If the Israelis can distinguish between an Arab Christian and an Arab Muslim, why can’t Americans tell the difference between an evangelical and a Reformed Protestant? (Supply your own punchline.)
This thought experiment came to mind when reading this:
An Israeli bill will grant legal distinction between Israel’s Muslim and Christian Arabs for the first time, recognizing Christians as a separate minority. But many Arab Christians don’t want such distinctions.
The controversial bill was approved by a 31-6 vote in its third and final reading in the Knesset Monday. The legislation will also increase employment representation for Christian Arabs in Israel’s government by adding an Israeli Christian Arab to the panel of the Advisory Committee for Equal Opportunity.
This will give the primarily Arab 160,000-person Christian population in Israel its own representative alongside representatives for ultra-orthodox Jews, new immigrants, women, and other religious and social groups, according to the Jerusalem Post.
What’s the problem with such a distinction? Looks like it’s the same problem in the U.S.:
“I believe most Arabs will refuse this decision,” Munther Na’um told CT of the controversial bill passed earlier this week. It distinguishes between Israel’s Muslim and Christian Arab communities for the first time and recognizes Christians as a separate minority.
“It’s meant to separate the whole family [Israeli Arabs] in political decisions,” Na’um said, speaking from his base in the northern Israeli town of Shafr Amr. Palestinians living in Israel are referred to as Israeli Arabs.
“It’s not good for Arabs, whether Christians or Muslims, or the Jews,” he said. Na’um believes that some Israeli politicians are “trying to separate us by religious status and create a political situation from that.”
“It will not be effective,” he added.
The bill was approved by a 31-6 vote in its third and final reading in the Knesset Monday. The legislation will also increase employment representation for Christian Arabs in Israel’s government by adding an Israeli Christian Arab to the panel of the Advisory Committee for Equal Opportunity.
The evangelical leader downplayed the move by Israeli politicians in the Knesset which has angered fellow Arab lawmakers.
“I don’t think this will make much impact because the relations between Christians and Muslims are very close. We have the same traditions, the same culture. It will be difficult to separate us just because we are Christians and they are Muslims,” Na’um said.
In other words, the reason for rejecting differences between Muslims and Christians is political. They are more effective as an ethnic political bloc than they are as separate religious groups.
And that is about as far as this analogy goes because what Christians face in the U.S. in no way compares to the circumstances that Palestinians confront in Israel. But the point is that the aspect of American Protestantism that keeps throwing Reformed Protestants into the same evangelical goo as every other Protestant who is either outside the mainline or ambivalent about the mainline churches’ policies and programs is politics is similar to the one that unifies Arab Christians and Muslims in Israel — not what they believe but a common political foe. Ever since the Religious Right emerged as an electoral force, Reformed Protestants have been more inclined to carve up the national scene according to culture-war categories than confessional teaching. W-w my foot!
That is true except for 2kers, who know that the kingdom of Christ claims higher and different allegiances than the Republic or Tea Party.
Old Life 
I’ll not, and say I did.
But serious, people should look for the meanies among Christ’s followers. An angry adult Sunday school question on the nature of atonement because the teacher was off, and an underlined marked up copy of Institutes will be found nearby.
No pretty good awakening warmed this Calvinist’s cold blood. No sir.
Yo.
LikeLike
I mostly identify with people who don’t shower much and live in vans by rivers.
LikeLike
“When D.G. was in Egypt’s land, let my D.G. go”.
LikeLike
Can we not do both? That is to say, can we not, in matters more decidedly temporal and political, seek alignment with those with whom we find we have common political and social cause, while nevertheless striving to retain our distinctives, and separateness from others, in matters doctrinal, more decidedly spiritual, eternal?
Indeed, very much so. Yet we still do live in this temporal realm, for a short while; can we not strive for the betterment of this world that is passing away, while we are here, and make common cause to that end with others who may share some views in common in such things?
I think of Abraham Kuyper and his ‘pillarization’, and his putting together a political coalition of both Reformed and Roman Catholics; was he wrong to do as he did, would we be wrong to emulate him?
LikeLike
Wills,
“…while nevertheless striving to retain our distinctives, and separateness from others, in matters doctrinal, more decidedly spiritual, eternal?”
How has that worked out in the past? And how did the Netherlands end up?
LikeLike
CW, the Netherlands had to deal with a couple world wars, and the societal upheaval that went along with that. I wonder if Kuyperism was given enough of a try, or if it stood a chance, with everything else that went on.
LikeLike
One doesn’t have to be r2k to support that.
LikeLike
In other news: Not sure how long Bryan’s going to be able to hold the line:
http://news.yahoo.com/secret-pope-francis-haters-094500393–politics.html
The Secret Pope Francis Haters
No one can dispute the fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has had an extraordinary year since being elected to lead the Roman Catholic Church last March. Every gesture, from his choice of the name Francis to his penchant for cold-calling parishioners, has endeared him with a most unusual fanclub, including atheists and gays. He has been on the cover of the Advocate and Rolling Stone and he was voted Time’s Man of the Year. He also attracts tens of thousands of Catholics and curious onlookers to his weekly Sunday blessings and Wednesday audiences in St. Peter’s square—something that hasn’t been seen in Rome since the early days of John Paul II. He even has his own fanzine and smartphone app.
But just as the Pope’s pedestrian popularity grows, bolstered no doubt by a savvy public relations move from within the Vatican to get the ‘good news’ message out to the mainstream press, there are a growing number of dissident voices from deep within the Catholic community who aren’t exactly impressed with the so-called “Francis effect” on the church as a whole.
In fact, toeing the new party line instilled by Francis is proving to be the greatest challenge for conservative Catholics who are quite used to a prudent and predictable Pope. Francis’s comments about showing mercy to divorced couples, not judging gay priests and even toying with further examination of civil unions outside the church have proven to be tough for conservative Catholics to swallow. John Vennari, noted Catholic observer and editor of “The Catholic Family News,” has been pounding a steady drumbeat on the danger of Francis’s widespread populist appeal since his election a year ago. “He seems to have a good heart and some good Catholic instincts, but theologically he is a train wreck—remarkably sloppy,” Vennari wrote in a recent blog post. “Though this might shock some readers, I must say that I would never allow Pope Francis to teach religion to my children.”
In an NBC news piece titled “Not Everyone Loves Francis,” Boston College theology professor Thomas Groome pondered whether or not true Catholic conservatives would be able to keep supporting the Pope’s new approach towards acceptance and mercy and still keep their faith. “I think it will be a real test for conservative Catholics,” he told NBC. “They have always pointed the finger, quoting the Pope for the last 35 years. Suddenly, will they stop quoting the Pope? It’ll be a good test of whether or not they’re really Catholics.”
