your momentum is not toward the cure bur for exacerbation of the problem.

  23. Zrim
    Posted December 27, 2013 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    TVD, when I reviewed our school’s sex ed curriculum along with other neighborhood parents we never saw hide nor hare of Barney, just a lot of boring human biology. A lot like my own fifth grade experience thirty years ago (one sorely disappointed 10-year-old was I).

    So with real world experience, which included a lot of power vested in us as parents to throw red flags whenever we wanted and plenty of opportunity and rights to opt our kids out at any point no questions asked, I see right through you and the rightists who hyperventilate about take over and gays and other assorted sex fiends coming to eat our firstborns. America is still working pretty damn well in unimportant localities like mine. The sensationalized headlines are not real life. The “stand up and have some guts” routine is complete crapola. Maybe others should just sit down and shut up.

  24. Posted December 27, 2013 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    Erik, that video is unfrigginbelievable. “This is a worship service.” That’s the line JF used to silence the critic. Wow!

    I had forgotten Falwell’s dealings with PTL. No time in purgatory could make up for the boatloads of gullibility on display there.

  25. Posted December 27, 2013 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    The commercial at the beginning makes me want to go to the theme park about as much as I want to go to a Called-to-Communion St. Patrick’s Day potluck. Man were the 80s worse than I remember, and I don’t remember them being that great.

  26. Tom Van Dyke
    Posted December 27, 2013 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Andrew Buckingham
    Posted December 27, 2013 at 1:52 am | Permalink
    Do you people call yourselves “evangelicals?” I don’t even know.

    TVD, not really, no.

    I don’t mind if you find us boring, personally. For some reason, Cat-licks seem to get all upset and stuff at Darryl’s thoughts out here. Whatev. It’s always interesting to see what they come at us with.

    Ciao.

    Thank you, Mr. Hello-I-Must-Be-Going. Heh, how could they possibly be upset?

    Think of me as giving Old life the DG Hart treatment, then. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    [As for banning homosexual acts because they're "sin," no. Accepting gay marriage, that Parent 1 & Parent 2 are fungible with Mom & Dad--now that's not just a sin, it's a crime. But if you want to put Biblical morality under a bushel basket in service of some greater good, well, "going along to get along" is not a Biblical virtue.]

    [Jerry Falwell? Really, gentlemen? That's your trump card? You never miss a trick to argue from the bottom rather than the ideal. The objection here is that we left it to the Falwells to speak out, then criticize them for not articulating Biblical principles well enough. Go back and start at the beginning.]

  27. Posted December 27, 2013 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

    Peace, Tom. I’m just catchin’ some good flicks here, courtesy of the resident doc. I like it when you loiter with us. So I don’t miss this: Happy new year.

  28. Tom Van Dyke
    Posted December 27, 2013 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    Cheers, AB. And the spirit of the idiosyncratic mode of communication hereabouts, don’t miss this clip

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YrNQaXdOxU

    from Animal Crackers.

  29. nocable
    Posted December 28, 2013 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    Nelson Kloosterman lays into you Robertson objectors at “Worldview Resources Int’l.”

  30. Posted December 28, 2013 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    nocable, you mean Dr. K. brought up Misty Irons again? (Did you notice the OL responses?)

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>