If No Call to Prayer at Duke . . .

What’s with the High Mass at Princeton?

After leading an Ignatian retreat in Boston, Father Carlos Hamel FSJC will be coming to Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey and publicly offering a High Mass in the University Chapel at 9 PM on Tuesday February 3 for the Aquinas Institute. There will be a reception afterwards. This will be, to our knowledge, the first, non-Nuptial, Traditional Latin Mass in the University’s Anglo-Catholic inspired chapel and has special significance as Princeton Alumnus Brother Gerhard FSJC will be serving Mass as well.

Why no respect for Princeton’s Presbyterian heritage? Where’s the outrage?

Advertisements

80 thoughts on “If No Call to Prayer at Duke . . .

  1. Cat basher I am, I can’t think the mass is worse than this sort of thing.

    “The Presbyterian Church USA is famous for its 1993 conference, cosponsored with the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainline churches, in which participants “reimagined” God as “Our Maker Sophia” and held a feminist-inspired “milk and honey” ritual designed to replace traditional bread-and-wine Communion.”

    PCUSA and all.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/09/opinion/op-allen9

    Like

  2. Why is this so hard. See the lines “the University’s *Anglo-Catholic* inspired chapel…” It’s a Christian service in a building that has strong connections to the service in question, reflected in its architecture.

    A moslem call to prayer from a Duke Chapel tower has no such connection whatsoever. In fact, the stained glass windows are an affront to Moslem theology since they contain human imagery. Etc. Islam and Christianity are opposing faiths. They are not compatible, no matter who much believers like Peter Kreeft or posers like Katharine Jefferts Schori might think so. Likewise, I don’t think BYU needs to apologize for an future forbiddance of a Franklin Graham rally in the Marriott Center. Mormons and Baptists can be friends, but institutionally and theologically they are at odds. We need to be civil to all people, not host their religious displays just because they ask us. Even if we are sometimes inconsistent. Duke’s Chapel is tied to its position as a Methodist university. At lest somewhat, still, and for the moment. Even if their residual Methodism is spasmodic at best, it is still a family loyalty that they have every right to respect whenever and as long as they want to.

    The impulse here to shove the relics of Christendom over the cliff as leftover artifacts of hypocrisy leaves me mystified. The world may be going to Hell in a well-oiled hand basket, but why would we be clap-happy about it in the name of intellectual consistency? Even fleeting remembrances of Jesus’ truth are better than bureaucratically-proppoed up testaments to the hollow claims of his rivals. I am being a little hyberbolic, but I can’t help think of these faded lines from Eric Alexander at an old Urbana conference (sorry if that give you hives):

    “Do you know the story of Henry Martyn, that great Cambridge scholar who in his brief life served God in the East translating the Bible into Persian? He told how at one point in his travels he had seen a drawing in which Jesus was represented as catching hold of the garments of Mohammed and bowing to him. Martyn was deeply distressed in spirit. He was in tears. When someone asked him what was upsetting him he replied, “I could not endure existence if Jesus were not to be glorified. It would be hell to me if He were always thus to be dishonored.”

    Like

  3. Joe M., it’s not complicated. Methodism of the John Wesley or Francis Asbury has nothing to do with Gothic chapels. Once you cross that line, why draw it at Islam?

    Like

  4. Bravo, Joe M. The stunning lack of understanding of the pernicious nature of Islam–which is a political and legal ideology carried inside the Trojan horse of religion–is why so many in the West bend over backwards to accommodate it, lest we appear “intolerant.” When truthful Muslims say they seek world domination by Islam, we refuse to believe them or we pretend they are a tiny minority, rather than look at history and recognize that domination–and all it entails–is a fundamental feature of Islamic ideology. Islam is entirely incompatible with Western civilization. No matter where else we draw lines, we must *always* draw the line at Islam.

    Like

  5. When Al Bundy had to sell gas to pay off a debt and was wearing a shirt with Habib as his name:

    JIM Well, hello there… [reads the name on Al’s shirt] Habib! Family, what is the proper
    way to say hello to a friend from the other hemisphere?

    FAMILY May the prophet smile upon you, Habib!

    I think there is a lot to think upon there…

    Like

  6. Willimon being published in Modern Reformation along with the Lutherans and others who teach some form of universal atonement is nothing to get excited about. Indeed, it could be that Willimon and Hauerwas are more dangerous in the long term because their sincere anti-liberalism gains them influence. It’s time that we recover from the relativism of saying that since the liberals are not Christians, this must mean that the anti-liberals are closer to teaching the gospel in which Christ actually saves every person for whom He died. The Barthian dialectic is still not Christian, either in confessional or biblicist terms.

    http://willimon.blogspot.com/2008/05/who-will-be-saved.html

    Even though I am not excited about 1000 wins for coach k, I do look forward to another Duke win over St Johns…..

