God Looks At The Heart
I am appalled about this blog. Here is a critic going after external things that Jesus simply doesn’t care about. He shows pictures of these pastors and then tears them a new one for the way they look, they way they talk, the sermon topics, their age, their muscles, their tan, etc.
Some scripture here:
1 Timothy 4:12
Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity.
1 Samuel 16:6-13
6 When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, “Surely the LORD’s anointed stands here before the LORD.”
7 But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”
8 Then Jesse called Abinadab and had him pass in front of Samuel. But Samuel said, “The LORD has not chosen this one either.” 9 Jesse then had Shammah pass by, but Samuel said, “Nor has the LORD chosen this one.” 10 Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him, “The LORD has not chosen these.” 11 So he asked Jesse, “Are these all the sons you have?”
“There is still the youngest,” Jesse answered, “but he is tending the sheep.”
Samuel said, “Send for him; we will not sit down [a] until he arrives.”12 So he sent and had him brought in. He was ruddy, with a fine appearance and handsome features.
Then the LORD said, “Rise and anoint him; he is the one.”13 So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the LORD came upon David in power. Samuel then went to Ramah.
Notice that the scripture says that David was actually quite good looking.
I don’t know what else to say. The blog speaks for itself.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
The writer of the blog (Keith) gets critisied in his comments section by someone who attends one of the trendy pastor churches. So Keith goes and looks at this person’s blog. This is his response:
July 20th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Somehow I doubt quoting scripture will do any good.
It never does.
And they claim to be the last bastion of scriptural submission.
July 20th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Tim,
They claim it as their final authority yet deny it teachings unless filtered through some man’s theology.
They replace the Holy Spirit and the Power of the written word for vain philosophies and human arguments.
and are too blind to see it.
Blessings,
iggy
July 20th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
1. Are any of these guys good looking? Eye of the beholder
2. Paul said don’t let them despise your youth. He didn’t say don’t let them despise your coolness and/or attempts at relevancy. Paul is addressing the age issue only.
I am sorry the Scripture cites here are a stretch. You use Scripture the way the rcc and the charismaniacs do.
God does look at the heart, so let Him do it, and quit critiquing of the critics. Good for the goose…….
July 20th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
I’m curious, does “charismaniacs” adhere to our new “idea”not “people” ideology? Goose and Gander…
July 20th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Hey Matt:
Thanks for the link! I wondered why traffic was up around my place. BTW, I don’t mind so much how Scott Hodge dresses as I do him dropping the “f-bomb” in a video that is supposed to instruct people about baptism…oops, there I go again being all legalistic again.
James 3:10 “from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. ”
Colossians 3:8 “But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.”
You know, we could probably go back and forth on this thing all day long, but the bottom line is you are sympathetic to the methods of the “trendy pastors” (or at least you appear to be) and I am not. Just as much as I “accuse” the “trendy pastors” of all looking alike, I’m your cookie-cutter, five-pointer, doctrines of grace, john macarthur study Bible carrying, founder’s friendly, baptist. Neither one of us is going to change the other’s mind. PS: I don’t plan on seeing “Knocked Up.”
God bless Al Gore for inventing the internet so we can share our opinions about stuff like this!
July 20th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Chris P:
1. Keith, the blogger, judged all these men based on the look he thinks they were going after. He also critiques their age in the way 1 Timothy says we are not to.
2. I don’t think the 1 Samuel passage is a stretch at all. God was saying that looks, good or bad, don’t matter. What matters is the heart. What do you think the passage says?
July 20th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
(Apologies if this is posted twice. My connection was kinda flakey)
Hey Matt:
Thanks for the link! I wondered why traffic was up around my place. BTW, I don’t mind so much how Scott Hodge dresses as I do him dropping the “f-bomb” in a video that is supposed to instruct people about baptism…oops, there I go again being all legalistic again.
James 3:10 “from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. ”
Colossians 3:8 “But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.”
You know, we could probably go back and forth on this thing all day long, but the bottom line is you are sympathetic to the methods of the “trendy pastors” (or at least you appear to be) and I am not. Just as much as I “accuse” the “trendy pastors” of all looking alike, I’m your cookie-cutter, five-pointer, doctrines of grace, john macarthur study Bible carrying, founder’s friendly, baptist. Neither one of us is going to change the other’s mind. PS: I don’t plan on seeing “Knocked Up.”
God bless Al Gore for inventing the internet so we can share our opinions about stuff like this!
