Why Do Celebrity Pastors Stumble Over “Thus Saith the Lord”?

Published on by D. G. Hart

I am not sure why Eugene Peterson’s flip-flop on gay marriage is such a big deal. But (all about mmmmmeeeeEEE) I’m not in the habit of taking my cues any more from popular Christian authors or personalities. That could be age, temperament (naysayer), or wisdom — and in the right combination separating those traits may be redundant. But I continue to be surprised by what catches on among evangelicals who fret (even if I don’t want to come across as being above it all).

While following some of the reactions, I came across responses from Tim Keller, John Stott, and Sam Allberry. Since Stott is deceased, I should have known that these would not be direct reactions to Peterson. What caught my eye was the link to a review by Keller — can you believe it? There on display is the same affliction that got Peterson into trouble in the first place — namely, failing to minister God’s word and telling us instead about thoughts and reflections based on a lot of stuff you’ve read.

What is especially noteworthy about Keller’s handling of such a controversial subject as homosexuality if he is going to maintain his New York City profile is his ability to quote authors (other than the prophets and apostles).

First some of the debate about homosexuality in church history and antiquity:

These arguments were first asserted in the 1980s by John Boswell and Robin Scroggs. Vines, Wilson and others are essentially repopularizing them. However, they do not seem to be aware that the great preponderance of the best historical scholarship since the 1980s — by the full spectrum of secular, liberal and conservative researchers — has rejected that assertion. Here are two examples.

Bernadette Brooten and William Loader have presented strong evidence that homosexual orientation was known in antiquity. Aristophanes’ speech in Plato’s Symposium, for example, tells a story about how Zeus split the original human beings in half, creating both heterosexual and homosexual humans, each of which were seeking to be reunited to their “lost halves” — heterosexuals seeking the opposite sex and homosexuals the same sex. Whether Aristophanes believed this myth literally is not the point. It was an explanation of a phenomenon the ancients could definitely see — that some people are inherently attracted to the same sex rather than the opposite sex.

For comparisons of homosexuality to slavery Keller can take you to more scholarly literature:

But historians such as Mark Noll (America’s God, 2005 and The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, 2006) have shown the 19th century position some people took that the Bible condoned race-based chattel slavery was highly controversial and never a consensus. Most Protestants in Canada and Britain (and many in the northern U.S. states) condemned it as being wholly against the Scripture. Rodney Stark (For the Glory of God, 2003) points out that the Catholic church also came out early against the African slave trade. David L. Chappell in his history of the Civil Rights Movement (A Stone of Hope, 2003) went further. He proves that even before the Supreme Court decisions of the mid-50s, almost no one was promoting the slender and forced biblical justifications for racial superiority and segregation. Even otherwise racist theologians and ministers could not find a basis for white supremacy in the Bible.

He even uses awareness of 19th century debates about slavery to take a swipe at Southern Presbyterians:

During the Civil War, British Presbyterian biblical scholars told their southern American colleagues who supported slavery that they were reading the Scriptural texts through cultural blinders. They wanted to find evidence for their views in the Bible and voila — they found it. If no Christian reading the Bible — across diverse cultures and times — ever previously discovered support for same-sex relationships in the Bible until today, it is hard not to wonder if many now have new cultural spectacles on, having a strong predisposition to find in these texts evidence for the views they already hold.

What are those cultural spectacles? The reason that homosexual relationships make so much more sense to people today than in previous times is because they have absorbed late modern western culture’s narratives about the human life. Our society presses its members to believe “you have to be yourself,” that sexual desires are crucial to personal identity, that any curbing of strong sexual desires leads to psychological damage, and that individuals should be free to live as they alone see fit.

As if the Bible supported abolitionists or anti-slavery arguments were immune to “modern western culture’s narratives about the human life.” Sometimes Keller wades into scholarly material superficially so that it agrees with him, but I digress. (Funny how when I bring the Bible into the history seminar it doesn’t gain me any credibility.)

