BaylyBlog: Out of our minds, too...

Study committees and majority and minority reports...

(Tim) Deep in the many helpful comments under my brother David's post from a few months ago titled "Moving on in victory towards peace and harmony," one writer asked about my own experience serving on General Assembly's Ad Interim Study Committee on Women in the Military a few years back. My response bears on the overtures requesting study committees on sexuality issues that have been sent up to this year's General Assembly. Here's the question I was asked, followed by my response.

QUESTION: "Actually, maybe we should ask Tim his opinion. I know (of) the attempt to make the Ad Interim Study Committee on Women in the Military "balanced" in such a way that nearly no other committee was. That is why that Study Committee was one of only a couple to have minority reports. I'll leave Tim to say whether that was a blessing to the Church."

RESPONSE: The experience was not good. Through it I came to believe even more than I already did in majority and minority reports (except in certain very limited cases). Why?

Well, the year before our final report was presented, our chairman did his best to get us to accept a unified report. So our penultimate year (Daryl has inspired my vocabulary), we presented one report agreed upon by both sides.

Being a grazed woodlot, it was neither good woodlot nor good grazing...

Speaking positively about the difficult parts of shepherds' work...

(Tim) Here's a response to this comment left by a reader: "It seems that many in the complementarian community spend almost all their energy on the negative side of the equation."

Feminism is toxic and its relentless attack on Scripture and the Church doesn't give faithful shepherds a lot of opportunity to take their preaching and teaching somewhere else, avoiding this breach. We must focus our defensive work where the good deposit is under attack. In response to people complaining of the frequency of his preaching against fornication, Spurgeon said once that he'd stop preaching against it when people stopped doing it.

Pastors today aren't preaching or teaching against this heresy. And when we do, we do it half-heartedly making it clear to our flock and other shepherds that we wish the need for battle would go away because we're men of peace and love and grace, and we really don't enjoy beating up on women.

Now I may not have captured our critic's sentiments, personally, but from many years experience I know I've hit the mainstream. So think where we'd be if Calvin or Luther or Knox of any of hundreds of other shepherds had tried the positive approach in the darkness of Rome's shadow across the Middle Ages? What if Calvin had written his Institutes without the central thrust of opposing and exposing Rome? Would anyone read them?

The real issue isn't that many within the complementarian camp spend almost all our energy on the negative side of this equation, but that we live in an evil day much like the day of the Apostle Paul and Athanasius and Peter Waldo and John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards and John Newton and J. Gresham Machen and Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Francis Schaeffer, and that our work must follow theirs in being faithful with God's "yes" and His "no." And if our only "no" is said in opposing those who don't say "yes" often enough to suit our tastes, we're not really saying "no," are we?

The net of interwoveness...

(Tim, w/thanks to Jake) Last week, a young man training for pastoral ministry passed on a link to this article from USA Today. And next to the link, he wrote: "quoted: pope benedict, mohler, keller, driscoll, osteen, etc."

Not to destroy "peace ...in the world," or to "tear... the net of [PCA] interwovenness, the fabric of humanity," but really, men. Can anyone fail to see the stark contrast presented in the final paragraphs of this article between Pastors Keller and Driscoll? Sin is man-centered with Pastor Keller, but very God-centered with Pastor Driscoll.

Note the article's author says, "Driscoll is sharply clear."

Precisely.

His grace's "maundering mumbo-jumbo"...

(Tim: From our Tallawhatchamajiggie correspondent, this report.) If even the hoity-toity British press can detect flummery in discourse, then what they detect must be truly awful.

In the past, it was Bishop Wrights shilly-shallying that Pr. Tim held up for scorn. In the following, it is his gracious foofiness, the Archbishop of Canterbury. In case your attention has been turned away from his most recent imbecilic, maundering mumbo-jumbo, he opined that the adoption of Sharia (Muslim law) is "inevitable" in the UK. Attempting to spin his own words to reduce the outrage now directed at him, he exceeds his own prodigious accomplishments in spewing folderol.

Hence, the (London) Telegraph's satire. I'm amazed they could actually create a satire of His Grace.  But, they did. And here it is, titled "Dr. Rowan Williams' 'Cat Sat on the Mat'."

His eminence's "learned wooliness"...

(Tim) Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams caused a ruckus recently when he said...

Well, what exactly was it he said? Doug Wilson thinks he said precisely what he was reported to have said. But having read this translation of William's comments from English to Portuguese, Portuguese to French, French to Dutch, and Dutch back to English, we're left scratching our heads. Or should it be "head"?

Judge for yourself. Here then is the learned wooliness of the Most Rev and Rt. Honorable...

Him that pisseth against the wall...

(Tim: w/thanks to Stephen) This one's a howler. You'll want to watch it. My response?

On the one hand: Chapter and verse numbers aren't original to the text of Scripture so they're not inspired by God. It's purely accidental that Genesis 5:5 records the death of Adam. And I imagine every sister, wife, and mother would like to make a rule that men have to sit down when the facilities are shared. Who can blame them? I mean, be honest guys; how good's your aim?

But on the other hand: He's exactly right about the King James getting this one right and all the other translations getting it wrong...

Edwards on false humility and the absence of manliness...

(Tim: a dear Christian brother writes:) I'm currently reading through Charity and Its Fruits by Jonathan Edwards and, in his Lecture VII, "The Spirit of Charity is an Humble Spirit," he mentions two things that I hope will be an encouragement...

[h]umility disposes men to be of a yielding spirit to others, ready, for the sake of peace, and to gratify others, to comply in many things with their inclinations, and to yield to their judgments wherein they are not inconsistent with truth and holiness. A truly humble man is inflexible in nothing but in the cause of his Lord and Master, which is the cause of truth and virtue. In this he is inflexible, because God and conscience require it. But in things of lesser moment, and which do not involve his principles as a follower of Christ, and in things that only concern his own private interests, he is apt to yield to others.

I feel that many evangelicals have no way of connecting the dots between humility and inflexibility in "the cause of truth and virtue." Not to draw too fine a point, but I think it is also worth noting that Edwards maintains this inflexiblity not only for God's sake, but also for conscience's sake. Conscience is constrained by the Word of God. I fear that there are far too few whose conscience is pricked by or who would blush at an easy departure from the inconveniences of Holy Scripture.