July 20th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Yeah, it’s a pretty immature and shallow smear — I guess the guy who wrote it is under 25?
I have no intention of seeing “Knocked Up”, and I’m over 40. I guess I’m never going to be “trendy”… (sigh)
But if you look at this guy’s links on his blog, you will find the usual suspects of anti-everything-but-our-Infallible-Pope-MacArthur websites. So, I’m not surprised that he writes as he does. These guys are either cloned or under the control of some territorial dark spirit.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Kenith,
the problem is that you fail to present anything further than superficial arguments. It would be the equivalent of us calling all fundies irrelevant because they like pews, suits, hymns, horribly outdated interior design, and poorly framed posters of a white Jesus in a blue sash from a 1982 Lifeway catalog.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Keith - welcome to CRN.info. Hope you hang around a while and chat.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Nathan - didn’t Jesus also make sure his Swedish locks were also blow-dried while wearing the blue sash?
July 20th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Chris P,
How about the multitude of verses that command dealing with every one with gentleness and grace? Do those not apply?
For example:
Colossians 3:12
Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.
1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
1 Peter 3:8
Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble.
What do you see of gentleness, respect, humility, compassion, kindness and patience in this post? Because I sure don’t see it.
July 20th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I’ve had you guys bookmarked for some time. Interesting stuff.
July 20th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Guys,
Just to interject a bit here, but is your critique of the critic or the critic’s critique? Let’s just make sure we’ve got the right target, as in a few cases here, it seems a bit blurry…
The critique on the linked blog, in my reading, suffers primarily, as has been identified, with a fixation on externals. It makes a few questions spring to mind:
For example:
Is it compromise to be ‘relevant’?
Judging from the methods used by Jesus, Paul and others we read about in the New Testament, I would say that the answer is “it depends”. If your ‘relevance’ is one which references tangible, modern examples without changing the truth in the message, then no. If ‘relevance’ means defining deviancy down or changing the message, itself, then yes, it would be compromise.
So, for pastors who desire for their communities and messaged to be ‘relevant’ to those who encounter them, the primary danger is in not changing the message.
For those of “discernment” who have a critical eye on these pastors, the danger is twofold: first, in minding the planks in their own eyes before worrying about the specks in these pastors’ eyes; secondly in finding the actual discernment required to differentiate between method and message before choosing to criticize.
And, as the linked critique goes, it seems to fail on this second test: discernment - which then gives pause to wonder on the second test: that of planks and specks, since “discernment” is supposedly the topic at hand…
July 20th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
I personally can’t stand Ed Young’s “Kramer-style” shirt and therefore will never read any of his books.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:44 am
Keith,
“Thanks for the link! I wondered why traffic was up around my place. BTW, I don’t mind so much how Scott Hodge dresses as I do him dropping the “f-bomb†in a video that is supposed to instruct people about baptism…oops, there I go again being all legalistic again.”
Now, why is it assumed it is the “f-bomb”? Just because it is bleeped? Yet what if he just said “freakin’” or “friggin’” and bleeped it for shock value? have you gone and asked him what word he used for sure?
“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”
Notice that love always protects and trusts and hopes?
It seems as I said on your blog that “casual dress” is more of an issue to you than living out the word of God as in the verse you quoted in the post. You have not indicated you have even bothered to contact any of these men with your concerns. Until you have I see that really you post is shallow and at best judgmental without substance.
Blessings,
iggy
July 21st, 2007 at 8:22 am
What irked me was that Keith had to google/image search all these pastors photos. Then he had to put them together on a web page. All to make the point that these guys “look cool”, therefore must be bad.
Also, critiquing someone because they have muscles???
I can’t see myself googe/image searching conservative pastors and putting their photos up, criticizing how they look. That would just be mean.
July 21st, 2007 at 10:59 am
It would be a very ugly page….
Just kidding!
Maybe…
iggy
July 21st, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Igs,
I don’t know about ugly, but it’d be pretty boring what with all the traditional ministers wearing suits and ties, no facial hair and all being over 60. Why, its almost like they were clones.
July 21st, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Skubalon.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Iggy: I’m working on a response to your post on my blog, but in the meantime— You said: Now, why is it assumed it is the “f-bombâ€? Even though I haven’t picked up the phone and personally asked, I can’t think of any reason they would have bleeped the word–regardless of what it was–other than to make people THINK that’s what was said. Like you said, for “shock value.” Why is shock value necessary, especially when discussing something as sacred as baptism? If it was the f-bomb, is that OK? Again, you nor anyone else has condemned the use of the word or the insinuation of its use.
Matt: I didn’t have to Google the images. All of the pastors were linked from Scott Hodges’ or Dave Anderson’s blog. It wasn’t that hard.
Iggy: I guess what you’re saying, is that whatever the pastors post on their blog really isn’t what they think at all and should never be taken as their real opinion…even though several explicitly state: “these are my own opinions”? You assumed the things you read on MY blog are actually my thoughts and opinion (and rightfully so). I have a hard time believing that they are posting one thing, but would tell me another if I called and spoke with them.
What does 1 Corinthians 13 have to do with Mr. Hodges implying his use of a vulgarity? Because I’m supposed to show him “love” I’m not allowed to say: “Hey Scott, maybe that’s a little bit over the top. For the sake of not being an offense (it’s possible) to someone, why not use another word?”
THIS IS MY OPINION, you don’t have to call me and ask, because I’m telling you here, OK?: The point was, and still is, why does it seem to be so important to these pastors and others like them to re-invent something that has–and will continue to–work until Jesus returns? Paul wrote: “God chose the foolishness of preaching to save those who would believe.” (1 Cor 1:21) No video, no drama, no interpretive dance, no cutting-edge language, etc. Preaching the WORD. It’s pretty powerful stuff, actually. Hebrews 4:12 says so. Being the five-point, reformed thinker that I am, I am thoroughly convinced that God has ordained who and when He will save. He has specified the method by which those He has chosen will be saved. Our responsibility is to “preach the Word, in and out of season.” (2 Tim 4:2) God doesn’t need our clever gimmicks. People a lot smarter than you and I have been doing it that way for centuries…and it’s always worked. See Isaiah 55:11.
July 21st, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Keith,
Also, no pulpit, no notes, no permanent/exclusive church building, no microphones, no recordings, and no suits/ties or other more formal than usual dress.
So where are all the posts criticizing preachers for using these things?
I suspect I already know the answer. You just happen to approve of and like those extra-Biblical things, despite the fact that the Bible has absolutely nothing to say about them, either good or bad. You don’t have more respect for the WORD than any of the guys you gracelessly criticized , you just choose to like different things the Bible has no statement on than they do.
July 21st, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Umm…what is “Skubalon”?
July 21st, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Keith,
No I am saying that before you go and blast someone you have the responsibility to actually talk to them to clarify their points.
You seem to disregard giving people the benefit of the doubt and have left people after reading you post that these men do not teach the word of God…
So it is you who are as guilty as if you bleeped the “f-bomb” for shock value.
You have not cared if you damage these peoples ministry and assumed that they are not doing God’s will… which seems a bit out of your realm of knowledge if you ask me.
The bottom line is you come across as caring little of loving them if they are wrong and seemed more interested in showing how much better in Jesus you are than them…
Call me old fashioned by that seems a bit unbiblical if you ask me
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 21st, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Skubalon is the transliterated greek word Paul uses in Philippians that is generally translated as rubbish but should at the least be translated as dung and probably had a more visceral feel to it than even that.
In other words, where the Bible says sh*t we say sh*t.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I have never heard that before.
Is that true? That Paul basically says sh*t in Phillippians?
Well.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:33 pm
I tend to think so (mostly because my profs thought so), and it makes sense in the context of the verse. If it doesn’t provoke a strong reaction then it doesn’t really work rhetorically.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:34 pm
I believe some (in the discernment ministries back in the day) may have called him prurient.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Also, when the watch bloggies censor crap with c— does it look to anyone else like its a much worse word that rhymes with hunt?
July 21st, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Way to go, Iggy. You avoided (AGAIN) making any comment re: Scott Hodges use of WHATEVER “f” word he yelled. Like nailing jello to the wall.
BTW, I would never insult you by calling you “old fashioned.”
“Damage[d] these peoples ministry…” Are you kidding me?! Dave Anderson claims: “Crosspoint Community Church in Decatur, Alabama [is] soon to be one of the fastest growing churches in America.” Our dialog is the exact kind of thing that rallies the troops!
Tim: check out Nehemiah 8:4 before you dismiss a podium.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Ties, podiums — again, some of this is a debate over style. Again. Always.
“I don’t like such and such, so therefore it is wrong.”
“I like the color blue, so therefore I can fly.”