Then you have Keller appealing to more academics to critique these modern “narratives”:

These narratives have been well analyzed by scholars such as Robert Bellah and Charles Taylor. They are beliefs about the nature of reality that are not self-evident to most societies and they carry no more empirical proof than any other religious beliefs. They are also filled with inconsistencies and problems. Both Vines and Wilson largely assume these cultural narratives. It is these faith assumptions about identity and freedom that make the straightforward reading of the biblical texts seem so wrong to them. They are the underlying reason for their views, but they are never identified or discussed.

Maybe this is impressive to David Brooks and other columnists and reporters at the Times, but wasn’t Keller called to minister God’s word? Where is Moses, Jesus, or Paul? Nothing wrong inherently with being aware of some of the scholarly and public intellectual literature. But can’t you give us a “thus saith the Lord” pastor Tim?

When he finally gets around to the Bible, Keller accentuates the positive (the way Mr. Rogers did):

The saddest thing for me as a reader was how, in books on the Bible and sex, Vines and Wilson concentrated almost wholly on the biblical negatives, the prohibitions against homosexual practice, instead of giving sustained attention to the high, (yes) glorious Scriptural vision of sexuality. Both authors rightly say that the Bible calls for mutual loving relationships in marriage, but it points to far more than that.

In Genesis 1 you see pairs of different but complementary things made to work together: heaven and earth, sea and land, even God and humanity. It is part of the brilliance of God’s creation that diverse, unlike things are made to unite and create dynamic wholes which generate more and more life and beauty through their relationships. As N.T. Wright points out, the creation and uniting of male and female at the end of Genesis 2 is the climax of all this.

That means that male and female have unique, non-interchangeable glories — they each see and do things that the other cannot. Sex was created by God to be a way to mingle these strengths and glories within a life-long covenant of marriage. Marriage is the most intense (though not the only) place where this reunion of male and female takes place in human life. Male and female reshape, learn from, and work together.

Gee golly williker. Marriage is just one stroll down the trail of delight (or maybe through Homer Simpson’s Land of Chocolate). Where is the grit of NYC? Where is the complicated character of life in the modern world where we have to make tough choices, or recognize the good and less attractive in all people we meet, and the institutions in which moderns operate? Where is the edge that attracts at least some people like Brother Mouzone or Woody Allen to the Big Apple? The view from Keller’s study is awfully pleasant (and crowded with books other than the Bible).

Meanwhile, Russell Moore made a decent point about Peterson when he compared the evangelical celebrity to Wendell Berry’s own flip-flop on gay marriage:

And now Peterson says he’s willing to walk away from what the Scriptures and 2,000 years of unbroken Christian teaching affirm on the conjugal nature of marriage as the one-flesh union of a man and a woman reflecting the mystery of Christ and the church. I can’t un-highlight or un-flag my Peterson books. I can’t erase from my mind all the things he has taught me. Should I stop reading him, since he has shown a completely contrary view on an important issue of biblical interpretation—and, beyond that, of the very definition of what it means to repent of sin?

This is the same sort of conversation had a few years ago among those of us who’ve been taught much by novelist and poet Wendell Berry when he, too, embraced the zeitgeist on marriage and sexuality. Some said we should throw out our Berry books and never read him again. Others, I’m sure, seeing how much they’d benefited from Berry on place and memory, probably decided to follow him right into this viewpoint. Maybe the same will happen with Peterson now.

True enough, but when Moore says we should not throw Peterson’s books away (who am I to adopt such a move since H. L. Mencken sets on my shelf of worthies right next to Machen — alphabetically anyway), I wonder why Mr. Southern Baptist doesn’t distinguish Peterson as a would-be pastor and theologian from Berry who simply is a writer and farmer. Berry makes no pretension to issue “thus saith the Lord’s” based on his reading of Scripture. Peterson, however, operates in the world of Scripture and theology (and all you usually get — my impression — is “the Lord would be really happy if you might ever consider this and you may also flourish forever and ever”).

35 thoughts on “Why Do Celebrity Pastors Stumble Over “Thus Saith the Lord”?”

  2. “Maybe this is impressive to David Brooks and other columnists and reporters at the Times, but wasn’t Keller called to minister God’s word? Where is Moses, Jesus, or Paul? Nothing wrong inherently with being aware of some of the scholarly and public intellectual literature. But can’t you give us a “thus saith the Lord” pastor Tim?”

    But then Keller would immediately be cast into the outer darkness with the likes of James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Sarah Palin, Jerry Falwell Jr., Mike Pence, Young Earth Creationists, and White Evangelical Trump Voters. Then what would happen to Redeemer’s appeal to young, White or Asian, highly educated, affluent, urban creatives who live in The City?

    Keller’s appeal is to Socially Conscious Christians who want it to be known (by their secular elite superiors) that they feel comfortable in the presence of powerful women, minorities, refugees, immigrants, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, Democrats; they watch Game of Thrones – even the scenes with simulated intercourse and full frontal nudity!; they love Starbucks, Whole Foods, NPR, and Planned Parenthood; they read The New Yorker and The New York Times – and they consider John Oliver the greatest British import since The Beatles. And you really think Keller is going to disappoint them with some crude appeal to “thus saith the Lord”? Why appeal to Moses or Paul when Stanley Hauerwas will do?

    Will someone please give me back my Ol’ Timey Religion and my Ol’ Timey Bible – please.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. At least give Stott the credit he deserves…

    https://www.thegoodbook.com/blog/usefulresources/2017/07/11/john-stotts-life-changing-chapter/

    As for Peterson, he endorsed “The Shack,” for crying out loud. I did love his book on John’s Revelation called “Reversed Thunder,” but he essentially remains Evangelicalism’s answer to Hans von Balthasar crossed with a Northwestern version of Pastor Ray Ortlund. And we can now judge that to be both a good and and a quite annoying thing, as is true of circumstances surrounding many 84-yr old men!

    Jared Wilson is also very much on point here: the equivocation on active homosexuality in a Christian setting remains the pink elephant in the room.

    https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/gospeldrivenchurch/2017/07/13/how-many-more-petersons-are-out-there/#comment-17899

    Like

  4. “Nothing wrong inherently with being aware of some of the scholarly and public intellectual literature. But can’t you give us a “thus saith the Lord” pastor Tim?”
    Darryl, I agree with your words I quote above, but the folks in such such circles as Keller and DeYoung seem to want people to appreciate their intellectual knowledge and prowess as much as anything else.And when it comes down to simply (and honestly) upholding their vow to uphold the Westminster Confession in consistent practise then such men are found seriously deficient and wanting. Plus they advocate by alliances and friendships church practise such as charismatic stuff which shows their true colours. Why is Kevin Deyoung such a buddy still with CJ Mahaney?
    I see Tim is now deeply embedded in the UK church scene through the City Church projects, which unsurprisingly focus exclusively on cities as being paramount. I wonder if his stance on women in ministry, the Christian Sabbath and creation ever get a mention as being unBiblical by his very intelligent post grad. friends here in the UK, concerns which should be of equal note along with the odd idea that some have an inclination towards homosexuality which is entirely absent in all Scripture references to sodomy etc.

    Like

  5. So in discussing what the Bible says, your complaint about Keller is that he refers to how other Christians have interpreted the Bible regarding Homosexuality. And he did this in response to people like Vines attributing the Biblical passages to ignorance of the Biblical authors. And what he writes supports what the Scriptures say and thus supports ‘Thus saith the Lord.’

    The following is some of what Keller said in the same source which you did not include:


    Contra Vines, et al, the ancients also knew about mutual, non-exploitative same sex relationships. In Romans 1, Paul describes homosexuality as men burning with passion “for one another” (verse 27). That is mutuality. Such a term could not represent rape, nor prostitution, nor pederasty (man/boy relationships). Paul could have used terms in Romans 1 that specifically designated those practices, but he did not. He categorically condemns all sexual relations between people of the same sex, both men and women. Paul knew about mutual same-sex relationships, and the ancients knew of homosexual orientation. Nonetheless “Nothing indicates that Paul is exempting some same-sex intercourse as acceptable.” (Loader, Making Sense of Sex, p.137)…

    When Vines refuses to accept this ancient distinction between the ceremonial and moral law, he is doing much more than simply giving us an alternative interpretation of the Old Testament — he is radically revising what biblical authority means. When he says “Christians no longer regard eating shellfish as wrong,” and then applies this to homosexuality (though assuming that Leviticus 19:18 — the Golden Rule — is still in force), he is assuming that it is Christians themselves, not the Bible, who have the right to decide which parts of the Bible are essentially now out of date. That decisively shifts the ultimate authority to define right and wrong onto the individual Christian and away from the biblical text.