    Like

  7. LadyDoc, so when Billy Graham said he wanted to make the world Christian and led “crusades” to get there, that didn’t trouble you (especially if you are Roman Catholic)?

    Like

  8. No, D. G., it did not bother me because Graham was not trying to subjugate the world, but win it over to Christianity (we can debate the virtues of Catholicism and Protestantism, but both are infinitely superior to Islam by their very nature). By using the word “crusades,” I infer you are alluding to the original Crusades, which I’m sure you know were a defensive move against 400 years of Muslim aggression–aggression demanded of them by their “holy” book. Had not our forbears the willingness to tell the truth about what they were dealing with, all of Europe would now be under the Islamic boot.

    Like

  9. “Joe M., it’s not complicated. Methodism of the John Wesley or Francis Asbury has nothing to do with Gothic chapels. Once you cross that line, why draw it at Islam?”

    That is an interesting question that needs to be followed back even further in order to get to an answer. The chapel at Duke, as does every other visible sign of worship taking place within the space of a building, has vestiges of an early design. And so, every representation of Protestantism is borrowing it’s regulative principle of worship from something within those confines, although it has no scriptural support for doing so. Take for instance the procession of the clergy in a Reformed service as coming down the side aisle to arrive at the front where their is a table, or more predominately, a lecturn.
    Why would they employ this when there is no support for doing so found in the NT? I use to wonder what determind the regulative principle of worship when there were things being done that were clearly outside the explicit commands of scripture. In other words, I knew that it was following a tradition, but it was obviously tweeked to serve a Reformed liturgy.

    It’s clear to me now that the Reformed procession is a vestige of Roman Catholic liturgy, when the priest heads in the direction of the altar( which is suppose to be facing East; the direction of Our Lord’s return), through the Nave, etc…

    All this to say, that yes Methodism has something to do with Gothic Chapels, and it is the same kinship that Presbyterian/Reformed has to them; that is, a desired continuity with Christianity’s past but only in so far as those elements are ones that they themselves approve.

    In regards to Islam, Joe and LadyDoc are absolutely correct.

    “It very nearly destroyed us. It kept up the battle against Christendom actively for a thousand years, and the story is by no means over; the power of Islam may at any moment
    re-arise.” ~Hilaire Belloc

    Here’s the rest of the essay:
    http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/heresy4.txt

    Like

  10. “Had not our forbears the willingness to tell the truth about what they were dealing with, all of Europe would now be under the Islamic boot.”

    Yes, and not only that, since there would have been no European Civilization that valued the Western Tradion ,she would not have given birth to the United States of America. If you value pluralism, then you have to be grateful for the Crusades.

    Like

  11. LadyDoc, well, it used to be that Roman Catholics thought there was no salvation outside THEE church, which would have put folks like Graham in mortal peril. Protestants didn’t rebel against the pope just because they thought they could get a cozier deal in heaven. Now maybe you think there are different echelons of hell for different kinds of false belief. But don’t blame me for mistrusting you about Islam if you think that heresy and disobedience can be overlooked when it comes to Protestantism.

    As for holy books and what kind of violence they sanction, do you really think the OT gives no warrant for a crusade? Or do you think the Crusaders should have acted more like Christ?

    Like

  12. Ahem, is there no objectivity in modern post modern 2kism?

    Whatever the respective disciples do with the texts, can we really equate the Bible with the Koran? One written by many, one written by one; one in which the specific calls to violently eradicate the Caananites, who’s cup of iniquity was full of sexual perversions and child sacrifice, cease with the destruction of Israel as a nation with one which increases in the general calls to violence? One in which a prophet and messiah who dies a martyr’s death and rises from the dead with a prophet who’s own life exemplifies and advocates slavery, jihad and under age marriage?

    Granted the Mormons had a violent beginning, but now they have turned into the most loyal of Americans – though it is often forgot that the First Amendment notwithstanding, the US govt. still told Brigham Young and the faithful that polygamy would have to go if Utah was to become a state.
    And the rest is history, boys and girls.

