Christianity left behind...

A prominent evangelical magazine just did a piece on the complaint by Calvin College faculty reps that Calvin's board has issued policy barring members of their faculty from promoting sodomy. The article starts this way:

The homosexuality debate that has torn apart mainline denominations is fanning faculty and student protests at Calvin College, and highlights a growing issue facing evangelical schools.

The magazine, published in Wheaton, continues:

The case is being watched with interest by other (evangelical) schools struggling to balance compassion and doctrine in their policies on gays.

"Struggling to balance compassion and doctrine?" What on earth are they saying?

Well of course, the point is that the evangelical world today is moving toward the normalization of sodomy and the rubric under which it's being done is the silencing of Scripture's denunciation of sodomy as an abomination before the Lord. Other abominations such as fornication, unbiblical divorce and remarriage, and adultery have already been normalized, and now it's sodomy's turn.

The path to normalization is cleared by much talk of compassion with only an occasional tip of the hat to sin and righteousness and judgment. Which is to say that the Holy Spirit is nowhere present in such discussions since "When He comes, He will convict the world of sin and righteousness and judgment."

There's no conviction of sin going on--none at all. Instead, we're busy balancing compassion and doctrine. Wheaton College's "sexuality scholar," Stan Jones, puts it like this...

"I think it's a symptom of the growing lack of consensus about this issue," said Stanton Jones, provost at Wheaton College and a sexuality scholar. "The debates that once were contained within the mainline denominations are spilling over into the evangelical denominations."

Actually it would be better to say that the denial of Scripture formerly reserved for mainline liberals has made much progress among evangelicals. Most evangelicals are liberals, now, although they're lulled to sleep by weekly rest stops in pews where they hear reassuring talk of being "born again" and having "a personal relationship with Jesus." There's no doctrine, though; no membership and submission to elders, no fencing the Lord's Table, no preaching, no repentance; and thus, no Christian faith.

The Christianity of Machen's Christianity and Liberalism has been left behind.

Evangelicalism has become an emotive community, a community of experience and sentiment. It's no longer the Household of Faith, the Church of the Living God, the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. Balancing compassion and doctrine is really newspeak for killing both compassion and doctrine for the sake of pluralism, inclusivity, diversity and all the other goodies guaranteed to win us acceptance by those on the broad path that leads to destruction.

(Jones of Wheaton College) added that young evangelicals increasingly see homosexuality "not as an issue of sexual morality but as an issue of justice, dignity, or tolerance."

These young evangelicals have been abandoned by their shepherds who were called by God to guard them. They're wandering out on the moors and night is falling, but there's no one who has compassion on them; no one who loves and will give up his life to protect them. The wolves are howling in anticipation of their kill and no man is standing in the gap. Certainly not these professors paid by pious Christian parents who thought if they'd send their precious sons and daughters to their alma mater, they'd be guarded and protected and fed and sanctified.

Instead, these professors are furious that they're being banned from professing sodomy. It's all about academic freedom and intellectual integrity--stuff like that.

For Calvin faculty, the debate goes beyond policy positions to the very mission of the college.

"They are more unified on this than I've seen them unified on anything for a long time," said Karin Maag, vice chair of the Faculty Senate.

Professors wonder why trustees singled out the gay issue, Maag said, adding, "There is a worry among some colleagues that this is the thin edge of the wedge. Will the board of trustees start making statements about other issues?"

Don't worry your little tiny brains, dead consciences, and hardened hearts one bit, precious professors. Your rebellion will do the trick. The trustees will back down, with due consideration to saving face in the process. Then, chastened for their godly leadership, they'll give up the ship. Al Mohler at Southern is the exception that proves the rule.

Dear ones, you have absolutely nothing to fear. There's no Paige Patterson left in the CRC.

Still, as a purely academic exercise, let's ask what "other issues" might have been addressed by godly trustees?

Adultery? Euthanasia? Egalitarian feminism? Greed? Infanticide? Rebellion against authority? Bestiality? Abortion? Fornication? Incest? Can you imagine Calvin's trustees having the temerity to deny their faculty members the privilege of promoting the rebellion of wives against their husbands or fathers having sex with their little daughters?

