 |
 |
|
 |
Welcome |
|
FeaturesChrist’s death, God’s wrath: the vital connection
Jul 30, 2009 Are you missing the point of Scripture passages? Jul 21, 2009 Modeling misjudgments: Clothing, contradictions and Miss California May 14, 2009 Exploring The Last Battle’s Emeth element May 11, 2009 MacArthur on sex and the sacredness of the Song Apr 14, 2009 Heaven and Earth, part 1 — Fixing our eyes away from the lies Apr 13, 2009 Fighting on broader battlefields of Biblical spiritual warfare Apr 11, 2009 Keeping the Cross in focus this Good Friday Apr 10, 2009 An open letter to Jennie Chancey from the Devil Mar 12, 2009 Capitalism, socialism and critics’ Rush to judgment Mar 10, 2009 |
|
Archives |
 |
Search |
|
Updates |
|
Recently read:
|
|
Recently read:
|
Attacking apologetics activists: uncouth, unloving, sometimes unwise |
|||
 |
by
Dr Ransom
at
03:50 PM ET
,
Tuesday, Feb 24, 2009
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Science, Rebuttals, Politics: The Left Wing, Deep Doctrine Magic: Cross Firings, Evangelism, Life Applications | |||
How come some Christians, supposedly enlightened and set free from legalistic constructs, react more strongly to strong words from someone like Dr. Jonathan Sarfati or even Ann Coulter than they would do to those who enjoy strong language or drinks? How come many Christians want to do better at very good things such as Showing Grace, Caring for the Poor, Being Authentic, Loving Liberals and Avoiding Legalism — but as soon as other Christ-followers come along with a different or harsher (even arguably un-Biblical) zeal or rhetorical style, they’re ready to give up and not show the same grace and caring to them? I want to do better at tolerating my homosexual friends than Christians have in the past. I’m more enlightened, tolerant and Christlike. But you — ? Oh no, you’re a Legalist or a Mean Christian. I don’t want to be around you; you make us look bad, so get out of my face. Methinks I see inconsistency.  These questions have arisen after my On spiritual sophistry, sarcasm and Dr. Sarfati column, slightly altered to post as a comment, brought responses and agreements on the Boundless blog — some incidental, some direct. Another comment of mine is now up over there, some of which I’ll adapt for the below material.But my response here is not to those who questioned Dr. Sarfati’s seeming contention that because Jesus was sarcastic and even “mean” sometimes, then we’re allowed to be that way in all interactions with evolutionists or compromising Christians. I was among them myself. Rather, I’m directly rebutting folks such as Nathan Zamprogno, who wrote a reply to me earlier today. He clearly spent a lot time on it, and I want to respond more directly and carefully. I read all of what Nathan wrote. But I suspect he didn’t quite read all of what I wrote. While he and I seem to agree on some of my points, he seemed to assume a false either/or dichotomy: that my questioning Sarfati’s style would mean I would also detest all them mean young-earth creationists. But actually, with this issue, I’m a both/and kind of man. My reasons are threefold. By deciding that the often-harsher rhetoric of apologist activists such as Dr. Jonathan Sarfati is in effect intolerable, worse than putting up with secular sins, Christians are: 1. Sucking up to secularists,
2. Alienating our apologist brothers, and 3. Risking rejection of real truth. |
|||
‘Why We’re Not Emergent’ debunks the doctrinally divergent |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
01:20 PM ET
,
Thursday, Jul 17, 2008
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Media: Books, Politics: The Left Wing, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Cross Firings, Divergent Church, Evangelism | |||
(Also posted today to Midwest Christian Outreach's blog, The Crux.) From what I’ve read here on the MCO site and elsewhere, it seems like it would be interesting for anyone to out-emerge “emergent church” writers in terms of style and substance. First, I would have a great conversational style, interrupting myself multiple times for pop-culture and movie references to show (perhaps incidentally) how trendy and hip and with-it I am. Secondly, I would be very well-read and adept at making seemingly complex ideas lay-level and understandable. Oh yes, and thirdly, I would subtly undermine concepts of orthodox Christian doctrine and the very idea of claiming to know objective Truth. Instead, I would offer a custom-cooked stew of warmed-up leftovers from old and molded heresies, such as Pelagianism, extreme postmillennialism, liberation theology and Jesus-died-to-set-a-good-example-for-us-ism. Alongside all that, I would maintain a demeanor of humility, yet suspicion and intolerance only for those who claim to know objective facts about God. They are inevitably egotistical and autocratic, I would argue. And that assumption — that constantly floating specter of legalistic, pulpit-pounding we-have-God-all-figured-out self-appointed doctrine police — would be recognized all throughout the writing.  