Same logic.
Certainly, there are finer points to each separate argument that comes up, but it mainly boils down to that. It does.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Keith,
You are a dishonest man trying to obscure the issue. I confronted you on several non-Biblical practices that you don’t condemn, and likely approve of, and you quote a single instance (which very well could have been a stage rather than a pulpit) as if that showed that Paul hauled around a pulpit with him.
All you’ve done is confirm my suspicions. Your problem isn’t with extra Biblical practices you’ve gracelessly ridiculed, your problem is that they’re not the extra Biblical that you approve of.
Which, btw, means you have less of a respect for scripture than they do, because you’re willing to read your biases into scripture.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Keith,
Using your logic, then perhaps we do not need personal Bibles, either, and we should just have a single copy in the community for everyone to gather around…
Additionally, you might check your exegesis of I Cor 1:21
If you examine the structure of this, both in the Greek and the English, it is not the foolishness of preaching which saves, but the foolishness of what was preached that saves…
So, as in your entire blog post, you’ve missed the point of both direct scriptural instruction and proper hermeneutics that it is not the method which is important, but the message. If the message is not altered, then it doesn’t matter if I’m preaching in a three-piece suit with a comb-over and a bulletin insert or in a T-shirt, docksiders, a hip haircut, video and powerpoint. If we’re preaching Christ crucified, the method shouldn’t be the issue.
July 21st, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Tim, Chris, Iggy, Matt, Doc, Sleepy and anyone else that wants to jump on the bandwagon:
I give up! YOU WIN. I have seen the error of my ways. Put me down as a table for two at the next “BBQ and Baptism.”
I ain’t budgin’ fellows…and it doesn’t look like you are either. Thanks for the***bleeping*** banter. (That was just for shock value. Sorry.) Helped my Saturday go by faster.
BTW, Iggy…I think you’ve got your hat on backwards.
July 21st, 2007 at 7:53 pm
I think Keith is a first-time commenter here.
July 21st, 2007 at 7:55 pm
It seems that those who judge others would agree with you Keith so I am not surprise.
You see when I read scripture I take it seriously… that seems to ruffle feathers some people I guess.
be Blessed,
iggy
July 21st, 2007 at 8:05 pm
BTW Keith,
I think that it is better that one judges themselves by the standard of Jesus and seek mercy and grace than to judge others by our own standards and preferences…
So, if my hat is on backwards… (which it is in the picture on my blog) : ) I rather be backwards to legalistic theology that gives no grace or mercy and love than to be the standard for others.
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 21st, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Keith,
That was really sad. Don’t bother commenting at all if you’re not going to actually defend your views. Simply saying “I believe what I believe cause I believe it and that’s the end of that” isn’t conducive to any kind of real discussion.
July 21st, 2007 at 8:41 pm
I almost missed it. Did you really just use Neh 8:4 for pulpits in church today? Wow, that is awesome. You must not be baptist, cuz to make that leap brother, you gotta be dancing!
July 21st, 2007 at 9:41 pm
My very first post asked a question that was never been answered. I’ve gotta meet this Scott Hodges some day, because you all really protect the guy!
Joe: Yep. I sure did use Neh 4:8. If you really want to know what I meant in referring to the Nehemiah passage, take a peek at Steven J. Lawson’s Famine in the Land. And I am a card-carrying Baptist.
Tim: Rather than cutting and pasting a slew of Scriptures (I have plenty to defend what I’ve posted) and have you respond, which I’m sure your are very capable of doing, let me tell you where I’m coming from and hopefully put an end to this madness so that we can all get back to doing what we believe we are called to do.
- I attend a Reformed-”Calvinistic”-Southern Baptist Church.
- I study from an NASB MacArthur Study Bible.
- I have and use the entire set of MacArthur Commentaries (everything published so far). I also like the Hendriksen/Kistemaker commentaries.
- I hold to the Doctrines of Grace and the Five Solas.
- I enjoy reading the works of R.C. Sproul, Albert Mohler, Mark Dever, and Steven J. Lawson, as well as Spurgeon and John Calvin (still haven’t made my way through “Institutes”).
- I believe that God has predestined some for salvation and the rest He leaves to their just punishment.
- I believe it is our duty (Jesus commanded it) to take the Gospel to everyone, knowing that God will save those whom He as “chose[n] before the foundation of the world.”