Apologies...

(David) I've been thinking about apologies lately as I've watched (and in the eyes of some, no doubt, participated in) the conflict surrounding the Federal Vision movement in the Presbyterian Church in America. And what I find striking is how difficult--well nigh impossible--apologies become in the midst of such strife.

I believed, therefore I spoke...

(Tim) Keith Knowlden put a link to this clip up as a comment under "Debates over Women in Leadership." Excellent. Remember what they said about our Lord at the end of His Sermon on the Mount:

When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes. (Matthew 7:28, 29)

This whole trend is a part of the movement of our culture toward feminine cultural ideals. And it's particularly destructive in our communication patterns--what in the past I've called the feminization of discourse. When these patterns infiltrate the Church and men preach as if they were inviting the members of the congregation to share a journey with them, our message has changed and is no longer faithful to the Word of God. But of course, we won't be accused of arrogance, will we?

Conniving at our people's sins...

Why, look at us! Check it out! We have women deacons. Unordained, of course, but women they are and they do everything our male deacons do--disciple, teach, cast vision. Look at us! Check it out! We have women serving the elements at the Lord's Table. Women, mind you! Aren't we forward-looking and progressive? Can't you iPod joggers settle into this comfy chair? We've made it just for you. No fuddy-duddy patriarchs holding us down or setting us back. We've captured the center of the city because we're the only ones that can do it without making asses of ourselves. Look at us! Check us out! We do art. We write music. We have important people who are rich in our congregation. And they respect us because they know we can be trusted to think through the implications of Scripture for our time and culture without falling into the many errors of past centuries. You know, errors like fuddy-duddy thinking about women in leadership.

(Tim) For most of the first ten years of pastoral ministry, I served in a denomination whose polity required each church to elect female elders in proportion to the number of females in the congregation. Also, every pastoral search committee was required to sign an EEO-type contract promising they would give equal consideration to women for their pastoral position. So I’ve had experience working with women elders within the local congregation, as well as female pastors and elders at the presbytery (regional) and general assembly (national) levels. There were some wise and godly women elders within our congregations (I had a yoked parish of two churches), and still today my wife and I are close to several of these sisters in Christ.

And yet, wise and godly women placed in the position of elder are tenaciously focused on the protection of relationships within their congregation. It is both their strength and weakness that they want to deny or postpone any threat to relationships, even when the good of the larger household of faith would be put at risk by inaction or the postponement of discipline...

Who's kidding whom...

Over and besides those qualifications that should be in all Christians--they that rule the church of God, should be men of counsel and understanding. ...Remember what was said of old, (Malachi 2:7) "the priest's lips should preserve knowledge: and the people should seek the law at his mouth."  But when this is wanting, the people will be stumbling and departing from God and one another. Therefore God complains, (Hosea 4:6) that his people were destroyed for want of knowledge; that is, for want of knowing guides. For if the light that is in them that teach be darkness, how great is that darkness! and if the blind lead the blind, no marvel both fall into the ditch. (John Bunyan, Exhortation to Unity and Peace, pp. 29,30.)

(Tim) In a screed for peace posted by Prof. Reggie Kidd of Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando) a week ago today, Dr. Kidd proved himself an able controversialist, but of the modern sort. A jab, a parry, and a thrust; he lopped off the heads of his opponents sending them rolling into the ditches at the side of the road, but all was well—Dr. Kidd never posed the slightest threat to the feminized discourse characteristic of our modern defenders of the faith who claim for themselves Calvin’s, Luther’s, or Machen’s mantle. Said the good Dr. Kidd while sheathing his bloody blade,  “It should be obvious to all that I am a man of peace.” And so he titled his post, “Mutual defenestration means self annihilation.” Not surprisingly, the one-hundred plus comments his post garnered are permeated with admirers congratulating him on his irenic spirit.

Bosh.

Apparently it takes a pastor with many session meetings under his belt to see who’s kidding whom. One could go on at length demonstrating the exact perimeter of the swaths cut by Dr. Kidd’s sword, but there’s one stellar example. Keeping in mind that Dr. Kidd possesses the terminal degree and his life’s work is within the Academy, could there be a more fatal thrust to the bodies of his intended victims than to call the Report of Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies adopted by the PCA General Assembly this summer “a tendentiously and carelessly written paper?”

No, this short piece by Dr. Kidd is no blow for peace. It’s too bad the guys commending him can’t see it, but the rest of us shouldn’t allow ourselves to be bamboozled. To focus our thoughts, let’s line up Dr. Kidd’s good guys and bad guys. In fact, to purge the pomo spirit from among us this Monday morning, all at once let’s do every one of those hateful things that go directly against the spirit of our age: let’s delineate, distinguish, and divide.

First, who are Dr. Kidd’s friends?

Martin Luther's commentary on Galatians, gagged...

(Tim) The second group of men have now matriculated in our pastors college and, as part of the heart religion emphasis during the first of three years' study, I'm leading a seminar on Luther's commentary on Galatians. I have an old copy of the commentary published in 1953 by London's James Clarke & Co. which I've used preaching through Galatians the past couple of years. But I went ahead and bought a second copy of the commentary since the most widely available and cheapest printing today is a paperback edition sold by Wheaton's Crossway Publishers. It's one volume in their Crossway Classic Commentaries series and we had assigned it as the edition of Luther's commentary the men were to read for the seminar. It made sense for me to be on the same page with the men. Literally.

Still, I wasn't entirely happy with the situation. Concerning evangelical publishers and their theological trustworthiness, I have a naturally suspicious mind. "Surely no need to worry about Crossway, though," I thought. "They publish many good authors and, although Alister McGrath is one of the series' editors, Jim Packer is the other and he wouldn't allow them to bowdlerize Luther." In his essay, "Sola Fide: The Reformed Doctrine of Justification," Packer cites the same edition of Luther on Galatians I use, translated by Philip S. Watson and published by James Clarke & Co. He's drunk at the same well so he'll not allow anyone to ruin Luther.