    But now with Islam, all this has changed and secular Turkey is given as an example why we shouldn’t look askance at the large numbers of Muslim immigrants?
    Hmmm. We does not unnerstan the finer points of this debacle debate.
    Inudderwurds, where’s the enlightenment when it is needed?

    Like

  13. Take for instance the procession of the clergy in a Reformed service as coming down the side aisle to arrive at the front where their is a table, or more predominately, a lecturn.
    Why would they employ this when there is no support for doing so found in the NT? I use to wonder what determind the regulative principle of worship when there were things being done that were clearly outside the explicit commands of scripture. In other words, I knew that it was following a tradition, but it was obviously tweeked to serve a Reformed liturgy.

    Come on Susan, don’t be ridiculous. Sometimes you just need to get into the building. So you come through the door, not the window. IOW the natural light of reason as WCF” 1:6 mentions.

    And regardless if John Frame’s Worship Children all insist on a fundamentalist read of Scripture, the RPW properly understood is that ‘whatever God does not command – explicitly or implicitly – is forbidden in the worship of God’.
    Further, implicit commands entail approved examples of worship in Scripture or the good and necessary consequences of Scripture.

    Just so we know what we are talking about before we mis-characterize it.
    You wouldn’t want us to do that with Rome, so please return the favor.

    Like

  14. Bob, I think Susan just likes to drop questions here and watch the comments fly. She’s been at it a kool (aid her in her spiritual quest? we old-lifers can not) 3 years or so now, it’s getting a little tiresome (last time, I think she dropped some questions on christology or some sort, just to see what oldlifers would see…sheesh…..).

    Susan, we know (and you do too)

    Protestants should — gulp — love Roman Catholics because they are forefathers in the faith. No Roman Catholicism, no Protestantism.

    But… but……

    wait for it..

    But with that love comes the recognition that Rome, like Jerusalem, failed.

    I’m going to need to turn on autobot Andrew here pretty soon, Suz.

    Who’s next?

    Like

  15. Yes I did. I also know that the first churches were Basilicas. But It isn’t as if it is a cosmic accident that Jesus was born during the reign of Caesar Augustus.

    Chesterton on Conversion to the Catholic Church:

    “I know very well that if I went upon that journey I should either
    despair or return; and that none of the trees would ever be a
    substitute for the real sacred tree. Paganism is better than
    pantheism, for paganism is free to imagine divinities, while
    pantheism is forced to pretend, in a priggish way, that all things
    are equally divine. But I should not imagine any divinity that was
    sufficiently divine. I seem to know that weary return through the
    woodlands; for I think in some symbolic fashion I have walked that
    road before. For as I have tried to confess here without excessive
    egotism, I think I am the sort of man who came to Christ from Pan
    and Dionysus and not from Luther or Laud; that the conversion I
    understand is that of the pagan and not the Puritan; and upon that
    antique conversion is founded the whole world that we know. It is
    a transformation far more vast and tremendous than anything that
    has been meant for many years past, at least in England and
    America, by a sectarian controversy or a doctrinal division. On the
    height of that ancient empire and that international experience,
    humanity had a vision. It has not had another; but only quarrels
    about that one. Paganism was the largest thing in the world and
    Christianity was larger; and everything else has been
    comparatively small.”

    Like

  16. Bob,

    “Just so we know what we are talking about before we mis-characterize it.
    You wouldn’t want us to do that with Rome, so please return the favor.”

    I’m not trying to mischaracterize anyone, so if you feel that I have, please tell me how. I was observing the worship around me and asking sincere questions.

    “And regardless if John Frame’s Worship Children all insist on a fundamentalist read of Scripture, the RPW properly understood is that ‘whatever God does not command – explicitly or implicitly – is forbidden in the worship of God’.”

    Okay so you aren’t a fundamentalist. I never thought that most Reformed Protestants were, but how do you defend your liturgy against someone who disagrees with how you do it, and how do you critique theirs traditional practice?

    “Further, implicit commands entail approved examples of worship in Scripture or the good and necessary consequences of Scripture.”

    Ok, so if it’s in scripture the Church should still be employing its use, except where The Church has deemed those out of use. How is this following the regulative principle if people at later dates on the timeline are disapproving of earlier approved practices? Didn’t they know how to follow the same principle?

    To help you understand what I am trying to say about the Reformed Liturgy being a sign to me that I should be looking for the Catholic Church(in the true sense)here is a section from Chesterton that has to do with it, only he is speaking of seeing the dicrepancy from a different angle, and he can draw you a picture much better than I ever could.