    The traditional view is this: Yes, there are things in the Bible that Christians no longer have to follow but, if the Scripture is our final authority, it is only the Bible itself that can tell us what those things are. The prohibitions against homosexuality are re-stated in the New Testament (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1) but Jesus himself (Mark 7), as well as the rest of the New Testament, tells us that the clean laws and ceremonial code is no longer in force.

    Then when you include the parts where he does cite the Scriptures, you complain about him being too positive and that is despite the fact that he had written that Paul condemns and that the Scriptures must be our final authority..

    What is your beef here? Is it merely with the parts you quoted? Then you should quote more of what he wrote? Is it that in addition to saying what the Scriptures say he included what Christians from times past have said? Then why do you rely so heavily on the Westminster standards? What is your complaint about Keller here?

    Like

  6. Looks like Curmudgeon and I hunt in the same woods:

    Let me tell you what dogs I don’t have in this hunt. I have never heard Sproul, Jr. speak or read any of his books. I think I have read few of his Ligonier postings. I reject theonomy and patriarchy and other views attributed to him which range from weird to crazy. I don’t plan to buy the Baptist (oops, Christian) Standard Version. I have never heard Eugene Peterson speak or read one of his books, though I think that a couple of times I tried to make a start of A Long Obedience in the Same Direction. I oppose homosexual practice and marriage.

    Like

  7. Fr. Spadaro on the article in question:

    The central question is the mutual manipulation between politics and religion, which is a risk that is not exclusive to the United States, it’s a constant risk. Often this fundamentalism is born from the perception of a threat, of a world that is threatened, a world that is collapsing, and so it responds with a religion from a reading of the Bible transformed into an ideological message of fear. It’s a manipulation of anxiety and insecurity. And the church is therefore transformed into a kind of sect, a sect of the pure, the option of the pure, even though numerically small, which then seeks to impose its vision on society, prescinding any form of dialogue.

    If this is correct — IF — then the Father needs to concede that fundamentalists learned this from 19th. c. ultramontanists who supported papal infallibility out of fear for what would happen if the papacy lost its temporal authority in the papal states. Talk about fear mongering.

    Like

  9. UK Paul, easy for me to say but “doctors” of the church who don’t write for academic audiences, but only dabble in academics to bolster their expertise, betray the authority of Scripture and the sacred office.

    Like

  10. Curt, Keller spends more time exegeting Charles Taylor than Paul. Listing references is not what pastors do.

    But at least Keller doesn’t speak in tongues.

    Like

  12. Chortles,
    Why will Piper’s college have over thirty speakers at the Bethlehem 2018 conference? I see Piper’s friend Kevin DeYoung will be speaking, but as usual not on anything remotely connected to the Westminster Confession and Presbyterian polity he is supposed to promote as a PCA teaching elder. But Kevin is smart and this typical absence may be just as well as I guess not many of the good folks at Bethlehem would be advocates of
    the WC’s essential ecclesological content. I note the college has a somewhat curious bit about being Reformed in soteriology and charismatic in its affections. Are they trying to please everyone or making a distinction between the two descriptive terms?

    Like

  13. D.G.,
    He did more than just list passages, h exegeted part of what Paul wrote. And so what if he really spent more time exegeting Charles Taylor? If that upset you, you are being rather picky. It seems to me from reading what he wrote, he strongly emphasized Biblical authority and that the least you can do is say he has a mixed record. But it seems that you get a kick out of only finding faults with a celebrity preacher.