So…that’s why I don’t bother “defending my views” as you put it. What good would it do? Be honest. We’ve both already made up our minds about each other and how we feel/believe about this topic. Is there really anything I could say that would cause you to change you mind about this dialog or the original post (”Trendy Pastors”)? I didn’t think so.
Have a great Lord’s Day. Looking forward to meeting you someday.
July 21st, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Keith,
I find it interesting that the Bible was only mentioned in one of your points, and that it wasn’t mentioned as the thing you “hold to”.
Which goes a long way to explaining why when scripture is quoted to pointing out your error it has no effect.
July 21st, 2007 at 10:00 pm
I am not a card-carrying Baptist.
I am, however, a card-carrying member of the Lord of the Rings fan club.
July 21st, 2007 at 10:02 pm
I just added this comment to Keith’s blog as I read the comments and saw some atrocious isogesis.
Keith and all,
Your take on this verse…
“For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” - Galatians 1:10
Seems grossly out of context.
Paul did persuade men, and he did not seek out the to please men… and I see that if one is not in line with YOUR view they are pleasing men in your view…
To me that they do not seek out YOUR approval instead they are doing as God directs them in how to persuade men.
You seem to twist this all around in that they are pleasing men.
The verse that you are quoting in context is Paul talking about Judaizers who tried to get the Galatians under the Law… The “men” that Paul did not care to please were the “religious” leaders that were out to persuade men.
Instead these Judiazers hoped to persuade God in that they were more “righteous” in their religion than the gentiles who found salvation by Grace through faith.
I see that you turned this verse on its head to use it as you did… out of context to proof text and rationalize your judgmentalism… ignoring that James taught Mercy triumphs judgment.
You have made the verse to mean that Judiazers were right and Paul was wrong.
Be Blessed in His great Mercy,
iggy
July 21st, 2007 at 10:19 pm
I’m a card carrying member of the Harry Potter fan club. It actually started around here. I also have a PK card and an SBC ordained minister’s card.
July 21st, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Tim: This is exactly why THIS is a bad idea. If I or you fail to state something exactly right the first time or in the right order, the grits hit the fan. I’m sorry. I apologize. It’s been a long day. I’m tired.
For the record: I believe the Bible is the inerrant, infallible, all-sufficient Word of God. I believe the Bible tells us all we need to know about God and His plan for His people. I love God’s Word. I read it; I meditate on it. I try my best to apply it to my life–I don’t always succeed at that one. I believe the Bible is my “life” (e.g. Deuteronomy 32:46-47). You and I interpret the Bible very differently.
Whew! Man, I hope I stated this right.
And as I’ve already pointed out to Iggy, I didn’t cite the Galatians passage. Credit that one to a poster named Anthony. Gee whiz!
July 21st, 2007 at 10:31 pm
And that is what the conversation would be about. If you bothered to conversate.
July 21st, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Keith,
The verse was the first thing out of the stall… and it was amen’ed and not once did you talk about it and the context it should be used.
I do appologize if I overstepped and said you stated it. I was in error there and again was wrong.
Yet, it seems that the way it was used and then amen’ed was in the view I stated. No attempt by anyone to put it in context was done until I pointed out the context.
blessings,
iggy
July 21st, 2007 at 10:50 pm
“Gee Whiz” is a take on “Jesus.”
I seriously, though, carry my LOTR card around with me in my purse. I can’t think of when I’ll need it, but when I do, I’m ready.
July 21st, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Tim: What would be the point? I still think those pastors are “trendy.” You take exception to my reasons. There. We “conversated.” We should have done this 40 posts ago.
Iggy: That particular blog of Anthony’s was basically one long, running sentence. I lost interest before I got to the end. Consequently– no comment, no “context.”
July 21st, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Keith,
I understand that completely. LOL! and really I have nothing against that at all…
I was focused on the verse itself and to me it seemed to be being use wrongly.
Again, i apologize for attributing it to you.
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 21st, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Julie: Come on, now. Next thing you’ll be telling me is “freakin’” or “flippin’” are a take on, well you know…the f-bomb! Don’t tell Scott Hodge.
BTW, I don’t really use any of those “f” words. I actually hated having to spell the two that I did.
July 22nd, 2007 at 1:15 am
Wait a second! Hold the phone!
Iggy’s hat is on backwards?!?