    “What is any man who has
    been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the
    everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the
    Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost
    arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The
    ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the
    supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a
    procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their
    object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high
    head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying
    scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and
    lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or
    cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all
    hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation,
    breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up
    the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might
    express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your
    croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls
    and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable
    frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the
    scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always
    belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was
    hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say
    that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only
    truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why
    should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the
    statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as
    reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of
    that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and
    scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say,
    “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to
    worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not
    sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the
    street.”

    Anyways, make of it what you will. I am making dinner, and won’t be back.

    Like

  17. Susan, light indeed.

    Recently, for example, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the President of Turkey, claimed that Muslims were the first to discover America and this, no doubt, will soon be taken seriously by Western educators. Multiculturalists would love to believe that America was discovered not by a light-skinned European Christian but by a dark-skinned Muslim. It would fit in nicely with their decades-long campaign to undermine the Western tradition. Thanks to his teachers, the average Western student doesn’t know much about history, but he does know that he was born into a rotten culture with an appalling history of racism, sexism, and imperialism.

    How much koolaid do you need to drink to take this hysterically?

    Like

  18. Frankly, I don’t see a big difference between Pat Buchanan and a radical Islamist imam. After all, it was Pat who declared a Culture War.

    We Protestants know (or at least should know) that the Culture War was settled 2000 years ago on a cross outside of Jerusalem. Christ won. End of story. Now, back to my pinot noir.

    Like

  19. DG Hart, I find your books and website engaging and ‘brilliant.’ That said, invoking Graham’s use of the word ‘crusade’ as even remotely equatable with Islam’s… Come on, that is controversialist crap worthy of Catholic Answer’s most clown-like stars…. Think Patrick Madrid. Please cease and desist. go share a glass of wine with the Mrs., for crying loud.

    Like

  20. D. G. Hart
    Posted January 23, 2015 at 10:32 pm | Permalink
    Susan, but Chesterton was obese.

    ________________

    Bobby
    Posted January 24, 2015 at 12:21 am | Permalink
    Frankly, I don’t see a big difference between Pat Buchanan and a radical Islamist imam.

    Ah, the Old Life “Theological” Society. How much koolaid do you need to drink to take this hysterically indeed. Congratulations, Darryl, you never fail to disappoint.

    Like

  21. Joe and TVD, just because there are differences between Christian culture warriors and militant Islamists doesn’t mean there aren’t similarities.

    Like

  22. Joe M., I don’t like to share.

    Don’t you think it odd that evangelical Protestants would be so clueless as to call an evangelistic service a “Crusade”? And what of Wheaton College having as its mascot (until a few years ago) the Crusaders? Sure, it’s not equitable with Roman Catholicism’s crusades. But why use the word after that sorry episode in Western Christian history?

    Like

  23. TVD, can one who doesn’t attend worship regularly rightly criticize the virtue of a website’s theological content?

    Theological pontificator, heal thyself.

    Like

  24. Andrew
    Posted January 24, 2015 at 10:51 pm | Permalink
    TVD, can one who doesn’t attend worship regularly rightly criticize the virtue of a website’s theological content?

    Theological pontificator, heal thyself.

    Ad hom, although I’m sure Darryl appreciates you yapping on his behalf.

    As for the theology of this “theological” society, saying Chesterton was fat and Buchanan’s the same as a radical imam is infantilism, not theology. I didn’t even bother with the theology, which is now post after post of sophomoric anti-Catholicism.

    Now that The Wire is off, you don’t even have TV to talk about. American Calvinism has fallen on such hard times.

    Like

  25. Tom, come after this yapper all you like. This reformed catholic knows there is no ordinary possibility of salvation outside the church:

    2. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

    Call me sappy, but I care for your soul. No game show is going to get us out of the mess we humans find ourselves in.

    Yappy Spaulding, over and out.

    Like

  26. Anyways, make of it what you will. I am making dinner, and won’t be back.

    The problem, Susan, is that most of the time you aren’t really here, when you are here.

    You evade the main point and major in minors in reply to mine. But then again Rome’s numbering of the commandments makes it easy to ignore that how we worship God is not to be ignored by including it in the first.

    Likewise your quote of Chesterton, who generally is quite the smooth stylist, Romanist or no, is obtuse and incoherent, i.e. beside the point if you even know what it is.

    But hey, Ken falls back on his pentecostal background often enough to critique the reformed, CVD is drinking the terrurist koolaid as well the romanist and Bryan, well Bryan has his problems.

    When he is isn’t begging the question and assuming what he must prove, that Rome IS the church Christ established, we’re left with stuff like his triumphal declaration that forensic justification, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, is a legal fiction and therefore a nullity.
    Yet what we are really waiting breathlessly for is his defense of the corollary of this theological gem; that God cannot impute our sins to Christ, but that Christ must really be a sinner/partake of sin before his atonement carries any water with the Father.

    So I guess you’re par for the course and on track with your partners in the Vatican faith.
    No big surprise there.

    cheers.

    Like

  27. DGH, working on Americans, good thing seasons 1 and 2 are streaming. Hey, and I just found out The Wire (entire thing) is streaming too, for prime members (thanks to my better half for getting prime), which is an improvement. Last time I ventured down the path for that HBO show, I had to get the DVDs from the library. It’s always easier when a show like the Americans or the Wire is just a click away. I’ll refrain from opining all things TV until I can speak Omar, Bunk, etc with you all. Broadchurch is still on my to watch list..

    Like

  28. Culture War: That’s when an adherent of the western antichrist opposes the adherents of the eastern antichrist on the basis of natural canon law regarding things like polygamy, honor killings, female genital mutilation, jihad etc.

    At the same time, our warrior not redskin also opposes the imposition of sexual egalitarianism by the pseudo egalitarian elite, of whom we are told in Rom. 13, are no terror to good works.

    Uh huh. Which is why the recent change in “worldview” the party line; all things that are lawful according to the civil magistrate have now become mandatory. Refusing to service a mix and match affair of the heart between Abbot and Costello and the Three Stooges is now for the first time in history, a “hate” crime. And hating those who commit the same, is a good work.

    Further, while a mass at Princeton should be deplored as much or more than a meeting of the mosque at Duke, Burke’s comments on the French Revolution come to mind. History, tradition and custom can be and many times are stronger than reason and theory. Would be philosophes and revolutionaries ignore them at the peril of the cause. Likewise 2Kers. Popery, as bad as it is, has an American history. Islam, not so much. Further Protestantism came out of the deformed Roman church, while Islam with a nod to Judaic and Christian monotheism, is basically sui generis Arab paganism.

    Like

  29. Andrew
    Posted January 24, 2015 at 11:16 pm | Permalink
    Tom, come after this yapper all you like. This reformed catholic knows there is no ordinary possibility of salvation outside the church:

    2. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

    Call me sappy, but I care for your soul. No game show is going to get us out of the mess we humans find ourselves in.

    Yappy Spaulding, over and out.

    You’re in the Pope’s church, like it or not. Quit yer yapping. You’re “separated” but not damned.

    Stop getting your Catholicism from Darryl Hart and you’ll be OK.

    D. G. Hart
    Posted January 25, 2015 at 8:05 am | Permalink
    AB, tell vd, t about Broadchurch.

    Oh, and tell Dr. Dirtymouth that as a theologian, his real gift is writing about cable TV.

    Like

  30. who’s avatar do I see?

    The divines considered themselves reformed Catholics and therefore did not want to isolate themselves from the rest of the church, but saw their broader engagement with other periods of history and other theological traditions as evidence of their catholicity.

    The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights
    By J. V. Fesko

    Do I really need to keep doing this?

    6. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof. [see opc[dot]org/wcf[dot]html#Chapter_25]

    Like

  31. Oh, and tell Dr. Dirtymouth that as a theologian, his real gift is writing about cable TV.

    tell to the WSJ (hello Darryl):

    D.G. Hart is a cantankerous conservative, a stalwart Presbyterian and a talented polemicist with a delightfully perverse sense of humor. (For years he coedited a newsletter called the Nicotine Theological Journal.) He is best known for his books critiquing American religious cultures of the 20th century, particularly “The Lost Soul of American Protestantism” (2002) and “From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin ” (2011). He isn’t known as an expert on early modern Europe, however, and I wondered whether he was the ideal candidate to write a history of Calvinism. I underestimated the man. “Calvinism” covers its imposingly diverse subject with scholarly precision and the kind of charity and balance one hopes for in any historian.

    Like

  32. Spent the weekend hearing all about the ways of Jesus from 2 guys who don’t go to church.

    Thought (un)fondly of Tom many times.

    The internet is full of guys who, while not actually living in mom’s basement in adulthood, act as if they are still living in mom’s basement in adulthood.