The emergents’ usual style is fairly similar for pastor Kevin DeYoung’s and sports journalist Ted Kluck’s Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be), which starts with a cool and colorful, grainy-black-authors-in-silhouette-accompanied cover and keeps up the coolness factor even better within.Regarding the first two “emergent” style characteristics, they’re mostly split: Kluck handles the conversational and cool style; DeYoung mostly debates the divergent views of the emergent mindset with well-read and complex yet lay-level flair. However, on the third emergent style facet, these “two guys who should be [emergent]” aren’t anything of the sort. DeYoung offers solid doctrines of God’s Word and upholds God’s own understandability. He reveals and refutes the flagrantly illogical ideas of not even being able to know truth. Meanwhile, Kluck intersperses those lengthier, deep-doctrine-magic chapters with his own boots-on-the-ground accounts of delving into emergent culture, such as books by emergent guru Rob Bell, and conversations with his friends who are seemingly being assimilated into that quasi-Christian collective. “Kevin’s chapters are longer and more propositional,” Kluck explains in his own introduction. “If my chapters do nothing more than get you to keep reading Kevin’s, then I will consider it a job well done.” |
|||
Salvation by works — of Christ alone |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
12:05 AM ET
,
Sunday, Sep 03, 2006
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Churchianity, Evangelism | |||
On April 30, 2006, a young collegian and decade-long church member, baptized, known to dozens, and frequent participant in missions and teaching positions, prepared to stand before a church congregation and tell them about his only recent redemption by Grace. First, Pastor David Prince summarized his own forthcoming message and prefaced Moore’s testimony. Let me give you a little brief background. Jacob’s been in this church many years. There are people here this morning who are here as Christians because Jacob Moore spoke the truth of the Gospel to them. He’s been involved in mission projects; he’s been involved in serving and leading and teaching and all kinds of different ministries in the life of this church. The following is the Jacob's unabridged testimony. I’ve transcribed his entire message, truncating only to account for false starts, ums, rare grammar errors and such. Since then, Jacob has become absolutely certain of his true redemption, and has continued his mission work out of love for Christ and His glory — not to add points to his own scorecard of spirituality.
|
|||
Marketing the Savior |
|||||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
10:31 PM ET
,
Tuesday, Jul 25, 2006
|
Permalink | |||
| Categories: Deep Doctrine Magic: Evangelism, Megachurchianity | |||||
More regarding Kirk Cameron’s column on Boundless Webzine last week, about evangelism. This has long been a favorite topic of mine, yet far too frequently not actually practiced. But meanwhile, several “‘Aha!’ moments” on the issue have occurred to me while viewing episodes of the television program, The Way of the Master. I do not own stock in Living Waters Ministries, nor are they by definition on the Exchange. But Ray Comfort, very short guy with charismatic presence but not doctrines, and Kirk Cameron, a younger, taller man (though still Very Short Guy), who apparently used to be quite popular in an old sitcom, do much discussion about Biblical evangelism contrasted with current church methods. Kirk, in particular, once role-played an unredeemed person who did not fall into the “felt needs” category oft targeted by seeker-friendly churches. An “evangelist” called Kirk on the telephone while Kirk lounged poolside, face obscured by sunglasses. Try Jesus! the evangelist encouraged him. He’ll heal all your hurts and make you happy! I’m already happy! Kirk assured him with a grin, on the phone. This made the “evangelist” on the other end very confused. After all, this isn’t supposed to happen. Kirk’s “rich young ruler,” it seemed, already had tons of money, a great family, no current personal problems whatsoever and not even a “hole inside of him that only God could fill.” Well, try Jesus anyway, because he’ll make you happier, the “evangelist” insisted. But Kirk’s rich guy, logically, saw no point in it. Of course, there’s that whole sin-rebellion-against-Law-and-Hell issue, often avoided by some churches because by nature it’s offensive. As Kirk Cameron explains elsewhere: Within the last 100 years, a new gospel has crept into our churches. It has been designed to not offend you. It has been carefully crafted not to be too “in your face.” It gently suggests that you open your heart to Jesus if your current lifestyle isn't working for you, and try God “when the time is right for you.” Of course, evangelism is not supposed to be easy; no Evangelism