And yet I had a nagging thought at the back of my mind that we'd made a mistake by going with Crossway's edition... 

Northwestern University: a morality play for the church...

(by Tim) Sadly, reformed pastors identify less with those who live in rural communities and make their living as sheep farmers (what used to be called "shepherds") than with those who live in books and make their living as academics. So this story from today's New York Times is particularly instructive.

There's a big stink over a psychology prof at Northwestern University named J. Michael Bailey who's gored the ox of transexuals around the country. But before we get to Prof. Bailey and the transexuals, a few comments about the lesson Christians should learn from this battle.

For decades, freedom of religion and freedom of speech have been under a sustained attack and the content of the books we read, the sermons we listen to, and the Bibles we carry to church Sunday morning all bear witness to the attrition of these freedoms.

Speaking only of our Bibles, did you know that millions of Bibles used by evangelicals have had words deleted in order to avoid expressing incorrect opinions deemed to have the potential of being hurtful to women and Jews? Evangelical Bible scholars, linguists, translators, graphic designers, publishers, bookstore owners, and pastors all joined together to produce and sell Bibles that would not be vulnerable to charges of sexism or antisemitism. Many hundreds of times, the original Hebrew and Greek words were changed or deleted so the Bible would be less offensive to moderns...

Preaching and the feminization of discourse; a timely parable...

For a number of years, I've thought we need a book for preachers called The Feminization of Discourse. The book would show how the feminine priorities that have taken over the Western world have turned the preaching of God's Word from authority to mutual exploration and discovery. One friend lamented the preaching he'd sat under for a number of years saying, "Along with the indicative, can't we please have the imperative?" Read anything about the differences between male and female conversation and it's no mystery why the worship and preaching of our--yes, PCA--churches feel like a tea party. Having a reformed form of godliness, we deny the power thereof.

Our preaching is so graceful--more graceful than the preaching of Jesus or the Apostles. Anyone read the book of Acts, recently? Notice how often those listening to the sermon are confronted with the statement, "You killed Jesus!" No wonder repentance was the entry point to faith and baptism back then. But today? We're compassionate Christians, kinder and gentler elders, and sensitive graceful preachers who want to be liked. Above all. Yes, insofar as we can be liked and still be obedient, that's fine. But a choice between the two is no contest; being liked wins.

Now of course, right here the feminization of discourse kicks in and many are ready to condemn me for being dogmatic, making generalizations, or demonstrating a harsh and judgmental spirit, right?

Well, meet my friend Cesar Millan and see if we preachers have anything to learn from him about our exercise of the authority God has delegated to us, particularly in  the pulpit...

Pascal: ridicule is necessary and godly...

There are many things which deserve to be held up in this way to ridicule and mockery, lest, by a serious refutation, we should attach a weight to them which they do not deserve. (I)t is the Truth properly that has a right to laugh, because she is cheerful, and to make sport of her enemies, because she is sure of the victory. (K)eeping this in view, when ridicule may be employed with effect, it is a duty to avail ourselves of it. -Pascal quoting Tertullian

About eight years ago, Mary Lee and I pulled our eldest son, Joseph, out of Bloomington South High School. He'd completed his freshman year there, taking honors courses, getting As, and being bored. We thought, "Enough of that!" Why should we make him spend four years learning education is boring? So the next three years Joseph got a patchwork education. The good home schooling moms in our church worried we'd give home schooling a bad name. And they were right to worry--our approach was, at best, eclectic: some things Joseph studied on his own here at home; for Latin and math he had two superb tutors; and the rest fell to classes he took at Indiana University. When he graduated three years later, Joseph had a year and a half worth of college credit and had no problem getting into college.

My fondest memory from those years was the day I was reading G. K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man up in my bedroom. Finding it one of the laugh-out-loud, drop-dead funniest things I'd ever read, it occurred to me Joseph was downstairs at the dining room table studying and I could go down and share Chesterton with him. So downstairs I went and sat down at the table with Joseph, who was probably fourteen at the time. Together, we laughed our way through a full chapter of The Everlasting Man.

Now it's eight years later and we've pulled another son out of school. Ironically, this time it wasn't a public school but a private Christian school my wife, Mary Lee, and I joined with a number of other Christian parents to start fourteen years ago. It's a long story... Anyhow, today our home-schooled son, Taylor, was downstairs while I was upstairs in the bedroom reading another piece of laugh-out-loud Christian writing, this time by Blaise Pascal. So I called downstairs, asking Taylor to come up, and I read it out loud to him. He was sitting behind me so I can't say whether he laughed; and Pascal caused me to laugh in a much different way than Chesterton, likely for reasons a teenage son wouldn't as easily share with his father. Maybe you won't laugh when you read it, either?

Anyhow, here's Blaise Pascal's August 18, 1656 Letter to the Reverend Fathers, The Jesuits in which Pascal makes an extended argument for the godly necessity of the use of ridicule in opposing theological error. You're sceptical?

Check it out. Pascal shows that ridicule is used by many church fathers, including Tertullian, Cyril, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Augustine; also that it's used in Scripture by Isaiah, Daniel, and Job; that it's employed by our Lord Jesus Christ; and finally, that God Himself ridicules the wicked. Still sceptical?

Unfaithful witnesses leading the people of God...

Recently, we've discussed the method of speaking employed by men called to be God's witnesses, whether in the academic world or as pastors. We've noted their tendency to say "no" when they mean "yes," "maybe" when God has said "never," and so on.

Some of our readers have been displeased with our criticisms, pointing out that men such as Bishop N. T. Wright and Tony Campolo are only doing their best to communicate in the language of our culture, winning a hearing for the Gospel that other blunter men would (or could) never win.

Years back, there was a competitor to Christianity Today called Eternity. David's and my father, Joe Bayly, had a monthly column in Eternity for exactly twenty-five years, his final one appearing the year he died. The column titled "Out of My Mind" is the inspiration for this blog, including its name. Back in the sixties, this short parable appeared in Eternity, and I thought now would be a good time to put it back in circulation.

The Last Word: A Modern Fairy Tale

by Charles Anderson

Good evening, boys and girls.