Keith,
Your theology is consistent with a MacArthur kind of a guy. I don’t happen to buy the Calvinist viewpoint, although I have some very hyper-Calvinist (the double-predestination types, which Calvin DOES put forth in The Institutes) friends who I value and enjoy fellowship and the occasional BBQ with (sans scatalogical language). I also have some hyper-Calvinist charismatic friends, but that gets even weirder at times.
All that to say, hey, we disagree but I would still invite you over for a BBQ if you lived locally. But I would suggest that you have bigger fish to fry than whether pastors are “trendy” or not.
If teaching the Word is the most important thing to you — and I’m not suggesting that it shouldn’t be — then your original post doesn’t fit your own mission. I’m not saying as “proof” of anything, or to put you down in any way. I just think you should major on what is of prime importance to you, and let the Spirit convict the rest.
July 22nd, 2007 at 1:54 am
Robby,
In m picture, my hat is on backwards… at least I hope that is what Keith is referring to.
Incidentally, Keith and I have covered a lot of ground as he answered a question and we agreed… this same question is one I state the answer to and JM types froth at the mouth in some form of rabid sickness back at me saying I am wrong…
In his answer I do not see that… at least yet… but I always hope in better things.
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 22nd, 2007 at 7:20 am
Keith,
I agree they are trendy. But such a judgment is neither good or bad in Biblical terms. Unfortunately the same isn’t true of your post, which steps beyond what the Bible says, and does so ungraciously.
July 22nd, 2007 at 7:39 am
Iggy:
I must say, out of all the posters here, you seem to be the only one that has a sense of humor and understands sarcasm. (The “hat” comment)
re: your question to me. Are you saying JM (John MacArthur) types would NOT have answered in a similar fashion? I think we’re missing something here. Can you please expound whenever it is convenient? Thanks.
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:01 am
Keith,
I would love to…
if you go to my blog you will see a link to contact me. I think it better to go off the discussion here.
If you don’t mind.
Blessings,
iggy
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:29 am
Keith,
As I’ve read your blog post and your responses, I guess what keeps hitting me is that you have very little (if any) scriptural backing for the positions you have put forth in a rather forceful manner. Then, in defense of these positions, the scriptures cited have not supported the hypothesis.
A lot of “JM-types” I know don’t do this, not even Phil Johnson at TeamPyro, who works for JohnnieMac. (And, I find it a bit odd that you needed to specify JM’s NASB and commentaries in your list of ‘what you hold to’. Seems a bit like idolatry, but I’d give you the benefit of the doubt…)
Now - just taking the bullet list from your blog, let’s take a gander at your scriptural backing:
And the scriptural reason this is wrong is…? Jesus lived in an agrarian society (primarily rural Galilee, with trips to Judea, which, apart from Jerusalem, was primarily agrarian, as well). He took concepts taught in the scriptures (our OT) and made them ‘relevant’ via parables & word pictures which used characters and illustrations from their every day lives.
Paul, in going to Athens, used the pantheistic backdrop of Mars Hill to preach about the real God, who to them was just an “unknown god”.
Your post and your responses have consistently (when actually engaging the point) avoided showing that you recognize the difference between method and message.
Actually, this is not so much “trendy” as it is being more precise and using a word that is a full-time noun that describes a person rather than an adjective which can, and often does, describe thing which may or may not be inherently Christ-like.
We’ve discussed this here a few times.
From the article:
You said:
Having listened to a couple of folks in your collage, (though not Scott Hodges), I’ve not heard anything regarding an aversion for “old” or “traditional”.
What I have heard in at least one case was that we need to trust scripture, not traditions, because they often are two different things. Surely you would not disagree with this statement? Would you?
And the reason the semantics are important here is…? A number of churches in the ‘emerging’ tradition (and I can only speak to one of the pictured churches) consider themselves to be a collection of house-churches who meet together on Sunday morning for ‘teaching’ believers, whereas ‘preaching’ (persuasion of non-believers or fence-sitters) is primarily left for the closer setting of the house churches, which meet during the week.
This is similar to the means of the early church in Asia Minor, which was primarily based in house churches which also met on Sabbath with other Jews (who may, or may not have been Christian) in the synagogue for teaching from the Hebrew Scriptures. This changed in the 3rd century as Christians and Jews were pitted against one another by several internal factions and external political entities.
So, what exactly is the reason for ‘giving talks’ on a Sunday morning being incorrect/sinful as compared to ‘preaching sermons’?
And the chapter and verse which instructs us on proper titles within the church, and that “Music Minister” is a proper Biblical title is what?