Method is a surefire remedy every time, whether the Christian discusses either Hell or God’s loving nature too much. Questioning moral presuppositions and creation-based evangelism also “misfires” with many people, despite its effectiveness in logically pummeling Evolutionary ideas. And all the other evangelism “tricks” have their caveats. Perhaps more people are finally giving up on human-based methods and have turned Reformed, as I seem to have done. Because God is indeed sovereign, and yes, “many are called but few are chosen”! — we’re merely the conduits for His call, should He so choose to send it, working through the Holy Spirit. Not much need, then, to get all sweaty and play the organ through Just One More Time, increasingly desperate to Reach People by ourselves. Instead, we can allow Him to be further glorified in us, and not rely so much on our own human evangelism-sales techniques. |
|||||
Cameron and Kaufman on watered-down evangelism |
|||||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
06:35 PM ET
,
Thursday, Jul 20, 2006
|
Permalink | |||
| Categories: Deep Doctrine Magic: Churchianity, Evangelism | |||||
Look who's on Boundless today — Kirk Cameron, one of my all-time favorites — post-television fame, of which I only learned after he had been drawn to Christ and to Ray Comfort's “Way of the Master” ministry. True to form, Kirk offers a Biblical rebuke of watered-down milk “evangelism,” which too often ensures that no one really feels all that guilty for anything, really, or at least not for long: [Quoting a chuch's altar call speech (more about Antique Evangelism):]“Let's face it, we've all made honest mistakes. You're not perfect, I'm not perfect, nobody's perfect. But God doesn't expect you to be perfect, that's why He sent His Perfect Son — so that you could have that relationship with Him again.Now you may be thinking, “What's wrong with that?” What's wrong is that it's not the gospel; it's a recipe for disaster. Sin is not an honest mistake and Jesus did not die to make you happy. Sins aren't accidents and God is not a lovesick celestial being, hoping for some nice person to ask Him into their heart so He can make them happy — as though He has a man-shaped hole in His heart that only we can fill. Might we hear more from Cameron in coming weeks on Boundless? Meanwhile, on the other page this week, Matt Kaufman discusses the faults of other “divine hug” evangelism methods: [N]o one was ever won to the faith without being “cut to the heart.” C.S. Lewis, describing the process, noted: “The Christian religion is, in the long run, a thing of unspeakable comfort. But it does not begin in comfort. It begins in the dismay I have been describing, and it is no use at all trying to go on to that comfort without first going through that dismay.” One can certainly be more optimistic about the future of Christendom with all of these Christ-centered warriors banding together like this. |
|||||
Josh Harris: Taking the New Attitude Back To Reality |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
07:54 AM ET
,
Tuesday, Jun 06, 2006
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Evangelism, Life Applications, New Attitude | |||
On the last morning, May 30, of the New Attitude 2006 singles conference in Louisville, Ky., author and pastor Josh Harris took to the podium for his second message, and laughed at himself. We need two podiums, he said — one for a short guy like me. A young woman from our church named Janelle recently told me, “‘You are so tiny but God is so big!’” and He’s using you anyway. Harris kept going, to continual laughter: “‘You’re like David, you’re small in stature, but you’re among giants!’” And by this point, I’m cracking up while listening to her, Harris said. “This is killing me, because I had no idea there were so many synonyms for short. A little shrimpy man for Jesus!” With that, the shrimpy man announced the formation of New Attitude 2007, same Bat-time, same Bat-channel. “We’re so thrilled that John Piper has agreed to come next year!” he shouted, to tremendous applause. “Finally, his schedule worked out. So finally, Piper, NA ‘07.” At this point, can you take any more messages containing so much? Harris asked. “There’s definitely been some truth gluttony that’s taking place, as we’re just packing it in, message after message. Some of you are like, If you share one more message with me, I’m just going to — whomph — barf, New Attitude, all over.” But we have one more to go, Harris said. This message will be a review “of all that we heard — not everything, but to grab most of the significant things and consider together what it means to take this home. And that’s what’s so important about all that we’ve done: it’s meaningless unless we take it home … apply it to our lives, work it into our lives, and review it.” |
|||
Eric Simmons: Visualizing the Big Picture |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
07:46 AM ET
,
Saturday, Jun 03, 2006