Tonight I want to tell you the story about the Bishop of Woolwich and the title of our adventure is: "Honestly Now." Some people think that there actually was a real Bishop of Woolwich who really lived one day long ago. Other people aren't really sure he lived. But we don't care at all if he lived - do we, boys and girls?

You see, boys and girls, we don't need to know what the Bishop said and did, all we need to know is what people who saw people who saw him said he said and did. So whether or not he really lived doesn't really make any difference because we're not sure that the people who saw the people who saw him really saw anything.

What we really want to say is this: we know that the people who saw the people who may or may not have seen him didn't know how to say anything very clearly without making everything so complicated that we today have to laugh at what they said about what they said he said. But we shouldn't laugh, because it's not easy to say something about something else so that what we are saying is just a symbol of what we mean when we say something about something else that couldn't be true anyhow because nothing like that could ever really happen.

Isn't that true, boys and girls?

Word perfect: 'man,' 'sodomy,' 'Onanism'...

Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'"? (John 10:34-36)

But Jesus answered and said to (the Sadducees), "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at His teaching. (Matthew 22:29-33)

In both texts above, Jesus bases His argument on specific words in the Old Testament, and in the second He faults the Sadducees for their failure to pay attention to those words. Had they been good students of Scripture they would have known that God is not the God of the dead, but the living.

If you need convincing about the nature of Scripture's inspiration and authority, look carefully at Jesus' use of the Old Testament and ask yourself whether you have the same devotion to the text of Scripture--it's very words--as He did? One tenth of the verses in the Gospels that contain quotes of Jesus have Him quoting from the Old Testament.

In his superb essay, "It Says: Scripture Says: God Says," B. B. Warfield pointed out that the use of these three phrases throughout the New Testament is a plain indication of the full confidence among the Apostles that, "What Scripture says, God says." Notice how often Jesus does specific things the Apostles explain with the statement, "that Scripture might be fulfilled." Read John Wenham's classic, "Christ and the Bible." You'll finish it with a new commitment to the Word of God and all its gnarly Divine truths. And words...

Which brings me to our words--those we use preaching, teaching, and writing. Our words should be intentional, particularly where they're offensive. Of course, at times we'll be offensive simply because we're sinful, needlessly offensive or uncharitable. But the offense of the Gospel hasn't burned out yet, and I've noticed it's often where others assume my insensitivity and lack of charity that I'm most intentional in being biblical.

Consider, for instance, the use of the generic "men" and "brothers."

Living in a university community, I remind our congregation regularly that my inclusive use of male-marked terms doesn't come naturally; that each time I say "men" or "brothers" when referring to a mixed-sex group, my face turns red, my heart palpitates, and all my old facial tics return...

Politicians and "girly-talk"...

To all our readers who threw a hissyfit when we observed that the use of hedge words is an indication of effeminacy, check out this article from the Washington Post reporting a study done by two UT researchers from Austin, Richard B. Slatcher and professor James W. Pennebaker, who did a computer analysis of the words and speech patters of our two presidential candidates from the past election, along with their running mates.

Their findings? The two vice-presidential candidates defined the ends of the spectrum on masculinity and femininity. Edwards sounded like a "girly-man." He "was the most likely to use feminine speech patterns and 'female' words," while Cheney "sounded most like a man's man." How did the study define feminine language?

They defined it as the "use of words and speech patterns favored by women."

And all good Christians who have lost their ability to think biblically, to be salt and light--particularly in matters of sexuality, say, "Horrors! Are these researchers generalizing? Have they fallen into using sexual stereotypes? How could they be so insensitive, so deameaning to women? Women don't talk like that. And even if they do, it's not polite to say so."

So again, wellmeaning Christians trout out old feminist canards, thinking it demonstrates their Christian compassion: "Sex means nothing, NOTHING, beyond body parts. There aren't male and female speech patterns--that's a stereotype. Look! John Edwards is a man and he talks that way, too!"

If we live by faith and the Word of God, it should be Christians reminding the world of the meaning and nature of sexuality. It shouldn't be left to researchers and the Washington Post.

Bishop N. T. Wright, Pastor Ted Haggard, and Dorothy Sayers...

By way of contrast to the equivocations of Pastor Haggard and Bishop N. T. Wright, here's Dorothy Sayers responding to a scientist who asked her to write a letter to his scientific organization stating her reasons for believing in the Christian faith:

Why do you want a letter from me? Why don't you take the trouble to find out for yourselves what Christianity is? You take time to learn technical terms about electricity. Why don't you do as much for theology? Why do you never read the great writings on the subject, but take your information from the secular 'experts' who have picked it up as inaccurately as you? Why don't you learn the facts in this field as honestly as your own field? Why do you accept mildewed old heresies as the language of the church, when any handbook on church history will tell you where they came from?

Why do you balk at the doctrine of the Trinity - God the three in One - yet meekly acquiesce when Einstein tells you E=mc2? What makes you suppose that the expression "God ordains" is narrow and bigoted, while your own expression, "Science demands" is taken as an objective statement of fact?

What do Ted Haggard and N. T. Wright have in common...

(Note from Tim Bayly: In all the discussion concerning Bishop N. T. Wright's way of speaking, it's been implied and directly stated that his way of speaking is the Anglican or the scholarly or the English way, and that those who lack appreciation for it are at least provincial, and at worst, ignorant fools. Well, some months back I posted the following article pointing out how the way this evangelical megachurch pastor from Colorado Springs speaks is relativistic equivocation--again, on the sin of sodomy.

The disease of cavilling at sodomy is quite contagious, infecting not only the Western world's intellectuals, but also Christian pastors. It's spread far beyond the sphere of the Bishop of Durham. If you've followed the discussion of Bishop Wright's equivocations on Australian National Radio, check out the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Ted Haggard.)

Ted Haggard is Senior Pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs and President of the National Association of Evangelicals. During an interview a few weeks ago, he said (thanks, David Talcott):

I think some issues should have rules within the church. For instance, we believe within the church that sexuality should be only between a married man and a woman. But in civil law, I would never want that inculcated.... There are many things that I teach in the church that I would never want integrated into civil law.... Two consenting adults in a bedroom is not really the role of the state.