    Like

  33. TVD says: “You’re in the Pope’s church, like it or not. Quit yer yapping. You’re “separated” but not damned.”
    Asking for myself, what would I have to do TO be damned. What if I were born, baptized, first communion-ed, and confirmed RCC, but have since come to regard my early faith as the grandest and longest running Satanic deception of all time? What if I were to be found embracing, yay CELEBRATING and proclaiming every point of doctrine and practice the adherents of which are declared to be under the solemn anathema of God by Trent? Suppose I saw it as my God given mission on earth to convince as many other folks as I possibly could of the wickedness of Roman Catholicism?

    What if I were to be observed gleefully splashing about in all of the mortal sin of involved in such theological, ecclesiastical apostasy WHILE sneeringly denouncing Rome’s sacerdotal remedies for this sin? A single one of which is supposed to be damnable if persisted in.

    Pretend you are pontiff for a day, thus removing the escape of such decisions being left to the magisterium alone. Am I, as of this writing, on my way to hell?

    Don’t be shy and don’t lemme down now. I can’t take any more disappointment from prissy powederpuff papists. I demand my date with the stake.

    Like

  34. Erik, can you alert me when Tom says anything worthwhile on here?

    I see his name and scroll down since his last 1,000 posts have been worse than boring and dumb.

    Like

  35. Season one of “True Detective” is as dark as anything I’ve seen until it gets cartoonish.

    Reminded me of the bad guys in “8mm” (Peter Stormare, among them).

    On HBO – from time to time we get that accidentally but always axe it because we don’t want the boys stumbling upon anything, especially after 10 p.m. Had it last week for a day and there was some show on with a naked (“former”) porn star narrating some show about sex. Just naked, not doing anything special. Maybe the big 3 networks should consider that for the nightly news. Would sure raise the ratings.

    Then there’s Skinemax after dark with what are apparently retired gymnasts having sex.

    How we keep them from ever seeing things on the internet is another question…

    Like

  36. Kent,

    Won’t take much vigilance to monitor those comments for salient points short of an attitude change on Tom’s part.

    Let’s just both assume they will be irrelevant until further notice.

    Like

  37. Go to Twitter and search for:

    @xDTOx

    A man after Tom Van Dyke & Curt Day’s own hearts — one with his annoyance factor, the other with his politics.

    Former Pentecostal, now flaming liberal who knows what Jesus wants.

    Like

  38. O.K. Maybe one more.

    Kenneth has some career counseling for Jason (Beats selling cars for minimum wage AND explains why Medicare is going to bankrupt us):

    Kenneth Winsmann
    January 26, 2015 at 11:32 AM

    Also,

    If you are looking for another job send me an email. I can offer you a pharmaceutical sales contract that pays residual income and takes very little time and effort. I made 10k my first week barely even trying. Let me know.

    Like

  39. Back from the cruise.

    Jason getting threatening messages from unemployment. Jason drops his first F-bomb.

    Jason applying for lots of new jobs. Hoping to get out of the car business as soon as possible. Maybe back to Presbyterian ministry? The PCUSA would probably take him and pay him six figures (my comment, not his).

    Friends brought DEP shot glasses on the cruise to surprise Jason & Christian. Jason & Christian duly surprised.

    Making an appeal for funds and positive online reviews. Phone # 213-97-DRUNK

    Jason recounts calling a radio station as a kid and requesting “King of Pain” by The Police. Christian’s never heard of it.

    Jason’s favorite Madonna song: “La Isla Bonita” (Oh, my…)

    Sorry, I nodded off there.

    Talking about a shot that tastes like Cinnamon Toast Crunch.

    Jason liked the cruise a lot. It was his first cruise.

    A guy who started off the podcast talking about his unemployment benefits is now talking about the premier food & alcohol package he was treated to on the cruise…

    Christian ate so much that when he climbed into bed at 11 each night he could barely move.

    Later I’m sure we’ll be hearing how virtuous these guys are because they are liberal critics of capitalism and friends of the poor…

    Christian took Jason because he had bought the ticket for his girlfriend but they broke up (the blonde flight attendant, I assume).

    Guy on the ship thought that Jason & Christian had broken up.

    Christian plays audio of Jason snoring loudly on the cruise. May need a Breathe Right Strip or a CPAP Machine. Christian had to resort to earplugs and pillows over his head.

    Watched “I Origins” and “The Railway Man” on the cruise.

    Caller calls in to report that Jason ate mushrooms on the cruise. Claims he never had before.

    More talk about mushrooms. Nodded off again.