But it’s not just traditionalists who are finding fault with Francis. Writing in the New Statesman John Bloodworth, editor of the popular British progressive political blog Left Foot Forward, warns that Francis is no different from his predecessors and that the Catholic Church “stands on roughly the same political terrain as it did under the leadership of Pope Benedict.” He says part of Francis’s popularity is simply a result of “clever repackaging” of the same Catholic propaganda coupled with a troubled society’s search for a new hero, which, he says, “has resulted in people switching off their critical faculties and overlooking inconvenient truths.” Bloodworth blames the mainstream press for essentially drinking the Catholic kool-aid without really checking for substance. “Pope Francis’s position on most issues should make the hair of every liberal curl,” he says. “Instead we get article after article of saccharine from people who really should know better.”
Some liberal Catholics believe that Francis is missing an opportunity to use his popular appeal to really make a substantive difference. Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, says that part of Francis’s appeal was his predecessor’s weakness. “To go from such an uncharismatic Pope to such a natural and warm leader like Francis has made people interested in what he has to say,” O’Brien told The Daily Beast. “But he’s not exactly CheGuevera for the church.”
While O’Brien believes that Francis’s off-the-cuff comments about divorced couples and gay priests are “driving the uber-conservative Catholics insane,” he worries that the Pope is actually getting a lot of undue credit for being a revolutionary when he hasn’t exactly shaken up the most troubling problems within the church. “I think that he could have a bigger impact, especially when it comes to women,” he says. “If Pope Francis has a blindspot, that’s it.”
O’Brien says that allowing divorced people to take communion or even be remarried in the Catholic Church would be a good first step towards moving beyond rhetoric. So would allowing women a greater role as decision-makers in the Church rather than isolating them further. O’Brien points to an interview Francis gave to a slew of Jesuit magazines earlier this year, in which he essentially poured cold water on any hope ofgender equality within the Catholic Church heirarchy. “I am wary of a solution that can be reduced to a kind of ‘female machismo,’ because a woman has a different make-up than a man,” Francis said in the interview. “But what I hear about the role of women is often inspired by an ideology of machismo.” O’Brien says by locking women out of the room when decisions are made, he is sidelining half of the Catholic Church. “Comments like that cancel out a lot of the good,” O’Brien says.
Another perceived weak spot in the Francis papacy for many is his kid-glove approach to the horrific child sex-abuse scandal the church is still dealing with. He has not yet met publicly with any victims of priest abuse like his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI did, and he has persistently avoided making a public apology as Pope. In December, he did announce the formation of a special commission to deal with the issue of predatory priests and child sex-abuse cases, but he has yet to name the commission, meaning that their work has not yet begun. That is especially painful to victims of priest abuse like David Clohessy, head of SNAP—Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests. Clohessy says that Francis needs to immediately take tangible steps to remove predatory priests from the parishes and to punish bishops who continue to cover up their offenses.
“Policies, pledges, apologies, meetings with victims won’t work. they’ve all been said and done before. They are public relations placebos,” Clohessy told The Daily Beast. “They don’t safeguard a single child, expose a single predator or deter a single cover up. Symbolic moves are actually hurtful because they cause complacency instead of vigilance and give people false hope that real reform will follow, when it hasn’t followed and isn’t following.”
Clohessy isn’t holding out hope that the Pope’s abuse commission will make any difference. “A ‘carrot only’approach won’t work and he knows it. He must find the courage to wield a “stick” and he shows little or no sign of being strong and brave enough to do this.”
To be fair, Francis has shaken up the top-heavy Roman Curia with new appointments, and he has tapped 19 new cardinals from all over the world to diversify the mostly European College of Cardinals whose most important task will be electing his successor. He has also made some crucial steps towards cleaning up the scandal-prone Vatican bank with the appointment of a new Secretariat of the Economy, Cardinal George Pell from Australia. Writing in his new role as associate editor covering global Catholicism for The Boston Globe, Vatican expert John Allen says that Francis’s substantive moves get less press because they are essentially far more boring than what makes the headlines. He points specifically to the shakeup at the Vatican Bank. “That move may not have the sex appeal of Francis’s symbolic gestures, such as spurning the papal apartment or inviting three homeless men and their dog to his birthday breakfast, but insiders realize there’s little a pope could do that would be more challenging to the Vatican’s old guard,” he writes. “When that decision was announced, one could almost hear the sound of the tectonic plates of the church shifting in the direction of transparency and accountability.”
Love him or hate him, it is still too soon to measure the Francis effect on the world’s 1.1 billion Catholics. Those who support him most say his style appeals to lapsed Catholics and makes moderate Catholics proud, even though a recent Pew Research poll on American Catholics and Pope Franci says it hasn’t lured them back to church just yet. According to the study, “Seven in ten U.S. Catholics also now say Francis represents a major change in direction for the church, a sentiment shared by 56 percent of non-Catholics. And nearly everyone who says Francis represents a major change sees this as a change for the better.” But the same poll showed that church attendance had not shifted since Pope Francis took the helm of the Catholic Church.
Even with all the analysis of Francis’s first year, the least likely person to actually take note is the Pope himself. Father Tom Reese, a senior analyst for National Catholic Reporter and author of Inside the Vatican: The Politics and Organization of the Catholic Church , says the Pope won’t likely worry about how people judge his first year on the job. “One of the things people like about Francis is that he is authentic; he says what he thinks in a simple straightforward way,” Reese told The Daily Beast. “If he starts worrying like a politician about what people on the left and right think of him, he will destroy himself. Let Francis be Francis.”
The pope would seem to agree. In a broad interview with Italy’s Corrieredella Sera newspaper, he shunned his popularity and said he is just an average person. “I don’t like ideological interpretations, a certain mythology of Pope Francis,” he said. “Sigmund Freud said, if I’m not mistaken, that in all idealization there is an aggression. To paint the Pope as if he is a sort of Superman, a sort of star, I find offensive. The Pope is a man who laughs, cries, sleeps peacefully and has friends like everyone else. He is a normal person.”
LikeLike
Erik – that’d be easy enough. All he has to do is send Papa a letter advising him to make generous use of rebuttals like, “I never said that”,”that’s not in conflict with the historicity of the true church”, or “consider this paradigm….”
LikeLike
Will, behold Grand Rapids. Full of brimming and unimpeded practical Kuyperianism and no wars or social upheavals with which to make excuses. And yet, she is no better nor worse than any other place, at least I’ve ever been.