Pastor Haggard goes further, claiming that it is his close study of the book of Galatians that has brought him to these conclusions:

The Difference Between Boys and Girls: by Joseph T. Bayly

Comments from readers of this blog are often better than the posts which prompt them. This morning I call our good readers' attention to two such comments from the past week. Joseph Bayly, Tim's son and a student at the Reformed Evangelical Pastor's College, wrote this response to a comment disputing fundamental distinctions between the sexes on the Bishop N. T. Wright, feminized discourse, and "hedging"... post.

Imagine a woman who looks beautiful, smells faintly of roses, and has a contagious giggle which comes out only at perfectly appropriate times.

Now imagine her taking her body and making it look as much like a man's body as possible, finishing by buzzing her beautiful brown hair into a mohawk, and putting on men's clothes. She works out regularly without washing her clothes, so she smells bad, and she starts chuckling obscenely instead of giggling appropriately. She hardens herself against the world

In short, we have masculinized her. Continuing on her laugh, we find that she has changed the way she communicates with people as well. She is no longer sweet and proper, but vulgar, harsh, and rude. She is rough with those she comes in contact with and she has relationships only with those she can dominate.

Bishop N. T. Wright, feminized discourse, and "hedging"...

One of our good readers posted a comment asking, "What, pray tell, is 'feminized discourse?'"

First, in her book, Language and Woman's Place, and a subsequent article, "Woman's Language," feminist scholar, Robin Lakoff, named "hedging" as the first among ten basic assumptions of what is characteristic of the language of women. Hedges are phrases such as "sort of," "kind of," "It seems like," and so on.

Following up on this female characteristic in language known as "hedging," here's an article that goes some way down the road to indicating what's behind my use of this term, "feminized discourse." Here then are some excerpts that should help explain why I refer to academic discourse as the discourse of "a gelded age," and why I accuse Bishop Wright of undercutting the authority of the Word of God in his interview on Australia's National Radio...

Zondervan/IBS break their word and God's Word...

Today the full text of Today's New International Version (TNIV) was released to the public. As Zondervan and the International Bible Society take this book to market, remember this new product represents an intentional breaking of their word by both Zondervan and the International Bible Society. Christians ought to keep their word, especially in matters related to His Word.

Remember, also, that this Bible is intentionally inaccurate, unfaithfully rendering thousands of passages in such a way as to obscure or remove the meaning the Holy Spirit inspired. The two clearest manifestations of this unfaithfulness appear in texts where the essential patriarchy of God's created order and the persecution of Jesus Christ by "the Jews" are, both, explicitly communicated by the original Hebrew and Greek text.

The motives of Zondervan and IBS are clear: they wish to protect God from charges of sexism and anti-Semitism. (Here's material related to the sex markings and here's material related to the persecution of Jesus by "the Jews.")

The cost is also clear: those paid to do this work are shrinking from declaring the whole counsel of God and therefore have blood on their hands:

(The Apostle Paul said) "And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will no longer see my face. Therefore, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God" (Acts 20:25-27).

Here are two passages that demonstrate...

Scripture's enemies...

'bowdlerize': syn. abbreviate, abridge, bleach, blot out, blue-pencil, cancel, censor, clean, clean out, clean up, cleanse, clear out, cross out, cut, delete, delouse, depurate, deterge, dry-clean, dust, dust off, edit, edit out, erase, expunge, expurgate, freshen, kill, lustrate, omit, purge, purify, reform, rescind, rub out, scavenge, spruce, steam-clean, strike, strike off, strike out, sweep out, sweeten, tidy, void, whiten, wipe, wipe off, wipe out, and wipe up.

In our local paper, The Herald-Times, a young woman named Arlyn Keith is a Community Columnist. From her picture Ms. Keith seems to be in her mid-twenties and her piece appearing on yesterday's op-ed page is titled, "Rock'n'roll rejects the Bible."

Keith is responding to what she considers the non-news that Jan Wenner's Rolling Stone magazine has refused to run an ad for Today's New International Version, the new Bible put together under the patronage of Rupert Murdoch's News Corps' subsidiary, Zondervan Publishing Company.

Keith yawns as she wonders why Zondervan ever thought readers of Rolling Stone would be their market segment? Acknowledging that this chic Bible has compromised the original text, the better to reach her generation, Keith writes:

I knew that Christian leaders were concerned about the disinterest my generation and those younger than us seem to have with religion, but I just did not ever expect the mountain to come to Mohammed and plead for attention. This latest edition of the Bible aptly named Today's New International Version even features, according to USA Today, a method of translation which is meant to appeal to the 18-34 age group wherein gender terminology in reference to humans is neutral. The "truth" has been made user-friendly and packaged in a politically-correct manner. I am not an avid church-goer myself and am still struggling with my views, but it does seem that some values have been compromised in the process.

Out of the mouths of babes...

After years of hard work trying to convince my family members (owners of Tyndale House Publishers and its own gender-neutered Bible, The New Living Translation), Zondervan's executives (who are presently issuing this latest gender-neutered version called Today's New International Version), and the corporate leaders of the International Bible Society (holder of the copyright on all versions of The New International Version including Today's New International Version) of the false doctrine that is the heart of this work, I despair over their intransigence. And yes, one does begin to wonder what the application of "the love of money (being) the root of all evil" is to this Bible-selling business; or, for that matter, to Wycliffe Bible Translators, mega-churches, missions agencies, seminaries, and my own church's building program?

How lightly we consider our own motives in the light of Scripture's warning, "All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the LORD weighs the motives" (Proverbs 16:2 NASB95).

No matter how often we explain to them that the secular feminists are correct in their judgment that the Bible is "hopelessly patriarchal," hope springs eternal and these false prophets try once again to clean up God's Word so a modicum of its offense is removed and evangelism moves apace into the twenty-first century.

Over the past couple of years, Christ the Word's Rev. Dr. Andrew Dionne has created a web site called KepttheFaith exposing the assault upon God and His Word these men are carrying out. Church of the Good Shepherd has funded the site and my brother, David, and I have fought this battle arm-in-arm. Go to the site and read and pray. Secularists and seekers such as Keith can treat this matter lightly, easily seeing the charade. But Tyndale House, Zondervan, the International Bible Society, and all the reverend doctors paid to do the bowdlerizing take this matter very seriously seeing their reputations are on the line.