    Realize they’re being boring. Mention a critic who they will not name who “frustrates them to no end”. Either me or Tom Van Dyke via osmosis.

    Used car talk. Jason talking about bad reviews. Key phrase: “You fu**ed me over, you rich, entitled a**hole.”

    On to talking about a pastor who punched a kid in the chest. Drunk-Ex-Pastors disapproving. Jason does refrain of making fun of Protestantism ((ignoring rule #1 of dealing with a heckler (me) – don’t let him (me) impact the game.))

    Christian says, “F**k that guy.” in reference to the pastor.

    Break to refill drinks.

    Now talking about stereotypes. This is where the show usually becomes a lethally effective, PC-laden sleep-aid.

    2nd F-bomb from Christian, although he was quoting someone.

    Jason makes reference to “Resting Bitch Face”, which I hadn’t heard of and is pretty funny.

    Lots of fat people on the cruise. Carts for them to get in on the ship to move them around. Lots of Eastern European & people of color on the ship’s crew.

    Jason and Christian describe Americans as “fat, rich, and entitled.” Maybe not incorrect.

    Ship left from Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Someone fell off another ship and wasn’t picked up for 5 hours. Talk about how scary that must have been. Have they seen “Open Water”?

    They get a call from a student at Duke Divinity School about the dustup there of late. Question: Is there such a thing as sacred space? Caller says he’s studying to be a DEP. “I’m glad he knows where it’s going!”, Christian says, intending humor.

    Jason talks about a friend seeing The Virgin Mary’s house (was Jeremy Tate there?). Protestant Jason wants to dismiss the notion of sacred space. Hated the word “sanctuary”. The Catholic part of him likes the idea. More “they” talk from Jason in referring to Catholic practice. Jason thinks there are all kinds of places “where God and humanity touch.” Christian admits to digging the old churches of Europe and reflecting on all that has gone on there.

    Jason jokes that “King Charles V ‘jizzed’ (released semen) on this spot”

    Jason marvels at some guy “freezing his balls off in the old timey days” carving a gargoyle.

    Jason asks if Duke is a Catholic University (newby slip showing). Says Prots don’t have a robust belief in sacred spaces so if Duke is Prot their spaces can’t be defiled. “In order for a place to be disgraced it first has to be graced.”

    Christian speculates about Muslims “jizzing” all over Westminster Cathedral. (wouldn’t mess with speculations like that personally. At least he didn’t reference Mohammed).

    Jason admits to not knowing “Jack Shit” about his new religion (Catholicism).

    Summary is Jason now respects sacred space since he’s a Catholic but he shat upon it as a Protestant. Agnostic Christian appears to be rather agnostic on the topic (no surprise).

    Now on to “American Sniper” (preparing self for Jason to fan his peacock-like plumage of self-righteous, predictable liberal outrage).

    Starts off with Jason admitting he hasn’t seen the movie (bad start). Christian hasn’t either. Christian has read a book about Chris Kyle. Christian wouldn’t mind seeing the movie.

    Jason is relying on what Michael Moore has said about the movie (oh, great).

    (Now tuning out pretty much everything Jason is saying because HE HASN’T SEEN THE MOVIE HE’S PROGNOSTICATING ON)…

    Jason seems to miss the point that Chris Kyle was killed by an American Vet back in Texas and not an insurgent in Iraq. Details, details…

    Talking about some Christian military wife who had an affair (or something). I’m having trouble staying focused.

    Christian now talking about the Golden Globes. Christian has held an Oscar Party for 7 years now. Christian launches into a defense of movies as art (I can go there).

    Christian liked “Boyhood”. Jason agrees.

    Jason argues that television has eclipsed film since “The Sopranos”.

    My comment is that film is art, but it is somewhat lower than opera, classical music, theater, and painting/sculpture, etc. since it is generally aimed at more of a mass audience and is generally more accessible. Not a bad thing, just different. Gets into the old low/mid/high cult debate that Dwight MacDonald covered so well.

    Jason sneers at both “artsy-fartsy leftists” and “fundamentalist right-wingers” who are both down on movies.

    Christian says movies are the highest form of art. No – maybe the most expensive – but not the highest.

    Jason lauds the work of Brad Pitt & Keanu Reeves (leaves out McConaughey) as actors who have become artists. They mention Damon, Affleck, and Clooney.

    Not terrible on this topic.

    They admit they might have to take Justin Bieber seriously someday.

    Things go downhill and Jason brings up Nikki Sixx giving Bieber the bird.

    Jason says anyone who looks down on movies is just a snob.