LikeLike
True enough, zrim.
So, what do you think then should we do; how then shall we live?
LikeLike
Erik, re:Pope 2.0 — it’s almost like Bryan just bought a high-end smartphone and two weeks later the manufacturer said they were scrapping the OS and no longer supporting his version. Gonna be hard on his rosary beads.
LikeLike
Wills, make much of the local and connectional church and make less of the culture and the nation. I’ll not be so cynical as to invoke “embrace the suck.”
LikeLike
Will, how about a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way, minding our own affairs, walking properly among outsiders, honoring all people and the emperor, loving the brotherhood?
LikeLike
Tommy Kidd on George Marsden’s Kuyperism:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/book-reviews/review/the_twilight
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted March 11, 2014 at 2:24 pm | Permalink
In other news: Not sure how long Bryan’s going to be able to hold the line:
The Secret Pope Francis Haters
Actually, the article obviates itself here:
The line holds.
BTW, the new Pew is a lot more informative.
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/03/06/catholics-view-pope-francis-as-a-change-for-the-better/
LikeLike
Chortles, zrim: I generally agree with the advice you both give, but…
I don’t only just care about the local communit(y)(ies) of which I am a part (I’m in a transitional state at present, and I’ve always had a foot in more than one place); I also care about the province and the nation, too.
Can we not also find a place to participate at higher levels than just local ones, as well as lower ones, legitimately, as Reformed believers?
And does it not make sense to participate in both kingdoms?
LikeLike
Can we not also find a place to participate at higher levels than just local ones, as well as lower ones, legitimately, as Reformed believers?
And does it not make sense to participate in both kingdoms?
Sure. Just do so as an individual or a collection of individuals. Leave the session, consistory, presbytery, and church council out of it. Remember all the times Paul commented on local politics? Urged church action on community issues? Me neither. If Paul didn’t do it then neither should your elders.
LikeLike
Will, I’m not sure how the NT’s instructions preclude believers from participating beyond the local or both kingdoms. Joseph was Pharaoh’s chosen man–doesn’t get more expansive than that. But with all the antagonism neo-Calvinists have for their governors, it’s hard to imagine them earning the esteem Pharaoh gave Joe.
LikeLike
AB, but the red-and-white checkered shorts bring that image together (the way the Dude’s rug tied the room together).
LikeLike
Will, nothing wrong about making common cause in the common realm. But why does that cause have to be grounded in faith, and in the religious against the secularists, which is what the Religious Right (inspired by neo-Calvinism) has done?
LikeLike
vd, t, when are you going to get right with the Vatican?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted March 12, 2014 at 12:06 am | Permalink
vd, t, when are you going to get right with the Vatican?
The very day that you do, Dr. Disingenuous. You keep trying to catch the Catholic Church in contradictions like an Aristotelian–dare I say a Thomist?—but the line still holds.
Do keep up your assaults. Like Billy Bob in The Apostle, you can’t help but keep coming back for more. I do feel you, me brother.
LikeLike
Poor Tom “Behind Blue Eyes” Van Dyke, who feels errbody but nobody feels him. He has hours only lonely. His live is vengeance that’s never free. The humanity!
LikeLike
CW, somehow, when someone comes in to challenge 2k, whoever it is, I can’t get the image of Doug Sowers out of my mind.
Doug, if you are reading (and I know you are, you’re a champ. Never stop being you.
LikeLike
Chorts, are his dreeeeams as empty. pause. As his conscience seems to be?
LikeLike
vd, t, wrong again. I am catching Rome’s apologists in confusion. What Rome does stays in Rome.
LikeLike
Well, the reason both confessional Protestants and traditionalist Roman Catholics are socially conservative is due in both cases to the moral code both derive from Scripture AND the recognition of the transcendent, which distinguishes both from the secularists, who lack a received text and any recognition of the transcendent, who thus end up, in our times, tending towards the leftist, progressive, secular humanist agenda.
Does that necessarily entail that our common cause be grounded in faith? Maybe not, but I don’t see how recognition that what we have in common in terms of our positions on social matters arises from things we happen to have in common in terms of what we believe in common, e.g. the ecumenical creeds, Scripture, is necessarily problematic, in and of itself.
LikeLike
Tom never learned that when the bullies are giving you noogies (and worse) during every recess, that it’s time to leave that area of the playground
LikeLike
But, Will, when Secularists for Life sound so much like the religious lifers, the claim that it all flows from the same religious resource becomes not so obvious.
http://www.secularprolife.org/
Then there are those of us religionists who might take some issue with lifers of whatever stripe. More gum in the machinery.
LikeLike
Hogwash. This is still Western Civilization, after all, and so pro-life secularists are still living off the cultural capital accumulated by our civilization back when it when it was still generally Christian, whether or not they realize it; no doubt they will parrot some of the rhetoric Christian pro-life activists will use, because they don’t know how to express such sentiments in secular terms.
I may take issue with how they go about things, but their hearts are surely in the right place.
Sometimes I wonder if many Reformed like to be contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian…
LikeLike
Will, sometimes I wonder if many Reformed would prefer those who don’t amen the group think would just sit down and shut up.
But the stealing of cultural capital card has to be one of the most overplayed. It’s not convincing. If Paul is right and everyone has equal access to the reservoir of general revelation then nobody is stealing anything, in which case the accusation could be an epistemological way of transgressing the ninth. I understand that culturalists need this card to prop up Christian superiority, but if you want friends in the kulturkampf that’s bad strategy. The test isn’t whether common cause can be found between religionists but between religionists and non-religionists.
LikeLike
Well, I’m sympathetic actually, as someone who doesn’t much care for the predominant groupthink in many regards, myself; esp. as a WASP in a Dutch church community; I frequently find myself in minority positions on secondary matters, and not only because I don’t like salty licorice.
I never said ‘stealing’, I said ‘living off of’, a different thing IMO.
Far as I can tell, secularists who are pro-life are as rare as those who are not pro-gay-rights, etc. There’s a reason why the majority of secularists end up embracing progressive dogmas, surely, even though in theory they could swing in any direction they pleased.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted March 12, 2014 at 9:58 am | Permalink
vd, t, wrong again. I am catching Rome’s apologists in confusion. What Rome does stays in Rome.
Dr. Disingenuous, a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen.
LikeLike
Will,
You don’t play fair. How can I not like you when you give me news I can use like this that I can’t get anywhere else?
http://patriactionary.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/woman-used-sperm-from-oral-sex-to-get-pregnant-got-child-support/
Do you have any more of that footage of barefoot women clearing fields?