They're right. Were one of them a member of Church of the Good Shepherd, the elders would declare him to be in violation of his membership vow to honor and obey the inerrant Word of God, and call him to repent.

Chesterton nailed it almost a century ago:

It is remarked, "We need a restatement of religion"; and though it has been said thirty-thousand times, it is quite true.

It is also true that those who say it often mean the very opposite of what they say. As I have remarked elsewhere, they very often intend not to restate anything, but to state something else, introducing as many of the old words as possible.

(G. K. Chesterton, The Thing, p. 190, "Some of Our Errors".)

Princeton Seminary yesterday, and reformed seminaries today...

My dear brother in Christ, David Wegener, has been a great encouragement to me through the years. Now serving as lecturer at the Theological College of Central Africa under our denomination's mission agency, Mission to the World, I continue to cling to our friendship gaining much from David's knowledge of Scripture and church history.

Occasionally David writes in such a helpful way that I wish others could read him. So this time I wrote and asked his permission to put some of his reflections concerning the decline of Princeton Seminary up on this blog. He kindly agreed.

David Wegener, my brother David Bayly, and I share a growing concern over the weakness of the training offered at reformed seminaries where men from our congregations (and other friends) have taken their Masters of Divinity--what my Dad used to refer to as "the union card" of pastoral ministry.

Our criticisms of these seminaries must be developed more fully (which we hope to do), but it may be summed up by observing that it is almost a basic assumption of the curriculum that a good shepherd will avoid controversy.

Ruminate on that a bit and our good readers will quickly see how very much of faithful pastoral ministry this eliminates. Consider just two of the pastor's duties, preaching and discipline, and it's easy to see the damage the Church will suffer when reformed men trained by these seminaries stand in the pulpit and moderate session meetings having been stripped of their ability to "fight the good fight."

Ironically, though, the conflict stripped from the work of the shepherd is given back to these men in a strictly circumscribed outlet that is safe and culturally approved--the pages of Sports Illustrated. The same shepherds so meticulous in avoiding controversy in their pulpits carefully study the stats of three-hundred pound behemoths who make a living crashing through lines of scrimmage trying to sack quarterbacks.

Making common cause with the cultural forces intent on feminizing the Western World, seminaries today are turning out shepherds quite similar to the castrati who, as late as the twentieth century, sang in the Sistine Chapel Choir in a woman's voice...

The death of effeminacy...

Let's return to a post I made a few days back, but first a reminder of the details:

Last week the Indiana Daily Student--Indiana University's campus paper, published a piece on a campus competition known as "Big Man on Campus." The piece's author wrote:

Every male on campus wants to be him, and every female on campus wishes she could date him

To which Mr. Evan Rosenberg took offense, and wrote the following letter to the editor:

Article forgets lesbian women

I was very interested in reading Maggie Bozich's front-page story ("Greeks prepare to crown new Big Man on Campus," Oct. 15, Indiana Daily Student) on Zeta Tau Alpha's research benefit event, Big Man on Campus, but she lost me with her first sentence: "Every male on campus wants to be him, and every female on campus wishes she could date him." Although I have enjoyed reading some of Ms. Bozich's other work, she let me down this time. With one innocent slogan, she silenced every lesbian woman on campus by implicitly denying her existence. Too often we remain complacent with narrow-minded interpretations of love, and by denying the existence of perspectives or orientations different from our own we unconsciously make others feel invisible, which denies them the right to express their love.

I believe Ms. Bozich meant no harm, but let this serve as a reminder of why it is so important that we are inclusive in our language. Silence can be deadly.

Evan Rosenberg, Sophomore

In posting Mr. Rosenberg's letter to the editor here, I concluded with this comment:

Surely Evan, with all his multi-cultural feminine sensitivities, will make someone a good wife husband.

In thinking more about this comment, though, I wondered whether some might take it as a cheap shot, a cynical dissing of Mr Rosenberg? In fact, it was an attempt to make a serious point to which I now return.

A small man on campus...

This contributed by a member of our congregation, my friend, Scott Tibbs.

Article forgets lesbian women

I was very interested in reading Maggie Bozich's front-page story ("Greeks prepare to crown new Big Man on Campus," Oct. 15, Indiana Daily Student) on Zeta Tau Alpha's research benefit event, Big Man on Campus, but she lost me with her first sentence: "Every male on campus wants to be him, and every female on campus wishes she could date him." Although I have enjoyed reading some of Ms. Bozich's other work, she let me down this time. With one innocent slogan, she silenced every lesbian woman on campus by implicitly denying her existence. Too often we remain complacent with narrow-minded interpretations of love, and by denying the existence of perspectives or orientations different from our own we unconsciously make others feel invisible, which denies them the right to express their love.

I believe Ms. Bozich meant no harm, but let this serve as a reminder of why it is so important that we are inclusive in our language. Silence can be deadly.

Evan Rosenberg, Sophomore

Surely Evan, with all his multi-cultural feminine sensitivities, will make someone a good wife husband.

Speeches and sermons...

Assuming that, when the normal American goes through church doors, he doesn't go through a paradigm shift about the nature of leadership, it's interesting to note what the secular authorities advise concerning the speeches of Bush and Kerry:

(Kerry) uses what George P. Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkley, calls "hedges," words and grammatical constructions that imply uncertainty or qualification.

"There are certain forms of grammar that don't commit you, phrases like 'I believe' or 'I think,'" Mr. Lakoff said. "Kerry has to learn not to do that."

"It is possible to be decisive and not sound decisive," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. "People who speak in sentences that contain parenthetical phrases, people who begin a sentence and then deflect to add a series of illustrative examples before they end the sentences" do not seem authoritative, she said. "The language of decisiveness is subject, verb, object, end sentence." (Alex Williams, "George 'The Squinter' Bush vs. John 'The Grinner' Kerry--A Showdown of Style!" New York Times; Sunday, September 26, 2004.)