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Evangelism, Life Applications, New Attitude | |||
During the second-to-last session of the four-day New Attitude singles conference in Louisville, Ky., Eric Simmons, singles pastor at Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Md., began drawing the previous days’ imagery together into “the big picture.” It’s so easy to lapse into drudgery, lumping aspects of the Christian walk right along with menial daily tasks such as taking out the trash, and other menial chores, Simmons said. By doing this, they lose sight of joy. Their life in Christ becomes a list of gottas: I gotta read the Bible, I gotta go to church, etc. In the book of Colossians, Paul, even while sitting in a prison, writes how he was thrilled that the Gospel was advancing. “The Kingdom of Christ has come!” Simmons exclaimed. It bore fruit in the first century, and it’s bearing fruit now. Paul was thrilled, and so should we be. “If you’ve been saved by Grace within the past five years, please stand,” Simmons asked. About a half-dozen people rose. The previous night, the conference leaders, these strongly Grace-based, Reformed, conversion-method-avoiding Christ-followers had given a near-Baptist-style altar call. They made it clear to potential respondents that walking down an aisle won’t save you; repentance and responding to God’s call for redemption will. (And once upon a time, I almost thought Reformed theology was a natural barrier to evangelism.) The auditorium burst into applause. How must it feel, I wonder, to be a new Christ-follower in these circumstances? Does it at all seem as if you’re receiving too much attention? Or do the newly redeemed not even care about that, so lost that they are in Grace and community? Have a global vision, Simmons said. The Kingdom is here, and we get to help further its domain! |
|||
Justin Taylor: Evaluating the ‘Emerging Church’ movement |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
06:50 PM ET
,
Friday, Jun 02, 2006
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Cross Firings, Divergent Church, Evangelism, New Attitude | |||
Mass inner groans must have resulted after author and speaker Josh Harris announced the formation of seven “breakout sessions” at the New Attitude 2006 conference on May 30. Why? Because all seven sounded very interesting — and it just didn’t seem fair to have to choose only one. I myself was torn between a session with Dr. Al Mohler about Biblical worldview and sexual ethics, and another one hosted by Justin Taylor, editor, blogger and former research assistant to John Piper. Actually, speaker Eric Simmons said when introducing Taylor, he was former theological director to John Piper. “How did you direct John Piper?” Simmons asked. Taylor responded, “I didn’t.” Because I heard this exchange, it’s clear I finally opted for Taylor’s message — mostly because I’m less familiar with the “emergent church” movement (ECM) than I am with the Bible’s views on sex. (The latter is somewhat easier to learn, at least in theory. For example, one can easily skip all the don’ts and save time by simply proclaiming the Bible’s dos in simplified summary: wait until marriage, then sure, have at it, and have fun.) Taylor has edited several books by John Piper, Simmons said, including Reclaiming the Center and Sex and the Supremacy of God. Regarding the latter, Simmons quickly amended for the crowd of singles — “Well, they can read it later. “He is trying to bring sound doctrine to a level that’s readable to people like us,” Simmons said. And Taylor blessedly evenhanded about the ECM, Simmons added — he’ll outline not only its problems, but the very legitimate questions their leaders have raised about the effectiveness of the American Church in today’s culture. “My hope today is that Justin would give you some Biblical discernment about certain twisted truths that leaders of the emerging church movement want to get out there,” Simmons said. “I hope people become equipped to represent humble orthodoxy. We’ve only received these truths through God and past generations.” |
|||
Josh Harris: ‘Rightly Handle the Word of Truth’ |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
08:00 AM ET
,
Sunday, May 28, 2006
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Churchianity, Cross Firings, Evangelism, Life Applications, Megachurchianity, New Attitude, Local News | |||