LikeLike
Will, it’s a distinction without a difference, one that avoids dealing with the point about the sufficiency of general revelation and its members. Nobody needs Christianity to do civil life. That was the arrogance of Protestant liberalism.
LikeLike
Rules for commenting on the Patriactionary Blog (Hilarious).
I don’t know if we could ever merge with these guys, but we sure as hell could have a really fun joint summer picnic:
http://literatecomments.com/2014/03/12/rules-for-commenting-on-the-patriactionary-blog/
LikeLike
Things that bore Matthew
•Females describing their persons without providing photographic evidence
LikeLike
And Erik, here’s one from Will right in your wheelhouse (note YRR pajama boy Tim Challies dumbness here mentioned):
http://patriactionary.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/should-one-disregard-physical-attractiveness-in-pursuing-a-potential-spouse-of-course-not/
LikeLike
Zrim and 2K folks – I’m trying to wrap my head around 2K. When you say “Nobody needs Christianity to do civil life” at one level I suppose I agree. At another level, however, I don’t understand. Do you not think that a predominant Judeo-Christian ethic in society has demonstrably positive impacts on that society? There simply are not many hospitals or soup kitchens being started by atheists, for instance, and yet atheists are the benefactors of general revelation. (Wonderful that there are secularists who are pro-life, but that sure seems like an anomaly.) If the main pt of 2K is just that one should not be deluded to think that one can, through legislative means, ‘create’ a Judeo-Christian ethic, then I am sympathetic to 2K. But, I’m assuming you are making a larger point than that. Can you clarify? Many thanks.
LikeLike
Chorts,
Saw it. Read it. Living it.
LikeLike
If Called to Communion is Omega House and Old Life is Delta Tau Chi, Patriactionary is at a minimum the house that Mohammed, Jagdish, Sidney, and Clayton got into:
LikeLike
My boss now has a house on the golf course that sleeps 24. Who’s in?
http://www.co.marshall.ia.us/assessor/cgi/supdoc.cgi?docname=/assessor/cgi/vcsphoto.cgi?pid=1332127017&enableprinter=inline
LikeLike
Petros, the so-called Judeo-Christian ethic is a mid-20thC construct, not a biblical category. Even Kuyperian Bob Godfrey has said if Christians don’t build hospitals, somebody will (if Christians don’t build churches, nobody will). So the larger point is simply that general revelation is sufficient to norm civil life. Seems like any society that 1) manifests social goods and 2) has no knowledge of special revelation should be enough to make this obvious.
Paul’s point in Romans 2 is that the law is sufficient to eternally condemn. If it’s sufficient to eternally condemn then why not sufficient to provisionally govern?
LikeLike
The Reformed in America conference feature DGH and Alan Strange is now online. http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=3804&action=edit&message=6&postpost=v2
LikeLike
TVD, what is the best online resource you know of for Calvinist resistance theory? DGH, please pardon using OL for doing my homework.
LikeLike
Will S., and it is people who think they have a shared common and authoritative base for morality who fight wars to end slavery and wind up killing 630k people. Sorry, but I’m reading Menand’s Metaphysical Club and I am inclined to think that pragmatists make far better neighbors than abolitionists.
LikeLike
Petros, let’s say you’re right — that Christianity makes life better. Then how many of the soup kitchens and hospitals were founded by Reformed orthodox? Not many. So you are willing to say that a less than biblical Christianity is responsible for the blessings of w. civ.
So how important is orthodoxy then?
And how do you stop the slide from orthodoxy from degenerating into the Social Gospel, liberalism, and humanitarianism.
You really need to think your triumphalism through.
LikeLike
I’m in.
LikeLike
Zrim – I agree that only Christians can build churches (I’d prefer to say “build the church”, just to disassociate from physical buildings, but I digress.) When you say, however, “So the larger point is simply that general revelation is sufficient to norm civil life”, that seems insufficient to account for enormous observable differences in societies. Is it merely an accident that, among middle eastern countries, for instance, that Israel is far more economically vibrant, is a safe place for religious minorities, safe for women, etc, etc? Is it unfair to infer that maybe that’s because Israel’s values are more biblically-rooted (and yes, I realize probably 70%+ of Israelis are secular) than their sharia-loving neighboring countries? Is general revelation sufficient to norm life in Afghanistan? Mostly, I’m interested to learn how 2K adherents view those realities and account for them within a 2K construct. Thanks.
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted March 12, 2014 at 8:01 pm | Permalink
TVD, what is the best online resource you know of for Calvinist resistance theory? DGH, please pardon using OL for doing my homework.
Thx for asking, Mike. I originally came here to do homework as well, to find out what accredited historian Darryl Hart knows about Calvinist resistance theory, especially per Theodore Beza, Jean Calvin’s biographer, friend, and putative successor.
But whatever Darryl knows, he ain’t tellin’. He is unsympathetic to that theology or giving it play. See his book. ;-O
[BTW, Darryl, you may have noticed Tommy Kidd giving Kuyper a lot of play lately, per George Marsden’s recent book endorsing Kuyperian pluralism. Twitter: @ThomasSKidd
I’d love to see you declare one of your jihads on your pals in the the edu-evangelical establishment on this Kuyper thing rather than diddling with Jason and the Catholics all the time. Now THAT’S a battle your loins are eminently girded to join.]
To Mike–sorry for the digression, and thx for asking–this
http://www.davekopel.com/religion/calvinism.htm
will give you the outline. Unfortunately, according to his blog, Dr. John Fea–with whom Dr. Hart has cordial relations–is delaying his book on Presbyterianism and the American Revolution. A shame. For now, Kopel:
LikeLike
TVD, thanks.
LikeLike
@DGH: We Patriactionaries be reactionaries, nothing at all like abolitionists and 19th century progressives. I don’t quite follow your logic.
LikeLike
Not sure where you’re coming from, there.
LikeLike
@ EC, CW: Er, thanks, I think. If you do in fact actually like our group blog, and aren’t joking; I find you guys a bit hard to read; not quite sure what to make of you, how to take you.
Or some others, either, for that matter.
But I wish you all well.
Cheers.
LikeLike
Will S., how do you know you’re not like an abolitionist. You’re absolute in your convictions and you’re willing to apply them to society and government.
LikeLike
vd, t, I know you have a man crush on Dave Kopel, but where’s the skepticism about academic training that you exhibit elsewhere? Could it be that when someone agrees with you they are smart? When they don’t, they’re academic pedigree is suspect? How convenient.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted March 13, 2014 at 6:16 am | Permalink
vd, t, I know you have a man crush on Dave Kopel, but where’s the skepticism about academic training that you exhibit elsewhere? Could it be that when someone agrees with you they are smart? When they don’t, they’re academic pedigree is suspect? How convenient.