    Like

  15. I am predisposed to defend Keller — in theory he is laboring on the front line, and maybe such an elaborate song and dance *is* needed there to not get egged off a stage. But sheesh, if that’s the case, can we stop swooning over the glories of NYC and acknowledge it for the war zone that it is? I think Andrew Alladin’s comment above nails it pretty well, and us as evangelicals …at least far more than Keller’s comments nails things. “Is homosexuality a sin?” “Yes, period, which means Good finds your sexual relationship offensive at its foundation. You really need to kill it.” I can’t imagine even any uneasy audience laughter from that answer. For me, Rosario Butterfield’s story still seems the most hard-to-argue with thing we have…

    http://www.ligonier.org/learn/conferences/after-darkness-light-2015-national-conference/repentance-renewal/

    Like

  16. D.G.,,
    He did more than that. First, he cites a source that does exegesis:


    Contra Vines, et al, the ancients also knew about mutual, non-exploitative same sex relationships. In Romans 1, Paul describes homosexuality as men burning with passion “for one another” (verse 27). That is mutuality. Such a term could not represent rape, nor prostitution, nor pederasty (man/boy relationships). Paul could have used terms in Romans 1 that specifically designated those practices, but he did not. He categorically condemns all sexual relations between people of the same sex, both men and women. Paul knew about mutual same-sex relationships, and the ancients knew of homosexual orientation. Nonetheless “Nothing indicates that Paul is exempting some same-sex intercourse as acceptable.” (Loader, Making Sense of Sex, p.137)…

    Thus, though he did not do the exegesis himself, he is using exegesis.

    Then we have to note that he deals with an issue behind the issue, Biblical Authority. H wrote


    When Vines refuses to accept this ancient distinction between the ceremonial and moral law, he is doing much more than simply giving us an alternative interpretation of the Old Testament — he is radically revising what biblical authority means. When he says “Christians no longer regard eating shellfish as wrong,” and then applies this to homosexuality (though assuming that Leviticus 19:18 — the Golden Rule — is still in force), he is assuming that it is Christians themselves, not the Bible, who have the right to decide which parts of the Bible are essentially now out of date. That decisively shifts the ultimate authority to define right and wrong onto the individual Christian and away from the biblical text.

    The traditional view is this: Yes, there are things in the Bible that Christians no longer have to follow but, if the Scripture is our final authority, it is only the Bible itself that can tell us what those things are. The prohibitions against homosexuality are re-stated in the New Testament (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1) but Jesus himself (Mark 7), as well as the rest of the New Testament, tells us that the clean laws and ceremonial code is no longer in force.

    And in dealing with the history of the Church’s view on sexuality, he is addressing an issue brought up by Vines and others.

    And there is some lightly done exegesis:


    In Genesis 1 you see pairs of different but complementary things made to work together: heaven and earth, sea and land, even God and humanity. It is part of the brilliance of God’s creation that diverse, unlike things are made to unite and create dynamic wholes which generate more and more life and beauty through their relationships. As N.T. Wright points out, the creation and uniting of male and female at the end of Genesis 2 is the climax of all this.

    In the end, Keller offers no compromise on the Biblical view of sex and he provides no compromise regarding the importance and call of Biblical authority. That he provided a more comprehensive view than perhaps you think is appropriate is no cause for criticism.

    You have to face the possibility that your hypercriticism of Keller is for more personal than Biblical reasons. That doesn’t mean that Keller doesn’t merit criticism. But you have only criticized without recognizing any significant positive contributions he makes.

    Like

  17. What thus saith the Lord might sound like:

    As stated above, the Bible clearly and unambiguously condemns homosexual acts. For example:

    You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination (Leviticus 18: 22).

    If a man lies with a male as with a female, both of them have committed an abomination (Lev 20:13).

    Likewise, the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah depicts, among other things, the sinfulness of homosexual activity. It is too lengthy to reproduce here in its entirety, but you can read about it in Genesis 19. Some have tried to spread the error that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is merely about “hospitality,” and I have written on that subject here: The Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. And let every Catholic note that the Catechism includes Genesis 19 in it scriptural notes on the biblical basis for forbidding homosexual acts.

    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them … in the things that have been made. So, they are without excuse; they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools … For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct (Romans 1:18ff).

    Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanders nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9).

    The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, for those who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted (1 Timothy 1: 8-11).