"Oh my goodness, don't worry about that" says the bad Calvin faculty member. "We're not asking for intellectual integrity and academic freedom to be extended to the promotion of things like bestiality and incest. Just sodomy."

Well, what happens when good CRC men confess to their counselors that their sexual predilection, their orientation is to children--always has been and always will be. That they've tried to repent of it many times, and with tears, but they're the same year in, year out, and they've never known anything else. That God made them differently and their daughter says herself that she wants Daddy's love.

"Here, listen to her for yourself! It's a beautiful thing we have, the two of us."

Good reader, you think this is unfair? You think it would never happen?

Think again. Calvin's professors are already loose among the sheep, devouring souls with their bared fangs of feminism, and they do it with the full knowledge and approval of the shepherds of the sheep. Some good shepherds tried to stop it, tried to warn parents about what these professors were doing to their precious children, but they were silenced and have long since abandoned the ship of the CRC.

Truth is, we all know what's coming. There's just a conspiracy not to mention it among polite company.

Sex between adults and children will be normalized here as it's being normalized right now in Europe. Age of consent is being lowered in Europe and soon it'll be lowered here. Incest, pedophilia, and pederasty are on the agenda and their day will soon come.

But like Hezekiah, most of the shepherds are counting on being dead by then.

The (Calvin) board considered the (faculty) senate's request in late October as members of the Calvin community re-examine what it means to pursue truth at the 4,000-student college owned by the Christian Reformed Church (CRC).

Yes, the CRC does truly "own" all of this at Calvin College and Calvin Seminary--just as the PCA will own a similar mess at Covenant College and Covenant Seminary after woman officers have been normalized across the PCA.

Conversations were catalyzed at Calvin, Wheaton, and other schools in recent years by visits from Soulforce, a national gay advocacy group that toured dozens of Christian colleges.

After Soulforce visited (evangelical) Gordon College in Wenham, Massachusetts, in 2007, students published a volume of stories by gay and lesbian students about their struggles. Gordon encouraged its students to talk with Soulforce but vowed the college would not veer from its policy prohibiting sex outside of male-female marriage.

"Gay and lesbian students?" Will adulterers and pederasts tell their stories next? Will Tony Campolo be invited to give the spiritual emphasis week chapel messages calling faculty and students to confess their pedophobia and bestiaphobia?

...Following the 2007 Soulforce visit, more controversy came to Calvin with Seven Passages, a play about gay Christians conceived and directed by Calvin drama professor Stephanie Sandberg and performed at a Grand Rapids community theater. Drawn from 127 interviews and questioning traditional interpretations of Scripture, it was also performed at the 2008 Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops.

"Gay Christians?" Is this something like polyamorous Christians or incestuous Christians? Are idolatrous Christians and apostate Christians next?

The board's memo affirms the CRC's position that homosexual orientation is not sinful but homosexual practice is. Though alternative views may be aired, it reads, "The position of the church and the college should be clearly and sympathetically presented."

Yes, of course; homosexual orientation is not sin. Sounds great, doesn't it?

But what about incestuous orientation? What about man's wandering lustful eye syndrome--is it a sin? Woman's rebellious orientation--what about that? Pastor's cowardice orientation?

Let's look at this more closely. What is being said when we talk about homosexual orientation not being sin? Is there any other abomination we want to split these hairs over? A man loves murder, thinks of himself as a murderer, dresses like a murderer, identifies himself to others by a murderer's clothing and body gestures, and what he says and how he says it glorifies murder.

The man's identity is bound up with murder and he's known as the fellow who has been made by God with a unique murderer orientation. What about that man? Is he given a pass on everything else as long as he doesn't actually do what he loves, as long as he doesn't commit the abomination at the very heart of his identity?

Brothers and sisters, concepts such as homophobia and homosexual orientation are simply the way false shepherds wink at sodomy and browbeat sincere Christians into silence. It's all so confusing. Who's fool enough to open his mouth and run the risk of having the man with the terminal degree sitting across from him in the Sunday school class accuse him of homophobia or patronize him with a long explanation of the critical distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual action? Then, he finished his pedantic lecture with a flourish, quoting that most-esteemed church father, Augustine, who said we are to hate the sin, but love the sinner.

It's all so smutty.

(Calvin's) Administrators say they honor that tradition but walk a tightrope between church doctrine and welcoming gay students.

"Parents continually ask, 'Is my gay son or daughter going to be safe here at Calvin?' " said provost Claudia Beversluis...

Oh yes, your child will be as safe at Calvin College as he was safe at your home and church where he was abandoned to homosexual orientation while being cautioned not to have unprotected sex.

Yes, of course he'll be safe--from any call to repentance, that is. Safe from any loving leadership helping him to change his way of speaking, his choice of clothing, his friendships and method of conversation, his reading matter and taste in movies... Yes, if he's a believer he'll be safe from any help with the hard grace of sanctification.

He'll be safe.

Anna, a bisexual Calvin student who asked that her last name not be used, said she fears a chilling effect.

"This memo silences discussion," she said. "You can't deal with the issue unless you're talking about it."

Next year, on its application form Calvin will be asking applicants to check one of three boxes:




"(Calvin College) has been the envy of every other conservative Christian college in the nation," said Nicholas Wolterstorff, a retired philosopher at Calvin and Yale Divinity School.

Yes, and Las Vegas' slot machines are the envy of every deacon collecting the Sunday morning offering plates.

George Marsden, a retired historian at Calvin and the University of Notre Dame, cautioned against making lists of positions faculty may not advocate. Militarism and abortion could also be considered confessional issues, he said.

"There are too many possible issues," Marsden said. "You're stirring up controversy you don't have to have...."

Thank you, friend George. That's just what we needed from the wise old owl--in the face of the promotion of sodomy, a calm, cool, voice of moderation.

"My sense is we ought to have a broadly based discussion of … the relationship between being a confessional college and academic freedom," Byker said.

Yes, yes; always more discussion.

No firings. No terminations. No repudiation of tenure. Only more discussions.

While our precious children are being led to Hell--the place where discussions of abominations have no end.

( With thanks to several readers.)

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.


> The board's memo affirms the CRC's position that homosexual orientation is not sinful but homosexual practice is.

Crazy. Jesus certainly didn't say that it wasn't sinful to look at a woman lustfully. And that's even "heterosexual."

I'd say the Old Testament would also disprove the above claim when it says a man should not dress like a woman, nor a woman like a man. Something about an "abomination"...?

"A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." --Deuteronomy 22:5

I have to wonder how much widespread homosexual [unisex] dress by straights [including Christians] contributes to perverted sexual behavior in a society.

"Who's fool enough to open his mouth and run the risk of having the man with the terminal degree sitting across from him in the Sunday school class accuse him of homophobia or patronize him with a long explanation of the critical distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual action?"

I'm that fool.


I'm sorry, I couldn't make it through without commenting - but I'm afraid of spewing tea all over the lap top.

Ah yes, consensus, justice, tolerance. Yes, yes, yes. Sounds a bit like the Jesus seminar and their little colored marbles, doesn't it?

I wonder if I gathered enough "scholars" together and poured forth the required number of journal articles that would provide enough influence to change consensus on the laws of human physiology -- do you think THEN I could have a really big piece of cake with lots of frosting AND ice cream every night after dinner and STILL lose weight?

Because, as we all know, consensus equals truth. Right?


Ezekiel is so right on...

"Because you disheartened the righteous with falsehood when I did not cause him grief, but have encouraged the wicked not to turn from his wicked way and preserve his life..." (13:22)

Since you mention Lambeth -- it might be wise to note what happened at Lambeth in 1930 (the Anglicans were the first Protestant denomination to embrace the use of contraception) and the subsequent decline of the Anglican "communion" to the point where they are now led by a Druid who promotes women "bishops" and sodomitic clergy. And even the vast majority of "orthodox" traditional Anglicans can't see that - they're still pushing WO, though they won't countenance ordaining openly gay and partnered clergy --- yet.


How sad this development at Calvin (they should change the school's name!) is not an isolated incident but a pandemic worse than H1N1 infecting large blocks of evangelicaldom. I see two major causes to this whole abandonment of godliness for Rodney King religion: GENESIS PAINTING (Since many of our people have consigned all or at least the first 11 chapters to the myth bin, why would we still want to hold on to the marriage covenant declared therein? Never mind that our Lord quoted from Genesis 1-11 many times and alluded to it many times more!);
and RABBLE ROUSING (So many churches are intent on attracting the unchurched, they do so at any cost--creating a church without borders, "No rules; just right!" Then these seekers increasingly dictate the direction of the whole thing and run it into the ground, unrepentant as they were the day they came, just as they were!

> That God made them differently and their daughter says herself that she wants Daddy's love. "Here, listen to her for yourself! It's a beautiful thing we have, the two of us."

No, we won't think about this until it's upon us and then we'll wonder what the heck happened. In reality it's been here for quite a while just not publicly. The pedophiles just wait for at least one generation of kids who grew up with such abuse to extol the virtues of such evil - a society dominated by kids who never knew feeling safe and have no sense of what normal, happy, and Godly love is. Then there will be little opposition.

Most pastors sure as heck won't touch such abuse with a hundred foot pole (not even on a blog) thinking that somehow this sin won't ever touch their family - so who's gonna stand against it?

Besides all that, God only expects us to avoid sin that we don't really want anyway, right?


There is evil abroad in the world. Some of it is glaring, causing us to recoil in horror from it—for now. But much of it comes to us quietly, almost gently, as if to assure us that it's really OK. Our need for the revealing truth of God's Word has never been greater. Thank you Pastor Bayly for being one of the few who seeks to shine the truth of God's Word on the evils that are in this world.

Tim, other than telling a sodomite in your church what to wear, how to talk, what to read or watch, and that there is a special judgment reserved just for him, how do you intervene in the life of such a person who presents himself to you? There just has to be an enduring hope for the sodomite, who both hates and enjoys the sin, who is saved by grace, and yet has desires or actions that would define him otherwise.

Dear Denver,

Here's what I actually wrote: "loving leadership helping him to change his way of speaking, his choice of clothing, his friendships and method of conversation, his reading matter and taste in movies..."

Can you see how what you've written in your comment is a bad reproduction?

Please do not be so dismissive of instruction in mannerisms, clothing, reading, movies, and friendships--what the Puritans would call "conversation." These things are critical to people tempted by same-sex intimacy fleeing sexual sin just as they are for those tempted by adultery and fornication.

Then too, no one has ever said anything here about "a special judgment reserved just for (the sodomite)." Where did you come up with that?

Truth is, Scripture reveals no special judgment for sodomites. Just the same old same old shared with murderers, slanderers, and the greedy who are unrepentant.

As far as what churches do for those caught in any serious sexual sin, I'll let some of those who have been led to repentance tell you themselves. And yes, feel free to post anonymously, the better to answer the question.

In Christ,

>Truth is, Scripture reveals no special judgment for sodomites. Just the same old same old shared with murderers, slanderers, and the greedy who are unrepentant.

Lev 20:13 'If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.


Just as the bloodguiltiness of all who are unrepentant is upon them. Are you using this verse to try and say that there is a special judgment? If so, I think you are wrong, sir.

"But if ... evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..." (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)

If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. (Deut. 13:1-11)

2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. (Deut. 17:2-5)

32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses. (Num. 15:32-36)

Not sure if that is what you were saying, but I sure read it that way, so please correct yourself if it wasn't.

I don't think that Denver Todd was trying to twist your words. He probably just feels that putting emphasis on outward changes is misplaced or perhaps premature. Maybe he thinks that your standard for repentance is higher for the sodomite than for the gossiper. It is like the gossiper just has to not gossip, while the sodomite has to not only not sin, but he has to continuously not want to do it as well.

If you and your people don't back down on these things, it is a good thing. I told my pastor about my sodomy problem a year ago, and I have been waiting for him to care for my soul ever since.

there is such a thing as gradation of sins. Romans 1 is especially telling...sodomy itself is evidence of God's wrath on a man as He has turned that man over to unnatural things. That being the case, I would venture to say sodomy is a special judgment of God and will lead to even more punishment later.

If God visits men in a special way *now*, why wouldn't He in Hell?

>> I told my pastor about my sodomy problem a year ago, and I have been waiting for him to care for my soul ever since.

Dear Anonymous,

You must find a church where people are loved and cared for, pastorally. You simply can't survive in a church where you must hide and suffer, secretly. Please send me an e-mail and I'll do what I can to help, as long as I may start with speaking to your pastor to see if he may not be more willing and capable of helping than you believe at this point.

As for what I wrote, I hope you understand that we must not publicly identify as sinners regardless of what our besetting sin is. Gossips must not hang out a "Gossip Here" sign over their front door or Facebook page just as women tempted by same-sex intimacy must not dress butch and hang out at Indiana University women's basketball games. Certain behaviors and locations are rife with temptation and must be avoided as part of the avoidance of the besetting sin.

This was my point and it's absolutely crucial to the healing of homosexual temptation. But nowhere have I said it's all that must be done. It's crucial but only part of the work needing to be done.

With love and hope for you, dear brother or sister,

tbbayly at gmail dot com

* * *

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1Corinthians 6:9-11)

>>there is such a thing as gradation of sins.

Dear Craig,

No question here, although all of Christendom will shout you down if you say so. But that's not the point. Rather, the question is one of God's judgment and I've nowhere spoken or written to the sodomite "that there is a special judgment reserved just for him."

Note the words 'special' and 'just.' Truth is, sins that are worse will be judged and punished more severely in Hell. But there are a whole host of sins and factors accompanying those sins that must be spoken of, here, if we're to be Biblical on this matter.

In other words, I'm quite willing to speak of sodomy as being a particularly wicked sin (as I have on this blog believing that is a necessary warning to help sodomites flee for their lives). And I'm also willing to speak of sodomy as a particular judgment of God on particularly wicked people and cultures. But I'm not willing to single out the sodomite, telling him that, all by himself, "there is a special judgment reserved just for him."

Pastorally, I believe he needs to see his sin in the context of other sins equally or more heinous in the eyes of God, and equally able to be repented of in God's grace and mercy.


Dear Craig,

I would agree with you most heartily here. The point that I was trying to make is what Pastor Bayly more clearly made just above.

>Just as the bloodguiltiness of all who are unrepentant is upon them. Are you using this verse to try and say that there is a special judgment?

Not at all Archie. Just the same old same old as Tim indicated. But I don't find your list of Scripture applicable here. Why do you include sodomy with sins specific to God's covenant people (such as the examples of idolatry you've posted) rather than murder, which I assume you would deem a civil offense that carries capital consequences? Do you imagine sodomy (or adultery for that matter) to be less socially destructive than murder? Do you have something Biblical you use to distinguish what is and is no longer subject to the capital stipulations outlined in Scripture?

Ahhh...I didn't read Denver's comment til just now...gave me a bit more context. I'll read more carefully next time...I took your comment differently than you had intended, Archie.

Why has this happened? (1) The CRC started ordaining men who did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. (2) The CRC started ordaining men who believed the atonement was universal and non-effacicious. (3) The CRC started ordaining women.

This is the normal procedure. It has happened before and it will happen again.

Dear Mark,

Nope. Just throwing out a couple examples off the hip in the two or three minutes that I had available to comment. Probably should make it a policy to never comment when I don't have time to post a well thought through response.

We are on the same page.



I've struggled with homosexuality my entire life. I am no less "gay" than anyone who struggles with this yet God was gracious with me and gave me a wife who I dearly love, 3 children and a great 17 year marriage.

I suffered in silence for a decade, constantly tempted, finally told my wife and pastor. Had much support and just confessing it has almost completely removed the temptation. Also, God heals when you live in obedience to Him. I don't believe the temptation ever goes away for people like us, but in stages of obedience there has been healing - marrying in faith, then having children in faith etc. The whole evil lie of homosexuality says that this is who you are and you can never be whole, not true. You become whole like any sinner as you obey scripture.

Everything the pastors here are saying is true. You should avail yourself of Mr. Bayly's help and email him.

What is the source of these quotations, e.g. the name of the magazine.


Michael M_______

Dear Michael,

You can find the source easily enough through Google. I'm unwilling to have a link to it, here.


I think one thing that must be rejected is bifurcation of straight and gay men. We're happy to admit that in our hearts we're murderers for hating our brothers and we grin when we admit that though we're not career burglars, we do steal etc. etc.

James writes that if you break one part of the law, you are guilty of all of it, this includes laws against homosexuality. Lately, I've been proudly telling people that I'm a repressed homosexual...along with being a repressed murderer, gossip, thief, liar, child molester, relations-with-animals sort of fellow. It's not merely in some sort of abstract sense, my mind has committed every one of those sins over and over and over again. So have all of us, so let's admit it, there's the discussion worth having, that we don't take our sin nearly seriously enough.

Thank you. I attempted a quick search on Google before asking my question - for whatever reason I was not able to easily locate the source. It is unheard of from my experience to present citations from a recent form of journalism in America and then provide discussion/argument about that journalism without providing a basic reference - particularly when significant conclusions are being made about American culture and academic institutios based on the citations. What is your reason for doing this in this case? I sincerely would like to know the source, although I am also greatly interested in the forms of censorship prevelant from reconstructionist-like leaders. (note: the link to my website was censored from this comment thread).


Michael M______ [NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: Last name of author has been removed.]

Mr. Michael,

I discovered your previous website before it was taken down. Quite frankly, I don't believe you are ignorant as to the source of the quotes.

As for why Tim won't publish the direct link here? I'm thankful he won't because I don't want to see even one more innocent soul lured away by the lies and blasphemy hosted on that magazine's website.


1.) Do you mean the Arminian Paige Patterson?

2.) You really don't know what you're talking about when you say there are no shepherds left in the CRC who desire to guard the flock. Have you ever heard of the fallacy of generalization?

3.) I'm four square w/ you on the thrust of this post but you need to be careful regarding all that hyperbole you're sloshing around.

>>all that hyperbole you're sloshing around

You mean hyperbole like all Cretans are liars, Bret? Please chill out.

And for the record, my best friend is a CRC pastor and he didn't take umbrage.


* * *

And Mr. Metzler, if you make any more complaints like that above, I'll ask you to stop commenting, here. You're a guest, sir, and I have you on a short leash given your past sin against Christ Church and her pastor.



Yes, I am ignorant of the source, which is why I asked for the source. [NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: The rest of this comment has been removed.]

Mr. Michael,

The concern is not only for those who post and engage in the conversation -- but for the innocent lurker. I've seen enough evidence of harm to the latter that I am happy our hosts here care enough about their pastoral duties to engage in such censorship. All blogs and websites do, to varying extents, but not all are honest about their reasons.



I don't care if your best friend is a minister in the first church... [NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: a couple of words have been removed, here.] That comment was out of line, and I do take umbrage for myself and a good number of other faithful ministers and laymen who are trying to fight the good fight.

I'll chill out when you learn how to write about matters you're apparently clueless about.

Dear Bret,

I would appreciate your taking time off from commenting here until you and I have been able to discuss your commenting on our blog in person. Thank you for respecting my wishes in this.

David Bayly

Like Camilla, I easily found the magazine. I googled the quote, and the magazine article was the very first item that came up (along with various other cites to the article). So I too would conclude that Michael is commenting in bad faith.

Since people may look at this thread later, I'll digress on it a little with an idea:

If homosexual orientation and behavior are so very different as concepts, that has strong implications for laws. If my city bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, that leaves me free to discriminate on the basis of behavior, dress, attitude, and so forth. Something worth testing someday...

Add new comment