And what of pastors? Do we use "hedges?" Do we preach in a way that "implies uncertainty?" Are we careful to "qualify" our proclamations?

If so, our preaching "does not seem authoritative" to the souls we have been called to shepherd. Nuanced, yes; but not authoritative.

How sobering is that? What a contrast to the preaching of the prophets, apostles, and our Lord Himself:

Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:4, 5)

As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ. For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:9-12).

For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:18,19)

Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell--and great was its fall."

When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.(Matthew 7:24-29)

Presidential/pastoral leadership...

Page one of the New York Time's "Sunday Styles" section carried a piece by Alex Williams on the upcoming presidential debates titled, "George 'The Squinter' Bush vs. John 'The Grinner' Kerry--A Showdown of Style!" Here are some excerpts:

...the candidate who voters perceive as the winner will probably be chosen not on the substance of what he says, but on the cut of his jib. The subtle style cues... account for as much as 75 percent of a viewer's judgement... the mano a mano is about style--those nonverbal messages that speak to hearts, not heads.

...in some sense it comes down to which man you would want in your living room for the next four years.

...even one deftly delivered witticism, as long as it seems spontaneous (like Reagan's "There you go again" in 1980) could be the deciding factor.

Each candidate must channel his gifts as an onstage communicator--that is, a thespian--said Susan Batson, a longtime acting coach. (Kerry's) greatest opportunity... is to laugh more, to radiate a vulnerability with his eyes, a sense of compassion and wisdom, as opposed to single-mindedness and aggression. He can be "sort of a combination of Henry Fonda and James Stewart," she said.

Note there's nothing here of substance. The entire discussion centers around the candidate's ability to cop a posture or to be an actor, to put his audience at ease. Even taking into account that the piece appeared in the "Sunday Style," rather than the more weighty "Week in Review" section, it's clear the debates are expected to be the pivotal event of this election. And Williams points out that campaign experts expect "hearts, not heads" to prevail in the conclusions voters draw from the debates.

So what does this say about our view of leadership? If our president must put us at ease as we sit with him in our living room, could Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill carry an election today? No, it's doubtful either Lincoln or Churchill "radiated vulnerability with their eyes."

But to get really serious, what does this say about pastoral leadership today? If presidents are picked with little concern for substance, but an overwhelming emphasis on "subtle cues," "non-verbal messages," deftly delivered witticisms" that "seem spontaneous," and their ability to "radiate vulnerability," no wonder our seminaries are turning out men who have few leadership skills.

If "single-mindedness" and "aggression" are a liability to John Kerry, one wonders which church in which suburb and denomination would issue a call to Jesus or the Apostle Paul? And anyone who responds saying that a different philosophy of leadership prevails among biblical churches should pull his head out of the sand.

Preaching: what the echo answers...

Another word from Kierkegaard:

Folios and folios have been written to show again and again how one is to recognize what true Christianity is. This can be done in a far simpler way.

Nature is ... acoustic. Only heed what the echo answers, and thou shalt know at once what is what.

So when in this world one preaches Christianity in such a way that the echo answers: "Glorious, profound, serious-minded Christian, thou shouldst be exalted to princely rank," etc., know then that this signifies his preaching of Christianity is, Christianly, a base lie. It is not absolutely certain that he who walks with fetters on his legs is a criminal, for there are instances when the civil magistrate has condemned an innocent man; but it is eternally certain that he who--by preaching Christianity!--wins all things earthly is a liar, a deceiver, who at one point or another has falsified the doctrine, which by God has been so designed, in such a militant relation to this world, that it is eternally impossible to preach what Christianity is in truth without having to suffer in this world, to be repudiated, hated, cursed.

When one preaches Christianity in such a way that the echo answers, "He is mad," know then that this signifies that there are considerable elements of truth in his preaching, without its being, however, the Christianity of the New Testament. He may have hit the mark; but presumably he does not press hard enough, either by his oral preaching or by the preaching of his life, so that, Christianly speaking, he glides over too easily, his preaching after all is not the Christianity of the New Testament.

But when one preaches Christianity in such a way that the echo answers, "Away with that man from the earth, he does not deserve to live," know then that this is the Christianity of the New Testament. Without change since the time of our Lord Jesus Christ, capital punishment is the penalty for preaching Christianity as it truly is: hating oneself to love God; hating oneself to hate everything in which one's life consists, everything to which one clings, for the sake of which one selfishly would desire to have God's aid to get it, or to console one that one did not get it, console one for the loss of it--without any change capital punishment is the penalty for preaching this in character.

-Soren Kierkegaard, Attack Upon "Christendom," (Boston: Beacon Press, 1956), pp. 278-79.

Shopkeeper or shepherd...

Still more from the wise Danish curmudgeon:

It is pretty much the same now with the modern clergyman: a nimble, adroit, lively man, who in pretty language, with the utmost ease, with graceful manners, etc., knows how to introduce a little Christianity, but as easily as possible. In the New Testament, Christianity is the profoundest wound that can be inflicted upon a man, calculated on the most dreadful scale to collide with everything--and now the clergyman has perfected himself in introducing Christianity in such a way that it signifies nothing, and when he is able to do this to perfection he is regarded as a paragon. But this is nauseating! Oh, if a barber has perfected himself in removing the beard so easily that one hardly notices it, that's well enough; but in relation to that which is precisely calculated to wound, to perfect oneself so as to introduce it in such a way that if possible it is not noticed at all--that is nauseating.

-Soren Kierkegaard in Attack Upon "Christendom" 1854-1855, translated with an introduction by Walter Lowrie, The Beacon Press, Boston, 1956, p. 258.

Preaching without danger...

Ask me to list my favorite books and up there near the top would be Kierkegaard's Attack Upon "Christendom". Every pastor and elder should read it, as should their wives. It pierces our hypocrisy and points the way back to the path and cost of discipleship. It skewers the modern expectation that the model pastor will have the affect and temperament of a shopkeeper, instead calling for a restoration of manliness to our preaching and pastoral care.

To entice our good readers to find the book and read it, here's one of the hundred or so passages perfectly suited to the work of reform so desperately needed in the evangelical and reformed pulpits of our day.