Blahblahblah, Dr. Disingenuous. Go for it bigtime.
Let’s see you go after your “peers.” George Marsden, Abraham Kuyper.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/book-reviews/review/the_twilight
Me and your fans here @ Old Life are all small change, Dr. D, hardly worth the time you take to disrespect us. And even they are starting to go WTF.
LikeLike
My political beliefs are not so nailed-down as one might think. Politically and socially, I’m a reactionary, and would prefer that laws were more like they used to be, and ones since struck down that protected society put back into place, but more importantly, I wish society was more like it used to be; as per government type, I’m still devoted to liberal democracy: no theonomy / dominion-reconstructionist nor Romish theocracy for me…
I don’t know that I’m an absolutist. Firm in my convictions, certainly. Whether that makes me an absolutist, I suppose I’ll leave to others to judge.
LikeLike
Tom – Thx for asking, Mike. I originally came here to do homework as well
Erik – Tom & Mike in Old Life study hall…
LikeLike
Will,
I think you guys are funny, which is about 90% of what I look for in a good blog. I think I’m signed up for e-mails.
LikeLike
Think of Will & his buddies as the Baylys on helium.
LikeLike
Tom – Let’s see you go after your “peers.” George Marsden, Abraham Kuyper.
D.G. Hart (1957? – )
George Marsden (1939 – )
Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920)
?
LikeLike
D.G.,
When you get done with Kuyper I dare you to go after your buddies Warren Harding & Calvin Coolidge.
LikeLike
EC: I have another blog, too; here.
LikeLike
Petros, your choice of observable society may be a little contrived. I’d recommend Van Drunen’s autograph “The Biblical Case for Natural Law.” In it, he points to the example of Abraham and the pagan king Abimelech. I trust you know the story, so I won’t repeat it. The point is this: how does a pagan without aid of special revelation know that it is an evil thing to trick another man into (almost) committing adultery? And it’s the pagan who upbraids the believer for it. And the believer who claims he didn’t think the fear of God was in that land (sounds familiar, self-righteousness alert). It’s pretty clear that Abim would never have taken Sarah had he known she was already a wife instead of a sister.
And Paul says that the law is written on the hearts of those who don’t have it on stone. Have you seriously never observed pagans surpassing believers in things provisional? Or have you but simply explained away with that borrowing of capital fubar?
LikeLike
Will,
Sweet. I’ve reached my quota of bent Americans. Needing to know more bent foreigners.
LikeLike
I’m not particularly familiar with the Baylys, to whom I am being compared, but if, as appears, they’re something to do with Doug Wilson and the CREC, I hope I am not much like them, as I have little use for him and his ilk.
LikeLike
Nor do we care for Mark Driscoll.
@ EC: Yes; I’m Canadian. The rest at my group blog are Yanks like y’all.
LikeLike
vd, t, you asked for it.
LikeLike
I can’t define Kuyper with any certainty. Not sure how anyone can with a big picture view.
It’s a blend of great and meh and horrendous.
Overall on the good side…
LikeLike
Zrim – sincere thanks for the book recommendation. At a micro, anecdotal level, yes, I can observe pagans surpassing believers in moral behavior. I would explain that by noting that there is a “common grace” that is available to all, and by also affirming that believers are sinners, too.
My question, however, is at the macro level of society. In what way are my examples of observable society contrived? It’s the stuff of real life. How do 2K anti-transformationalist folks account for why civil life in Israel is starkly different than in all the surrounding countries?
Perhaps it was Dennis Prager who tells the story of someone (call him Mr. X) whose car broke down late at night in a dark alley in East LA. Mr. X starts walking down the alley to find assistance when 5 large men enter the alley and start ominously walking directly towards Mr. X. Prager asks the question: would Mr. X feel more, or less, threatened if the 5 men were singing a hymn and Mr. X knew that they had just come out of a Bible study/prayer meeting? (Hopefully, you’ll see this as a rhetorical question.)
LikeLike
Another link to the D.G. Hart/Alan Strange “Reformed in America” Conference.
Darryl,
Since our check cleared I would appreciate you putting this link in a distinct blog post.
LikeLike
Will,
We too have practiced affirmative action by letting a Canadian (Kent) into our inner circle.
LikeLike
Will,
The Baylys are like Wilson without the charm, wit, and up-to-date vaccinations.
LikeLike
If you’ve seen “Big Love” the Baylys are Hollis Green to Wilson’s Roman Grant.
LikeLike
Last time he was there sparks flew:
LikeLike
DGH – When you say “Then how many of the soup kitchens and hospitals were founded by Reformed orthodox? Not many. So you are willing to say that a less than biblical Christianity is responsible for the blessings of w. civ.”….
Can you please clarify what your point is. Is your point a) that believers who founded soup kitchens and hospitals are de facto adherents of “less than biblical Christianity”? or b) Reformed orthodox represent the gold standard for what biblical Christianity is? or c) both a and b, or d) something else?
I am willing to say that Judeo-Christian values have been positively transformative and causal of much of the blessings of western civilization. I am not asserting that everything done in the name of those values has been a perfect reflection of Biblical Christianity by any means. Everyone has plenty of chinks in their armor. There is plenty to critique, to be sure.
You ask “And how do you stop the slide from orthodoxy from degenerating into the Social Gospel, liberalism, and humanitarianism.” Indeed, those are all real risks that must be guarded against, but one can also ask “and how do you avoid being the priest or the levite in Luke 10:31,32?” How do curmudgeonly and vinegary Reformed orthodox stop the slide from degenerating into sacerdotalism and vacuous formalism?
LikeLike
Petros, by contrived I mean your evaluation sure sounds like a 21st century American speaking–three cheers for democratic Israel and their liberated women, boo hiss on the Sharia mooselimbs and their burqas (and bombs). But you’ve heard of the Ottoman Empire? History has judged it well. And no Bible required. Explain.
LikeLike
Zrim – you’re spot on – I am a 21st century American.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your characterization is that there’s not much to distinguish societies that are informed by Judeo-Christian values from societies not so informed. Yes?
Presumably, you think the Baptists that started Hillsdale College were misguided as to their mission, is that right? (After all, you don’t need Christians to be starting colleges, correct?)
Do you feel the following excerpt from the Hillsdale College mission statement is similarly misguided and misinformed? “The College considers itself a trustee of modern man’s intellectual and spiritual inheritance from the Judeo-Christian faith and Greco-Roman culture, a heritage finding its clearest expression in the American experiment of self-government under law.”