Josh Harris, author of several books — at first on God-focused relationships and then branching out — began the four-day New Attitude conference in Louisville, Ky. last night. His hour-long, fantastic expository message was based on 2 Timothy, in which Paul, an older pastor about to depart his position and the world altogether, hands instruction to his younger protégé, Timothy. The message, of course, was geared to young adults. Singles — ending high school, or perhaps already past college. As you grow older, Harris said, at last you develop a sense of ownership and responsibility. Suddenly, you have an urge actually to vacuum the inside of your car. When buying a home for the first time, you find yourself with intense interest in the workings of the walls, floor, toilet plumbing, etc. The same is true with careers, as a generation of students becomes members of the workforce: in business, government — and churches. The younger generation inherits the Church from that which came before, and often, Harris said, the younger hopes to innovate, to reinvent, to come up with cooler things than the previous demographic. “Every generation has cooler music,” Harris said — implying that perhaps every generation only thinks it’s cooler. This passage in Timothy is geared toward those younger inheritors, Harris said. It’s not just for official church ministers. All who follow Christ are affected. Because at present, the Church in America is wrestling with change, and trying to determine whose approval they will seek, Harris said. Innovation is good sometimes — “but conversation [about change] goes beyond mere methodology and practice,” he continued. Often the Church will come perilously close to reinventing its actual beliefs as well. “Whose approval are we going to live for?” Harris asked. Yes, nearly all in the churches will instantly issue the correct answer — “God’s” — “but it’s so easy to get sidetracked,” Harris said. Far too often, the younger innovators are reacting not to the instructions of the Scripture, but to the errors committed by the past generation of church leaders. Others cross the line between trying to reach the culture and err by striving to impress culture. Thus the Church falls for polar-opposite extremes: it either becomes a slave to trends, or ignores culture altogether by forming its members into subcultures and cliques! To avoid this, we need the truths of 2 Timothy, Harris said. Our mission is to please God. He is our Audience. We are to live and die for God’s approval. And from this passage, that involves three main missions. |
|||
Don't swim in the sewer; you know what it's full of |
|||||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
09:40 AM ET
,
Saturday, May 13, 2006
|
Permalink | |||
| Categories: Deep Doctrine Magic: Cross Firings, Evangelism, Gnosticism, Subculture Shop, Media: Film and DVD, Books | |||||
Focus on the Family media review site Plugged In Online currently quotes from a May 3 Christianity Today column, regarding That Heretical Movie that releases next week: “Believers are touting [The Da Vinci Code movie] as an 'opportunity for evangelism' and even an incentive to bolster our own faith. Baloney,” says Barbara Nicolosi, founder and director of the Christian screenwriter training program Act One. “This film is based on a book that wears its heresy and blasphemy as a badge of honor, and I intend to stay far away from it.” I don't much agree with Nicolosi's later admonitions not to “debate the Devil” — a reasoned 1 Peter 3:15-style defense of the faith toward honest skeptics is certainly not on par with the don't-answer-demons'-questions rationale she cites. And yet Nicolosi and others raise a good point about Christians being all too willing to debate anti-Biblical ideas on the Devil's terms. Why do Christians not fight harder to create their own artistic works based on Biblical truth, instead of merely waiting to respond all the time? The Passion of the Christ and certainly The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was an excellent start, for the film industry, anyway. Let's continue that. Otherwise, secular observers will — perhaps rightfully — cite the classic line, this time regarding Christians: “Methinks you dost protest too much ...” |
|||||
Government- in-exile, Churchian- style — part 1 |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
01:41 PM ET
,
Monday, Apr 24, 2006
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Science: Genesis, Deep Doctrine Magic: Churchianity, Evangelism, Legalism, Life Applications, Ransom Notes | |||
Last week, I finally finished the third installment of a three-part series about “Churchianity.” That is, the tendency of some (often smaller) American-Southern churches to uphold their own Churchese jargon, unwritten traditions and antique evangelism methods — supporting them above not only natural, timeless relevancy to the “real world,” but often Scripture itself. The first two installments, Part 1: Speaking the Language of Churchese, and Part 2: The Unwritten Rules of God’s House, were written in late January. I didn’t get around to Part 3: Antique Evangelism until months later. That’s partly because I was waiting for my own experiences with one church’s mutant strain of Antique Evangelism to run their course. All the better, unfortunately, was to let the mess finish and then write about any lessons learned. Yet nothing that happened in my situation seemed to yield any insight. I experienced almost exactly what I could have expected from such a church, whose entrenched, government-in-exile-style leadership sought to avoid not only new