Good comments

(Tim) A couple days ago, I posted concerning an oped written by a friend of mine dealing with problems with homeschools, and my friend's suggestion that it would help for state authorities to take more authority over them.

Saturday, I spoke with my friend, Pastor Tom Stein of Richmond, Indiana. We had a good conversation. Afterwards, he forwarded this e-mail he's sent to those who wrote to complain about his column. I post it here because I think his response is good.

Tom and I still disagree over the role Covenant Seminary may or may not have had in what he proposed. Yet we've both heard one another's arguments, so misunderstanding is not the source of our disagreement.

Anyhow, I thought you'd all want to read his e-mail...

(Tim) A couple days ago, under the post "Why Same-Sex Intimacy Is Sin," a comment appeared written by Baylyblog's resident scoffer, Cliff Foreman. For twenty-five years, Professor Foreman's day job has been professing Reformed Christian faith as a member of the English Department at the Presbyterian Church in America's Covenant College. Most of our readers are aware that David and I aren't fans of Covenant College. We think it would be best for our denomination to sell it to Tim Keller, but to this point no one's taking our suggestion seriously.

As a simple defense of our position, consider this exchange between Prof. Foreman and a mere graduate student here at Indiana University--a young whippersnapper who lacks the terminal degree as well as the wonderful privilege of a quarter-century of spiritual and theological growth there at Covenant College, at ease in Zion on top of Lookout Mountain within the wonderfully safe cocoon of scores of like-minded Reformed PhDs sharing his commitment to the Westminster Standards.

Here then is Prof. Foreman's explanation to a shake-the-dust-off-your-feet hard-hearted unbeliever of why sodomy is wrong, followed by Josh Congrove's deconstruction of Prof. Foreman's explanation:

* * *

CLIFF FOREMAN WRITES: How about this: God created human beings and intended them to find happiness and fulfillment in committed heterosexual marriages. Then human beings fell and sin entered the world. This meant that people would be born with sinful desires and that through life experiences those desires would solidify into sinful patterns of behavior. But God set his son to offer us forgiveness and the opportunity for significant healing in this life. Our struggle against sin is difficult, but success is possible because of Jesus' sacrifice and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. But of course, in order to be healed and to enjoy the blessings of health, we need to admit that we are sick. If we say that our sinfulness is normal, we won't seek healing. We may tell ourselves that our disease isn't contagious and that it hurts no one, but we will never, then, know what it is to be healthy.

If this scenario, which is what the Bible teaches, is true, then the people who are condemning your behavior are doing so because they think you are missing out on something that would be better for you...

(Tim: from David Wegener) Regular readers will recognize the author of this post, David Wegener, as one of David's and my closest friends and longtime resident sage here at the Baylyblog. David and his wife, Terri, are missionaries under Mission to the World. David is seconded to the Theological College of Central Africa in Ndola, Zambia, where David teaches and serves as Academic Dean. David and Terri's daughter, Lizzie, has been living in our home for the past two years, bringing us constant joy.

David posted this as a comment under "Christianity Today: In numbers too big to ignore," and I thought it should to be here, on the main page.

* * *

I started reading CT in the 70s and continued to read it through the 80s and 90s. But I let my subscription lapse. Though I have access to it in my college library, I rarely read it. No point, really; everything is very predictable, especially as long as those who are in charge remain in charge.

There is a definite trend in the articles, the authors of the articles, the editorial positions taken, etc. I'm waiting for some sharp young historian of American evangelicalism to do his dissertation analyzing CT from its inception up to the present day. What would he find?

(Tim, from LifeSiteNews.com) Prior to the election, I found those who called themselves "pro-life" while shilling for Senator Barack Obama to be morally repugnant. Now, these hypocrites have had more than enough opportunities publicly to acknowledge their mistake; they've had weeks to cry "foul" or "I was misled by Senator Obama's lies concerning abortion;" yet they are silent.

Where are their protests? Where are they denouncing the aggressive promotion of abortion, internationally, that President Obama has given himself to since taking office at the White House? Where have the voices of Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo been raised in protest of President Obama's advocacy of child-slaughter? And turning to McLaren's and Campolo's useful simpletons, do any of them feel just the least bit betrayed and ashamed of their naivete?

It would be hard to prove, but I'm convinced that many of those who supported Senator Obama's presidential aspirations while claiming, themselves, to be Christian and pro-life were not pro-life at all, but rather, themselves often had had one or more abortions (or helped others to get one) and voted for Senator Obama as a coping mechanism employed to silence their conscience. And I do not say this from any anger at President Obama being elected to our nations highest elected office. Rather, it's my own personal observation.

Well, again, when guilt and complicity have silenced Emerjellicals, Rome speaks.

Here's Roman Catholic leadership that I, a Protestant Presbyterian pastor, agree with entirely..

(Tim) Despite his false statement about yours truly (his daughter does live in our house, after all, so the man knows which side of his bread is buttered), I do think the comment just made by our Zambian Mission to the World correspondent, David Wegener, summarizing his conclusions to our lengthy discussion of Governor Palin's Vice-Presidential candidacy is about right. For those of you who've given up on the Palin comments, here's what David has to say:

* * *

As best I could, I’ve tried to follow the debate that has gone on here over Sarah Palin and how we should then vote. I haven’t done very well, nor of following the thread over on Pastor Wilson’s blog, but here are my two cents.

Sarah Palin is a very conflicted woman and I feel very conflicted about her. She is a Christian, a member of Feminists For Life, a wife and a mother who is running for Vice President. You can’t be a feminist and pro-life. Islam is built on five pillars...

(Tim) If you don't read Doug Wilson's blog, forget this one and bookmark him. If you have time for two good reads, David and I don't mind being your second, but make sure Doug's your first. Yes, there are positions and friends we don't share with him, but for about fifteen years I've found him more consistently edifying and biblical than anyone else I read.

Typical of his chronic helpfulness is this simple post about why we should all bring Bibles to church. Read it, and then let's all join in making sure each of us and our family members have Bibles in hand in worship next Lord's Day. Deal?

As I said yesterday, the best material in this blog is usually in the comments. A good deal is still being written in comments to past posts. I'd like to call your attention to two of these again:

From the Modest Yet Modern discussion: