It's really a great and helpful piece of information. I'm satisfied that you simply shared this helpful information with us.
Please keep us informed like this. Thanks for sharing.
Love homeschooling as the "benevolent despot" of my family's homeschool--oops, "patriarch"--but by experience, I've got to concede that all too many homeschools do declare independence from the people and institutions God sent to bless His People, specifically husbands/fathers and churches.
And what a need to pray for churches to really train their members to think. Few and far between, I'm afraid.
Absolutely believe in homeschooling or Christian schools. I used to be a Director of Christian Education and hoped for church education. But church education cannot do it all.
By the way years ago I had a delightful correspondence with your father while he had a beloved column at Eternity Magazine.
Carol Noren Johnson
Thanks for this. (I am a teacher in the public schools). I think a point related to this post (by no means central to it) is that whether in the public or Christian schools, more men need to be teaching. I am blessed to be in a public school where the faculty count a larger-than-usual number of men and Christians, and it makes a difference.
Thanks very nice blog!
This was meant to be humorous, actually. I didn't mind Thrifty taking away my free coupon at all. Just thought it was funny.
A Dish TV customer who lost equipment in the recent forest fire south of Denver and was asked to pay for the equipment when he called to suspend service took the situation to the local newspaper. After a public outcry, his equipment charges were forgiven, even though his insurance would have more than likely paid for the loss. Of course he knew this, but he had to bring it to the court of public opinion, a form of revenge to bring Dish to its knees. Opinions in the comments section of the local paper's online edition were split. Some were like me, thinking that insurance would cover it, so what's the big deal. The others wrote about big bad corporations and how mean and petty they are.
It seems like companies just can't win. Which is why I tell the above story in response to your OP. Thrifty could have gone either way. They could have honored the mistaken coupon, or they could cancel the coupon. It probably would have gotten them more street cred to honor the coupon, but for whatever reason they thought otherwise. I have read many stories about airlines accidentally offering next-to-zero fares to exotic destinations; some honor the fares, sometimes they force a refund through. If I were Thrifty, I would have avoided an apology, but rather turned lemons into lemonade by offering an alternative coupon that created more good feelings for customers.
Dear Zach, if you've found the ESV Study Bible helpful, keep using it, dear brother. But keep the warnings you've read here in mind. It's very difficult for us not to displace Scripture with the explanations of Scripture when they're printed side by side. Only the words of God are the words of God.
It's so good you're reading your Bible!
I'm sorry, I'm not a long-time reader. Have you fleshed out your problems with study bibles before? Is there a post you could point me to? I have purchased the ESV Study bible for quite a few people and use it myself. I hardily recognize the problem of reading the words of men and confusing them for the words of Scripture (the introduction to that bible even warns against it), but I consider it to be a "mini-commentary" attached to the bible. I don't always agree with the notes, but I do find them helpful.
William Tyndale Study Bible..? It's his translation. It took him years. He lived on the run and in poverty. He died a cruel death. Yet, somehow, I don't think he would have wanted his name on the Bible. Self effacement, sacrifice, humility...Did he help Christians? Did he profit from it in terms of reputation or cash? No.
Thanks very much for this information. I sure did learn a lot.
Surely he isn't. Church isn't a factory, and the primary aim of going to church is not to produce offspring that go to church, it is to worship God. Parents show their children the truth by worshipping God. Obviously, mothers need to go to church for this reason, and for the same reason all of us need to--to worship God and to sit under the ministry of His word. The study (which was not done by some fundamentalist group in Colorado Springs, Grand Rapids, Greenville, or any other evangelical ghetto but in a highly secularized nation) concludes that an observant father is far more likely to produce an observant child, hopefully in partnership with an observant mother, than an observant mother alone. In fact, HE is not saying anything much really. He's sharing with us the results of a demographic survey done by a government census bureau. He's also not saying, vis a vis your earlier comment, that "he is more important than a woman." He's saying that God has ordained men to lead their families, and when they don't, bad things happen.
And pre-emptively, let us not get into the minefield of sacrificing the normal on the altar of the abnormal here. Yes, there are circumstances of abandonment, or widowhood, or paternal incapacity (a colleague of mine a few years back suffered a traumatic brain injury and was no longer able, obviously, to lead his family in worship) where God will raise up women to do remarkable feats of leadership in a family and elsewhere. But acknowledging those exceptions for what they are, the truth is, God's word has provided for a father and husband to be the head of his household. There's a variety of ways to practice this, yes, and the context is different culture to culture, sure, but I hardly think that repeating scriptural truth is a mark of "insecurity in leadership," brother.
Surely you are not trying to say that mothers don't need to attend church?
You seem to look for every opportunity to say "I am more important than a woman." That hardly seems the behavior of a leader, or someone secure in their leadership, I am sorry to say.
Have you ever published a review of Goldberg's "Why Men Rule"?
The father is the head of his home. He will either be a good head or a bad head, present or absent, leading or wandering, but you can't change the fact that he is the head.
Fathers are the heads of the church. They will either abdicate or lead, and the church will either falter or triumph as a result.
Fathers are the heads of society. They will either do their work or leave it or abdicate and society will either flourish or decay as a result.
I'm in a quandary because several years ago we told Darryl Hart he could not comment here any longer. He, his friend Zrim, and one or two other R2K proponents have been banned for refusing to abide by Baylyblog's house rules here and here.
I'll leave the three comments already posted here alone, but now ask that Darryl please not comment again. Thank you.
Darryl has his own blog where he and Zrim promote their R2K doctrine, so he is not lacking a forum.
"any Reformed theologian prior to 1790 would have opposed the American Revolution" That's wrong. I don't know if *most* of the American calvinist pastors were pro-Revolution, but I wouldn't be surprised, especially if we exclude calvinist Church of England pastors. Quakers and anabaptists are the anti-revolution religious groups that come to my mind, not Puritans. In fact, it would be interesting to look at Britain--- could it be that the dissenters thought George III's American policy wrong, as Edmund Burke did?
I don't ahve a copy of the book below, but its preface is one place to look:
David Gray, then I suggest you read more about libertarianism and 2k. H.L. Mencken also opposed prohibition and state schooling. He also voted for Smith. Does that make him a Presbyterian?
Did you read the letter? Govt. also regulated when businesses could open on weekdays and Machen didn't oppose them. Go figure.
I've voted for a Roman Catholic who opposed prohibition and I'm not a libertarian. Certainly Machen wanted at least parts of the Decalogue enforced. I don't see how libertarianism is compatible with enforcing restrictions on commercial activity on Sundays.
David Gray, if you read the whole letter, you'll see that Machen did not argue that the magistrate had a duty to enforce the Decalogue. http://oldlife.org/2010/01/the-two-kingdom-case-for-blue-laws/ You'll also see how much Machen made this an matter of liberty.
And if you think Machen was not a libertarian, why do you think he voted for a Roman Catholic as president (who opposed prohibition)?
If Machen supported the Blue Laws, how do you square that with your interpretation of him as a libertarian?
C Lee, I do acknowledge these passages in Machen. Have you read Defending the Faith?"
I even mention that Machen voted for Al Smith, the first Roman Catholic president, something that fundamentalists did not do, why, because he was RC and opposed prohibition. I also mention that Machen was relieved not to be able to participate in the Scopes Trial.
The Baylys are selective in their use of history. They even fail to mention that any Reformed theologian prior to 1790 would have opposed the American Revolution and the resulting Constitution which protected the liberties of all sorts of people who broke the first table of the law.
I would be interested to see what things Dr Hart would say about this passage.
I honestly believe that he does revere Machen, but his R2K tendencies cloud his judgement and he reads into Machen what he wants to.
It is amazing to me that Dr Hart doesn't acknowledge these passages that the Bayly's have posted.
Lactantius is another church father who argues that persecution is self-defeating:
"For in this respect also the malice of those is brought to light, who think that they have utterly overthrown the religion of God if they have corrupted men, when it is permitted them to make satisfaction also to God; and there is no worshipper of God so evil who does not, when the opportunity is given him, return to appease God, and that, too, with greater devotedness. For the consciousness of sin and the fear of punishment make a man more religious, and the faith is always much stronger which is replaced through repentance.
If, therefore, they themselves, when they think that the gods are angry with them, nevertheless believe that they are appeased by gifts, and sacrifices, and incense, what reason is there why they should imagine our God to be so unmerciful and implacable, that it should appear impossible for him to be a Christian, who by compulsion and against his will has poured a libation to their gods? Unless by chance they think that those who are once contaminated are about to change their mind, so that they may now begin of their own accord to do that which they have done under the influence of torture. Who would willingly undertake that duty which began with injury? Who, when he sees the scars on his own sides, would not the more hate the gods, on account of whom he bears the traces of lasting punishment, and the marks imprinted upon his flesh? Thus it comes to pass, that when peace is given from heaven, those who were estranged1015 from us return, and a fresh crowd1016 of others are added on account of the wonderful nature1017 of the virtue displayed.
For when the people see that men are lacerated by various kinds of tortures, and that they retain their patience unsubdued while the executioners are wearied, they think, as is really the case, that neither the agreement of so many nor the constancy of the dying is without meaning, and that patience itself could not surmount such great tortures without the aid of God. Robbers and men of robust frame are unable to endure lacerations of this kind: they utter exclamations, and send forth groans; for they are overcome by pain, because they are destitute of patience infused1018 into them. But in our case (not to speak of men), boys and delicate women in silence overpower their torturers, and even the fire is unable to extort from them a groan. Let the Romans go and boast in their Mutius or Regulus,—the one of whom gave himself up to be slain by the enemy, because he was ashamed to live as a captive; the other being taken by the enemy, when he saw that he could not escape death, laid his hand upon the burning hearth, that he might make atonement for his crime to the enemy whom he wished to kill, and by that punishment received the pardon which he had not deserved."