ideas, but public conflict altogether, at whatever cost. That meant they instead resorted to “underground” opposition, a drive-by-shooting form of indirect attack. And of course it proved they were too cowardly to let their positions be known and thus open for discussion. So it wasn’t “disillusioning.” I wasn’t much shocked to find that Churchians could behave so badly. And yet I’ve found there’s still much to be learned from seeing such disgusting events happen personally. It’s like a building implosion: you may know some of how it’s done, you may have even seen it happen in TV news clips. But it’s still even more impressive to see it happen in front of you. Perhaps for the first time, the enormity of the event — or problem — truly impacts you. And yes. A figurative structural implosion is exactly what was happening at this church. |
|||
Churchianity, part 3: Antique Evangelism |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
02:06 PM ET
,
Monday, Apr 17, 2006
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Columns, Deep Doctrine Magic: Churchianity, Evangelism | |||
Two months ago, I began writing my three-part series about “Churchianity.” I use that term here to describe the Church’s (at least the American Church’s) tendency to remain steeped in its own methods of doing things, so much that it fails to adapt its approaches where it needs to, to remain timeless and naturally relevant to a changing world. Part 1 covered how Churchians are often “Speaking in the Language of Churchese,” which most non-Christian people don’t know — or only think they know. Part 2 focused on The Unwritten Rules of God’s House that are set up by many churches — the often-subtle codes of conduct that church participants must obey. They aren’t found in the Bible, of course, yet “Churchians” often act very dogmatic about these rules, elevating them to the level of Sacrosanct. (And meanwhile, they would likely be among those rightfully critical of the Roman Catholic Church for officially doing the same thing with its extra-Biblical traditions). Both columns, and sets of problems, find their climax here in Part 3: Antique Evangelism. Sure, many Megachurches are wrecking true Christendom from within by concentrating on reaching the unredeemed masses. Either they crave popularity and attendance numbers, or sincerely hope to draw them to God — and therefore they openly cater to people’s “felt needs” and entertainment cravings. But American Churchianity commits the polar-opposite error: that of withdrawing far beyond Christ’s admonition to “be in the world and not of it.” In place of the real world, Churchianity makes its own little world, with its own language and customs. Yet many of them, especially the American Southern churches I’ve mentioned in earlier columns, still hope to seek the unredeemed, who remain Out There. Such churches thus place much emphasis on preaching the Gospel, often using traditional methods with long heritages. I’m referring mainly to Revival Services and their close cousin, Altar Calls. |
|||
Shocking? |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
03:53 PM ET
,
Wednesday, Jan 11, 2006
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Deep Doctrine Magic: Evangelism | |||
I'm sure this doesn't happen to Kirk Cameron every day, but it seems the script of unsaved-sinner-gets-it-immediatley, which I've written before, actually played out when Kirk attempted witnessing to his electrician. He gives a play-by-play account (nice) in Electric evangelism: I knew I wanted to witness to him so I planned my approach. It started with prayer. “Lord, please prepare this man's heart and help open my mouth boldly as I ought to.” I said, “Good morning. How are you doing?” Great style. Real world. One-on-one. Just like the Way of the Master program — the best Christ-centered, reality-based television series in existence. Ever. How did Kirk record all this material for later transcription? Perhaps he was wired? |
|||
Name in vain |
|||
|
by
Dr Ransom
at
12:14 PM ET
,
Wednesday, Jan 11, 2006
|
Permalink | |
| Categories: Deep Doctrine Magic: Evangelism, Life Applications, Local News | |||
Last night's exchange: (While discussing a digital art showcase with two students, one of them mentions something about working with some boy on another high school project.) STUDENT: [common method of expressing astonishment] MYSELF: Your high school project partner was God? STUDENT: Oh, well — I just — I don't really say “oh gosh” or anything like that. MYSELF: No, I just say that to throw people off when they're breaking the Fourth Commandment [sic]. I don't think even “oh gosh” avoids the problem — in your head you're still thinking the real thing. STUDENT: Yeah. [Says something else about the project partner.] MYSELF: All right, commandment-breaker, let's keep going with this interview. Mayhap I shall call this compressed approach “Comfort-Lite.” It's likely I didn't plant a seed, but I may have at least turned up a trowelful of dirt.
|
|||