That is, presumably they’re citing the Judeo-Christian faith as being distinctive to their college in a positive way. Are they being “triumphalists”?
LikeLike
Petros, my point is that perfectly good societies not only can but have been built without the so-called Judeo-Christian ethic. I’m not sure why this should be controversial.
Far be it from me to cast judgment on Baptists and their schools. But the curious thing about the statement you provide is how it packages the JC ethic with Greco-Roman culture. The former presumably flows from Scripture, the latter not so much. Biblical religion and pagan society? Aren’t those two great tastes that don’t go so great together? I’m a fan of the Greco-Roman culture, but its architects are the very ones the Bible opposes. Where’s the antithesis? And that’s what the coupling of biblical religion and western civ does–pares down the claws of the Lion of Judah.
LikeLike
Yep, Zrim. There are many today who equate Western with Xian, overlooking Greco-Roman. I suppose there are some who see G-R as a kind of necessary precursor to Xian.
LikeLike
C-dubs, as in Aristotle is the forerunner to Christ instead of John the Baptizer.
LikeLike
Zrim and Chortles – I do not equate western civ with Christianity. I would assert that a) Judeo-Christian values are distinctive and b) they have greatly shaped western civ in an exceptionally positive manner. Very curious that Hillsdale offers a program of study whose “….uniqueness lies in its stress on a thorough and appreciative knowledge of the biblical and theological elements woven into the culture and imagination of Western civilization and in its attempt to interpret man and society from the perspective of the Judeo-Christian tradition”
Dr. Hart might be better equipped to explain how Hillsdale harmonizes the Bible with Greco-Roman culture. It’d be great to see him debate his own employer, which is noted for trumpeting American and western exceptionalism and Judeo-Christian values. From what I can tell, the word “triumphalist” would aptly apply to Hillsdale.
My main inquiry here, however, is to learn and better understand 2K thoughts. Would you say that Van Drunen’s “The Biblical Case for Natural Law.” is the best place to start in my 2K study?
LikeLike
Petros, fair enough. But I’m not sure of your point with Hillsdale. You seem a fan of the JC construct, find it in Hillsdale, then connect it to triumphalism. You must be a fan of triumphalism?
On TBCNL it’s a good primer and can be read in an afternoon.
LikeLike
Zrim – I am a fan of the Judeo-Christian construct, and (from what I’ve read thru Imprimis) am a fan of Hillsdale’s philosophy. Hillsdale, of course, is brought up only because the proprietor of this website draws a paycheck from them, whlilst their operative philosophy seems to get critiqued here regularly. At least it seems that way, but maybe I’m not understanding Dr Hart properly.
I’m honestly unclear on what the folks on this blog really mean by “triumphalism”, other than somehow people who believe in the superiority of JC values seem to be branded as ‘triumphalist’, and that this is a ‘bad’ thing to be, with horrific slippery-slope potential. Is there a common definition of what “triumphalism” means here at OL?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted March 13, 2014 at 6:16 am | Permalink
vd, t, I know you have a man crush on Dave Kopel, but where’s the skepticism about academic training that you exhibit elsewhere? Could it be that when someone agrees with you they are smart? When they don’t, they’re academic pedigree is suspect? How convenient.
There you go again, Dr. Disingenuous. Most of what Kopel writes there I came across on my own. He just puts it in digestible form. Neither do I play the credentials game. PhDs these days are more a matter of persistence and debt than incisiveness or originality.
Not that I expected you to engage what he wrote but you could have spared us the cheap shots.
D. G. Hart
Posted March 13, 2014 at 9:52 am | Permalink
vd, t, you asked for it.
That’s “it?” From a decade ago, a one-paragraph abstract? With weasel words like “‘may’ frustrate?” Boy, I bet they never recovered from that!
BTW, do you call Marsden and Noll names or do you reserve that tactic for people without accreditation?
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted March 13, 2014 at 8:30 am | Permalink
Tom – Let’s see you go after your “peers.” George Marsden, Abraham Kuyper.
D.G. Hart (1957? – )
George Marsden (1939 – )
Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920)
?
Heh heh. Glad you got it.
LikeLike
Petros
Posted March 13, 2014 at 11:53 am | Permalink
DGH – When you say “Then how many of the soup kitchens and hospitals were founded by Reformed orthodox? Not many. So you are willing to say that a less than biblical Christianity is responsible for the blessings of w. civ.”….
You ask “And how do you stop the slide from orthodoxy from degenerating into the Social Gospel, liberalism, and humanitarianism.” Indeed, those are all real risks that must be guarded against, but one can also ask “and how do you avoid being the priest or the levite in Luke 10:31,32?”
Good luck getting an answer on that one. It’s been tried. [Matthew 25:31-46 too.] For a crew of sola scripturists the actual Bible comes up precious little at this here theological society.
LikeLike
Petros: As an attempt to define triumphalism by one of us regulars….
An attitude that is impatient for and trying to forcibly usher in an era that leads to a Christendom of earthly power with no suffering or trials for believers, that this will be accomplished by unfathomable sweeping revival outside the humble and faithful church, that works on earth will be so grand that God will be obligated to have to recognize and preserve them in the next world.
We would be mostly of the view that there is no golden era on earth for believers, nor has there ever been one, and that this earth and its works will go up in fire.
A lot has been realized and a lot is still to come. We see it is an act of God in mercy and only for His glory, and are put off by people trying to claim credit for their works and zeal in trying to conjure it up or teach others to demand it.
I’ve done my best…
LikeLike
Tom: Good luck getting an answer on that one. It’s been tried. [Matthew 25:31-46 too.] For a crew of sola scripturists the actual Bible comes up precious little at this here theological society.
Those of us on here have hundreds, if not thousands of hours of theological training. We take it for granted that others in our denominations already know the answers if they are members (and far more if officers.)
Sorry if we don’t spend time going over and over and over it with you, but you are just throwing rocks and we frankly can’t be bothered if it isn’t an honest query into what we believe.
LikeLike
kent
Posted March 13, 2014 at 6:48 pm | Permalink
Tom: Good luck getting an answer on that one. It’s been tried. [Matthew 25:31-46 too.] For a crew of sola scripturists the actual Bible comes up precious little at this here theological society.
Those of us on here have hundreds, if not thousands of hours of theological training. We take it for granted that others in our denominations already know the answers if they are members (and far more if officers.)
Sorry if we don’t spend time going over and over and over it with you, but you are just throwing rocks and we frankly can’t be bothered if it isn’t an honest query into what we believe.