We all know what it is to play warfare in mock battle, that it means to imitate everything just as it is in war. The troops are drawn up, they march into the field, seriousness is evident in every eye, but also courage and enthusiasm, the orderlies rush back and forth intrepidly, the commander's voice is heard, the signals, the battle cry, the volley of musketry, the thunder of cannon--everything exactly as it is in war, lacking only one thing...the danger.

So also it is with playing Christianity, that is, imitating Christian preaching in such a way that everything, absolutely everything is included in as deceptive a form as possible--only one thing is lacking...the danger.

(From Attack Upon "Christendom" by Soren Kierkegaard; 1944, Princeton University Press.)

[Please note: This recommendation of Attack Upon Christendom is not a general recommendation of Kierkegaard. My friend Don Johnson warns that Kierkegaard was a "father of liberalism," and I do not have the knowledge to agree or disagree, although the book Don cites for his concern, Murray's Evangelicalism Divided, has been one of the formative influences in my work and just yesterday, again, I recommended it to a brother for his reading list. So while acknowledging this concern with Kierkegaard--a concern I've heard before--I place this volume by Kierkegaard high on my list and encourage all to get it and read it.]

Gender-neutral Bibles and "the brethren"

[Note to the reader: This past Lord's Day I preached on the Greek word, 'adelphoi', accurately translated "brothers" in English for many centuries. Recently, though, there's been an atttack upon this word and many English translations are replacing it with various circumlocutions including "brothers and sisters" and "Christian friends." Sadly, even the English Standard Version has a footnote at this point, Galatians 3:15, indicating 'adelphoi' may be translated either "brothers" or "brothers and sisters."

As I argue below, to indicate that the Greek word 'adelphoi' is here used inclusively is not the same as removing its male meaning component and replacing that component with the more politically correct "brothers and sisters."

Please keep in mind that these are notes, only, and that the sermon itself was more thoroughly illustrated and developed. Yet I'm hopeful these notes will be helpful to the People of God as they decide whether or not to allow God's Word to speak for Himself.]

From the Pulpit of Church of the Good Shepherd
September 12, 2004 AM

Sermon Title: Brethren
Sermon Text: Galatians 3:15-18
Sermon Series: Galatians Series No. 22

Our sermon text this week is Galatians 3:15-18; let us hear the Word of God, which is eternally true:

Galatians 3:15-18 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. 17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

Paul argues that the covenant cannot be cancelled--that's the first truth he is hammering home. But it's interesting to note that, as he makes that case, he inserts a personal word reminding his listeners that he is addressing them specifically as brothers. We see that the first word of our text is 'adelphoi', the Greek word 'brothers'.

And by using this word, the Apostle Paul reminds the Galatians that what is at stake, what is under debate, is the nature of the family relationship at the heart of the Church.

the cult of cool

Oriana Fallaci, the famous Italian journalist and skewerer of powerful men, has taken on Islam in the years since the attack on the World Trade Center. Unfortunately, her books on Islam have barely sold in the USA.

In a January 2003 interview in the New York Observer Fallaci makes a powerful point about Americans' love of "coolness"...

"Listen," she said, wagging a finger. "Those who do not follow what people like me say are unrealistic, are really masochistic, because they don't see the reality .... Muslims have passion, and we have lost the passion. People like me who have passion are derided: 'Ha ha ha! She's hysterical!' 'She's very passionate!' Listen how the Americans speak about me: 'A very passionate Italian.'

"Americans," she said, repeating for me something she told the American Enterprise Institute, "you have taught me this stupid word: cool. Cool, cool, cool! Coolness, coolness, you've got to be cool. Coolness! When I speak like I speak now, with passion, you smile and laugh at me! I've got passion. They've got passion. They have such passion and such guts that they are ready to die for it."

It's not just in secular circles that passion is derided. Some years ago I put up the first web site for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). Buried within the site I included a page of quotes from reformers including Calvin and Luther on the need to separate from those who consistently oppose and deny God's Truth.

I kept the page on the site despite hearing rumblings that the president of CBMW was unhappy with it. Eventually he called and asked me to remove it. This man, a theologian of moderate note in the Evangelical firmament, had the temerity to suggest that Calvin and Luther were "sinning" when they spoke of Roman Catholicism with the stormy terms I had quoted.

Tragic. Systematic theologies may sell because of their evenhandedness, scholarly reputations may persist if the scholar never speaks with heat against any foe--no matter how foul their blasphemies--but such religion and such men and institutions are the scourge of our age, bloodless, passionless, religionless.

What kind of faith is without vehemence?

My brother introduced me to this quote:

Samuel Johnson tells us that Goldsmith's Vicar of Wakefield originally contained the following statement which was later cut from the text: "I do not love a man who is zealous for nothing."

--Samuel Johnson as quoted in Bartlett's Quotations

Until we reclaim ministry from the pillars of "coolness" in Evangelicalism, until we reject as trainers of our pastors those who can argue against evangelical feminists and open theists by day while drinking with them in the faculty lounge at night, we have ceded Christianity to the control of the Pharisees.

Bad Bible translations...

And speaking of Jesus' words in Luke 14:35 quoted below, while looking them up I happened to notice the Greek word 'kopria' which means "dung" or "manure" has been altered by the New Living Translation to "fertilizer." What soft man came up with this travesty?

Here is the same verse, first from the translation I use for study and preaching, the New American Standard Bible, Updated (1995) Edition, and second from the New Living Translation:

New American Standard Bible, Updated (1995) Edition:

It is useless either for the soil or for the manure pile; it is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

New Living Translation:

Flavorless salt is good neither for the soil nor for fertilizer. It is thrown away. Anyone who is willing to hear should listen and understand!

This is just one among many reasons why Christians must be discerning in their choice of Bible translations, and obviously I recommend what I use--the New American Standard Bible, Updated (1995) Edition. Although at times the English is not quite English, its very stodginess is its best quality. You know you're getting it straight.

And what better place to show it than the translation of the Greek word for "manure?"

PS: Yes, the ESV gets it right and is a good translation, but for reasons I will not go into here, my own Bible remains the NASB95.