    Christian invites Jason to his Oscar party.

    And that’s Drunk Ex Pastors 27.

    Like

  40. Shared my blog post on the Called to Communion post that welcomes Jason as a contributor.

    We’ll see if Bryan has the stones to let that one see that light of day.

    Most likely he will want to keep Jason encased safely in amber circa 2013.

    Like

  41. D.G.,

    When they’re not cruising or hanging in Christian’s basement recording the podcast, Jason is hanging by a thread at the car dealership and Christian is gainfully employed as a web developer at Moss Adams, a large regional CPA firm.

    His primary contribution appears to be pushing for a firm dress code that include jeans.

    Like

  42. Huh. What. Jason the Drunk Ex-Pastor?
    How come I didn’t read about that in all its fullness over Bryan’s Called to Roman Confusion, Chaos and Cliques?
    There’s something rotten in Denmark and I am at a loss for understanding until one of the sub popes speaks up. Hurry, please.
    Maybe Joshua Lim can say something obtuse about Luther’s nominalism which explains Jason’s latent tendencies after the fact. Or Fr. Scharbach can explain how praying to saints sometimes is like emails that don’t get through, because Jason hasn’t got the message yet even if Scharbach and his happy family of seven kids is still praying to Jason to wise up. (Hey, ontologically, a live saint is still a saint like a dead saint so praying to one instead of the other can’t be a problem OK?)
    I smell a reality show in the making with all the extra proceeds going to dry clean Bryan’s cap.

    Like

  43. Bob,

    Can we fault Bryan for wanting to preserve the Jason with whom he shared that one, brief shining moment?

    His site is not a news site. It is merely a site for news that makes him look good.

    Like

  44. We could be only days away from Jason Stellman, Pharmaceutical Sales Representative:

    Jason J. Stellman
    January 26, 2015 at 6:39 PM

    Kenneth, I’m at work. Send me the job deets: j(dot)stellman(at)comcast(dot)net.

    Like

  45. Two ways to deal with the narcissistic troll commenter:

    (1) Ignore them. They get pleasure from leaving their comment, but no pleasure from reading responses. They silently question why no one is loving them as much as they love themselves.

    (2) Give it right back to them good and hard. Generally not as effective as (1), but hard core cases will not get the message that everyone is ignoring them and may need to be told directly that they need to get a clue — possibly many, many, many times.

    Downside to (2): Most narcissists have few true friends and may relish whatever human interaction they are able to get, even if it is negative. Responding to them may only exacerbate the problem.

    Like

  46. Overcome the troll but not by being a troll?

    Do not persecute those who persecute?

    sure Jesus was a pacifist and Jesus forgave some would-be theocratic fanatics, but you are not Jesus, you are not God, so don’t even try to forgive, because imitating Jesus would be like trying to be God, so lets get rid of the fanatics, and impose secularism by force because secularism is always more moderate than the small sects can be….

    Like

  47. I do approve of trying the silent treatment

    Bonhoeffer, Discipleship, p154—I hear myself. Because I do not wait for God to listen to me…I construct my own hearing of my PRAYERS. I observe that I PRAYED piously, and this observation provides the satisfaction of being heard. I have given myself the satisfaction of public acclaim…

    There is a kind of listening with half an ear that presumes already to know what the other person has to say. It is an impatient, inattentive listening, that despises the brother and is only waiting for a change to speak and thus get rid of the other person. This is no fulfillment of our obligation, and it is certain that here too our attitude toward our brother only reflects our relationship to God… But Christians have forgotten that the ministry of listening has been committed to them by Him who is Himself the great listener and whose work they should share. We should listen with the ears of God in order to speak the Word of God. –Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together

    The claim of a church to build the world on Christian principles ends only with the total capitulation of that church to the world… If this does not involve a radical hostility to the church that is only because no real distinction has ever been drawn here (America) between the church and state. Godlessness remains more covert. And indeed in this way it deprives the church even of the blessing of suffering and of the possible rebirth which suffering may engender.” Bonhoeffer, Ethics, p 40

    Like

  48. papist idolaters like Chesterton don’t really see that much difference between Calvinism and Islam—A void is made in the heart of Islam which has to be filled up again and again by a mere repetition of the revolution that founded it. There are no sacraments. The only thing that can happen is a sort of apocalypse, as unique as the end of the world; so the apocalypse can only be repeated and the world end again and again. There are no priests; and yet this equality can only breed a multitude if lawless prophets almost as numerous as priests.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s