You have plenty of time for the easy ones though. And yes, it’s quite an honest query–first from me now from brother Petros. Odd how the same question keeps popping up, eh? Perhaps because it’s a key one.
LikeLike
Petros, how about the embrace of the JC construct as more naive than triumphalist (triumphalism is naïveté on steroids)?
Instead of a definition triumphalism, how about an entry level example: prosperity gospel. Everybody knows the crass version about cash and bling, and most sane persons know to reject it for its theology of glory. But the point here is that there is a sophisticated version at the level of society and culture: societies are blessed with cultural prosperity that embrace the JC ethic. Proof? Behold, democracy, rule of law, women’s rights, abolition, paved roads, widespread literacy, toilet paper, light bulbs.
LikeLike
Wikipedia had some interesting definitions of Christian transformationalism
Critics of Transformationalism accuse it of over-realised eschatology, false dichotomies, unnecessary idealism and a tendency to be corrosive of individual church identities.
Transformational Christianity interprets the gospel from a unified perspective of transforming individuals, relationships, and institutions. It thus tends to align intellectually with evangelicals, emotionally with charismatics, and socially with ecumenicals — though only up to a point. The emphasis is less on being theologically or politically correct than on being effective in transforming the world around you (and yourself). It thus tends to reflect the kingdom theology of Gordon Fee’s radical middle approach to Christianity, which characterizes the role of the church as manifesting God’s kingdom on earth.
Ed Silvoso identifies “Five Pivotal Paradigms” he considers essential for sustainable transformation to take place. Specifically, he calls people to recognize that:
1. The Great Commission is about discipling nations, not just people.
2. The marketplace (the heart of the nation) has already been redeemed by Jesus and now needs to be reclaimed by His followers.
3. Labor is the premier expression of worship on Earth, and every believer is a minister.
4. Our primary call is not to build the Church, but to take the kingdom of God where the kingdom of darkness is still entrenched, in order for Jesus to build His Church.
5. The premier social indicator that transformation has taken place is the elimination of systemic poverty.
LikeLike
Kent & Zrim – thanks for the explanation of “triumphalism”. So, I’m with you on rejecting both the prosperity gospel and the notion that we can usher in some type of golden era with earthly power, etc.
Just realize that earlier in this thread, when I noted that atheists do not start soup kitchens or hospitals, the proprietor of this blog writes that people who run soup kitchens (hardly the epiccenter of earthly power or prosperity gospel!) have a “less than biblical Christianity” that may degenerate into a social gospel, and that I “really need to think your (my) triumphalism through”, perhaps you can understand my puzzlement at how the word “triumphalism” gets used around here. I might also inquire how it is that soup kitchens are viewed so negatively, but that’s not my main issue.
I am off to read some Van Drunnen. Many thanks.
LikeLike
Petros, come on. How can you say Judeo-Christian values when for most of the West’s history Jews were not exactly a welcome presence. This is precisely, as I see it, what is wrong with believers trying to take credit for civilization. They are not accurate.
But what is your point about Israel vs. Syria? Is that an argument for Judaism? Odd for a Christian to make that case?
But what about Turkey vs. Syria? If you don’t think Turkey stands up well, then factor in the occupied territories.
It’s complicated out there. And I do think Reformed Protestantism is the best expression of Christianity. We were not at the forefront of hospitals nor of the Crusades.
LikeLike
Petros, Hillsdale teaches the Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, and Christians. Some of the faculty stress Tertullian, who is firmly in the curriculum. Find your inner Augustine. Sure you can.
LikeLike
Petros, I don’t read Imprimus, but I know what goes on on campus at Hillsdale. If you are going to try to drive a wedge between me and the college — which has much more diversity than the evangelical world — then your comments will be deleted.
You do the math.
p.s. where have I ever criticized Hillsdale’s philosophy of education. Calvin College and Covenant College are not Hillsdale College.
LikeLike
vd, t, that’s it? You can’t find an article unless it’s served up to you on a platter? Funny how you can find other things.
Disingenuous are u.
LikeLike
vd, t, of course, you are not the priest or levite in Luke 10 but you aren’t a believer in Christ or a member of the Church of Rome.
So you’re a humanitarian, sort of like a church member in Laodicia.
LikeLike
Petros, why don’t you just say what you mean rather than trying to elicit damning statements. We’ve noted your passive aggression before.
Here’s the deal with soup kitchens — the soup doesn’t sustain eternal life. The Lord’s Supper does. Are you prepared to argue that soup kitchens are as important as the Lord’s Supper?
LikeLike
vd, t, very disappointing how shrewd you can be with internet resources when they suit your purposes but ignorant of answers when they don’t grind your axe. Here’s Calvin on Matt 25 (not really hard to find):
Meanwhile, how are you and Petros doing with Gal 3:12?
LikeLike
That’s John Calvin’s opinion. Sometimes you ignore him. He’s not the pope or anything, not magisterial. Whose Calvinism is it, anyway?
[Further, re v. 34, he changes the subject to his own theology of predestination. But thanks for the link. Not as responsive as actually using your own words and participating in a discussion, but we take what we can get around here. Cheers.]
LikeLike
vd, t, so first you’ve never heard any answer to Matt 25, now you don’t like the answer.
You’re doing your impersonation of a woman again.
LikeLike
Petros, nobody is saying that hospitals and soup kitchens are “epicenters of earthly power or prosperity gospel.” Nor is there anything wrong with acts of charity. The point is to wonder why these are the esteemed marks of Christian piety when perfectly unbelieving people do them. (Yes, yes, I know, here is where you go statistician in order to stack the deck in favor of believers and against stingy pagans, but human experience says otherwise.)
Marks of Christian piety involve those things that narrow the playing field drastically, e.g. regularly attending the means of grace. And last I checked, the JC construct couldn’t care less. You know, as in Eisenhower’s quip that the republic needs deity and it doesn’t matter which one. That’s neither Judaic nor Christian.
LikeLike
Petros – I am off to read some Van Drunnen
Erik – You’ll have better luck if you read Van Drunen.
And Tom couldn’t find that Calvin quote because he was looking for Jean Calvin.
Chain-yankers all…
LikeLike
The best works of Christian piety are those no one else knows about. Spend about two minutes looking around your own neighborhood and you’ll find ample opportunities for good works. Part of our problem is that we have too many people making their living doing “full time Christian work” who feel pressure to find all kinds of crap for the rest of us to do to justify their jobs.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted March 14, 2014 at 7:55 am | Permalink
vd, t, so first you’ve never heard any answer to Matt 25, now you don’t like the answer.