    Note that in many of these texts, homosexual activity is listed as one among other sexual offenses; it is not singled out. Here, then, is what the Bible teaches: homosexual activity is sinful, as are other sexual sins such as fornication and adultery. It is true that there are not a large number of texts speaking of homosexual activity, but whenever it is mentioned, it is clearly and uncompromisingly condemned. Further, this condemnation occurs at every stage of biblical revelation, right through to the end.

    Some say that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. Well, He never mentioned rape, or incest, or sexual abuse of minors either, and His “silence” in these matters should certainly not be taken as approval. Further, Jesus said that whoever hears His apostles hears Him (see Luke 10:16), and the Epistles of the Apostles clearly mention homosexual acts and exclude them along with fornication, adultery, and all sexual impurity.

    This from a priest of Rome.

    This from a priest who ministers not in S. Dakota but the District of Columbia.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. D.G.,
    ‘Thus, saith the Lord’ can have more sounds than you might imagine. And that is the problem here. His emphasis on Biblical Authority has automatically included ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in the rest of what he wrote. But it seems that if he doesn’t say it as harshly as you prefer, you deny that he has said it all. Do you now understand why I have brought up the subject of Black-White thinking here?

    Like

  19. DGH – Dan Reuter said it above about the last few lines, but really this entire post looks like it was copied and pasted from the Bayly Blog, from the nitpicking of Tim Keller, to the emphasis on homosexuality, to the intellectual dishonesty and complete lack of integrity within the post itself.

    Oy vey, where to begin. First of all, you miss the entire point of the essay, which is that it was a BOOK REVIEW, meaning it would have to INTERACT WITH THE BOOK. The book rejects the plain reading of Scripture, so “thus saith the Lord” is absolutely meaningless when ADDRESSING THE BOOK. If Keller had simply quoted all the Scripture references on homosexuality (which he did, and which you managed to omit from your post) the author would simply shrug and say “it’s not saying what you think it does.” So in that context simply quoting Scripture in a faithful manner is useless. Either you missed this entirely or you just ignored it to make your point.

    Second, the title of the post is misleading, if not outright dishonest. Dr. Keller clearly and unequivocally makes the case, from Scripture, than homosexuality is a sin in refuting a book that claims otherwise. He does exactly what you said he doesn’t do in the title of the post.

    Third, Curt Day is correct that you accuse Dr. Keller of not simply stating the Scriptural view of homosexuality, when he does just that in a section of the review you conveniently chose to omit from your post. This is, at very best, uncharitable, and at worst malicious slander and lying. This is the exact thing Paul explicitly condemns in Titus 3:3 and Colossians 3:8-9, and that Moses condemns in the 9th Commandment. I seriously doubt your presbytery would approve a ruling elder engaging in such activity against anyone, especially a TE in the PCA. Criticizing is fine, but blatantly misrepresenting is something else entirely.

    Fourth, this post looks like just another opportunity to criticize (or possibly slander) Tim Keller because, after all, it has been a while. He condemns homosexuality as a sin in no uncertain terms, and you are up in arms because he actually makes a scholarly case against a scholarly book? This is the very definition of hypercritical.

    Lastly, it’s just rich that you criticize a TE for not speaking Scriptural truth plainly when you completely ignore, or at least obfuscate, the many references in the Bible to doing ALL to the glory of God. What’s good for the goose…

    Like

  22. vv, hello. It was a book review at a church website. You don’t review the scholarly literature for church people. You do for academics. So if you want to look like you are an academic, you cite scholars instead of the Bible.

    What was Keller called to be? A scholar? A pastor?

    And why do you have such a man crush?

    Like

  23. vv, btw, when was the last time the Baylys recommended Woody Allen?

    Surely Keller hasn’t taught you discernment or how to make distinctions.

    So much for scholarship.

    Like

  33. D.G.,
    Btw, since we don’t get HBO, there is a reason why I’ve never heard of it. But just reading about it makes me wonder if you saw the episode of American Race that dealt with Baltimore?

    Like

  35. D.G.,
    There are 4 episodes of American Race. I forget which one deals with Baltimore.

    And I prefer cable. The son and son in-law prefer to stream. It must be a generational thing and that puts you with the millennials on that issue. Nothing wrong with that, I am with them on other issues.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.