You’re doing your impersonation of a woman again.
Jesus’s story of the sheep and the goats plainly instructs us to take care of “the least of these.”
By the time you and John Calvin are done deconstructing it, it’s all about you and your salvation. I learn something here at your theological society every day, it’s true. I never thought Christianity could be so solipsistic, but here you are.
LikeLike
vd, t, ” I never thought”
doh!
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke
Posted March 14, 2014 at 2:25 pm | Permalink
D. G. Hart
Posted March 14, 2014 at 7:55 am | Permalink
vd, t, so first you’ve never heard any answer to Matt 25, now you don’t like the answer.
You’re doing your impersonation of a woman again.
Jesus’s story of the sheep and the goats plainly instructs us to take care of “the least of these.”
By the time you and John Calvin are done deconstructing it, it’s all about you and your salvation. I learn something here at your theological society every day, it’s true. I never thought Christianity could be so solipsistic, but here you are.
D. G. Hart
Posted March 14, 2014 at 5:06 pm | Permalink
vd, t, ” I never thought”
doh!
Make a dirty joke out of my name then take me out of context for a cheap shot? Is that what just happened, Dr. Hart?
This all gets amazinger and amazinger.
As for your appropriation of Matthew 25, that’s also fascinating. Any normal person would see a plain command to help “the least of these,” but instead you offer theology. Sola scriptura indeed, brother.
_______
Zrim
Posted March 14, 2014 at 10:05 am | Permalink
Petros, nobody is saying that hospitals and soup kitchens are “epicenters of earthly power or prosperity gospel.” Nor is there anything wrong with acts of charity. The point is to wonder why these are the esteemed marks of Christian piety when perfectly unbelieving people do them…
Indeed, Romans 2, the natural law.
Ooops. How did that last one get in there, Darryl?
[Yeah, yeah
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/weighing-our-works/
but once again y’all change the subject from the instruction to care for the “last of these” to the straw man of [implicitly that Catholicism preaches] “salvation by works.”
Now I’m getting the hang of your “sola scriptura” thing. it all sounds reasonable to anyone who doesn’t read them.
To Mr. Z—
“Nor is there anything wrong with acts of charity.” Zrim, are acts of charity the natural law or the result only of the [Judeo-]Christian theology? There’s a principled discussion to be had here.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted March 14, 2014 at 10:27 am | Permalink
>>Petros – I am off to read some Van Drunnen
Erik – You’ll have better luck if you read Van Drunen.<<
And Tom couldn’t find that Calvin quote because he was looking for Jean Calvin.
Chain-yankers all…
Erik, please understand, I wasn’t looking for the John Calvin quote in the first place. By your own theology, he’s not a prophet or a pope and he’s certainly not Jesus or Moses or even Paul of Tarsus.
He’s just some guy, no more anointed than Aquinas, Kuyper, Charter.
Hart.
“Jean Calvin” is his actual name, you could look it up. You and I and Darryl Hart are some of the few who use their real names around here in your theological society. Besides you and Darryl, the few who do use their real names tend to keep civil tongues in their typing fingers.
[FTR, I admired Kenneth and Andrew recently “coming out” with their real names here @ OLTS. And of course, Bryan Cross reliably shows up here at the theological society to offer his other cheek after a Darryl Hart slap at his intelligence or integrity.
Don’t wanna neglect the others who sign their real identities–Mr. McC, John Bugay, “Mike L. Mann,” sort of. I believe Mr. Zrim’s secret identity is a thinly-veiled secret–I’ve seen some commenters on other sites call him out, yes?]
I’m just sittin’ here watching the wheels go round and round. A theological society where few sign their real names and the few who do clearly don’t think anythink antone is watching.
LikeLike
Tom, locate charity wherever you please. My point is that they is entirely secondary to the regular attendance of the means of grace and church membership in relation to more genuine Christian piety. Kind of how being married outpaces the romeo who speaks in platitudes about the wonders of women and brags about his treatment of them.
ps speaking of, your non-affiliated antagonism is like the perpetual bachelor hounding the married about their faults and inconsistencies (real and perceived).
pps the row over non/anonymity on blogs bores me. It comes with the breezy territory, so what?
LikeLike
Zrim’s identity is only slightly less secret in the blogosphere than Kim Kardashian’s is on TV. The only thing that makes him less conspicuous is that he has a smaller behind. He’s the Zelig of online theological discussion.
His real name is Leonard Zlotnik.
.
LikeLike
Tom,
If you’re going to use Jean Calvin please quote him in Latin or French.
LikeLike
Tom,
Think of it as the Old Life Theological Society Bar & Grille and it will make more sense to you. Two for one drink specials during happy hour.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted March 15, 2014 at 4:42 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Think of it as the Old Life Theological Society Bar & Grille and it will make more sense to you. Two for one drink specials during happy hour.
Way righteous, Erik. You guys careen from YouTubing stupid movies to Dr. Darryl G. Hart perverting my initials into “venereal disease” to hating on Catholics and Republicans.
Trying to keep up on the vibe here except the “venereal disease” part, calling people names. That gets somebody dragged out into the alley even if he owns the place anywhere on this planet.
Every time I respond to you, I can call you Erik Farter if you want–to illustrate the point–but my heart won’t be in it. I hope you can hear me on this.
I can do the great stupid movie part [as you know, Mrs. TVD was in one!], and research the Catholic or Baylyan theology on this or that, and even make a half-hearted defense of the Republican Party [esp compared to Democratic Party, which is the party of choice of those who hate Christianity].
The rest I could live without. Your call, Mr. Farter. ;-P
LikeLike
Tom,
I do fart whenever I get the chance so I would have no valid objection.
LikeLike
George/Tom: I can sense the slightest human suffering.
Jerry/Old Life: Are you sensing anything right now?
LikeLike
LikeLike
If you want to go full-on, period French I believe “Jehan Cauvin” is right, though contemporary Francophones use “Jean Cauvin.” And the scholarly Latin name was Ionannes Calvinus, so take your pick.
LikeLike
If only Jean Calvin had lived long enough to meet Megan Calvet:
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted March 17, 2014 at 10:41 am | Permalink
Tom,
I do fart whenever I get the chance so I would have no valid objection.
You’re a good sport, man. But my heart just isn’t in calling people dirty names although I tried with Darryl when he calls me “VD.” I guess I’m just not OLTS material afterall. Calvinism is a tough town.
You’re a good and faithful friend defending him even when it’s indefensible. Cheers, brother.
LikeLike