Honestly, I have attended churches which preached the Word which were stale, stagnant and irrelevant to the world around them, and I have attended churches which preached the Word which did not. Your response, itself, is indicative of an attitude that “creative” and “relevant” is somehow incompatible with “preaching the Word”. This is a complete blurring of message and method, which seems to be the heart of your misunderstanding. In fact, I would start with the same passage you used previously, I Cor 1:21 as a place to examine where Paul distinguishes between the two. He notes that it is “what was preached” that was important, not the method which was used, as all methods without the message are “foolishness”.
Silly me, such condescension seems pretty thick. Even your idol, John MacArthur, does not preach his sermons as 100% Biblical exposition (which your remark seems to imply). Almost every sermon I have heard preached (and I’ve heard many from churches across the Christian spectrum) has included both scriptural exposition and the words of the preacher giving application of the scriptures cited.
In my Freshman Biology class, my professor commented that ‘every experiment contains a lesson - even if it is a negative one’. Without having any more context of the individual you quoted, I would take his comment to be a corollary to this observation. His comment would be related to the ‘application’ portion of the sermon, whereas which scripture would be most germain to the lesson would vary.
I think that he has given an example of irony, which may or may not be funny, depending on your sense of humor, though I would not classify it as sad.
What he has given here is an example of how it is not a place which is holy, but that it is whether the kingdom of God or the kingdom of this world is in attendance there. In meeting in a movie theater, a number of churches are able to better steward limited resources, while utilizing space that would sit idle during the time they meet. Praise the Lord that someone is preaching the word in a place that is often devoid of it.
We know that Paul preached for two years in the hall of Tyranius. Should you visit Ephesus, you might want to note that the largest brothel in the world (at that time) sits about 30 feet from the entrance of the hall, and that a number of pagan issues, discussions and practices also occurred in that same hall which Paul preached and debated in…
Granted, if “cool” is all they are, then it wouldn’t matter. Perhaps you could provide a link to said site so that we can at least make a better judgment if “cool” is what they’re about, or if they preach the Word.
Once again, context is important to this statement, so a link might be useful. I’ve seen this movie discussed previously here while I was on vacation, but I’m not familiar with the movie, nor the quote you’ve taken here…
This sounds similar to a chapter title in Rob Bell’s book “Sex God”, whose content is mysteriously almost unmentioned by watchblogs. Having read it, this particular chapter deals with spiritual abuse and the importance of bearing good fruit. The theme is how sexuality (on a high level - not a base, crass one) is directly related to spirituality. Here are a couple reviews of this book which might give you a bit more insight.
Regardless, without knowing the content, but also knowing that sex was created by God and should not be left undiscussed by the church, it seems rather important that the content of the sermon(s) ought to be known before mocking them…
No, using the word “campus” distinguished between the building that the church that meets there. The church is the people, not the place. This is not confusing in the Greek, but in our culture, the word “church” can mean a place or a group of believers. In the case of churches (ekklesia) calling their churches (merely buildings) “campuses”, they are trying to be clear on the basic level of language about what a church is - a body of believers!
Your scriptural reason for NOT making this distinction is what?
The problem here is not your theology, which you’ve brought to the table as (somehow) being a defense of your position. The problem is your lack of scriptural backing and your citation of mere externals as implied indications of ’selling out’.
Can you address these points?
July 22nd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
No. No matter what I say, you will find fault. That’s the goal, isnt’ it? Just like jumping on the “NASB JM Study Bible” comment and implying idolatry on my part. I don’t think JM’s Study Bible (his comments) is more inspired—or even inspired at all. I was TRYING to say is that he is someone I read/listen to…maybe like some of the teachers emergents tend to read/listen to, i.e. Rob Bell, Brian McClaren, and Mark Driscoll. I think you knew what I was trying to say…and honestly, I think there is a part of you that understands the original blog post. You just like to argue.
I went back and read the original blog post. I think you’re making a mountain out of a molehill. It’s a blog post for crying out loud. We’ve both/all spent more time discussing this thing than is necessary/it deserves. It’s a miniscule blog on a very big internet—no one will care tomorrow. In the meantime, I have a letter to write to a “friend” that is not a Christian; she says she doesn’t believe in heaven or hell. I pray that God will give me the right words to say to her.
You’ll probably find fault with what I’ve written here. I wouldn’t expect any less. I don’t care. I really don’t.
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:01 pm
And yet you came here.
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Joe:
You guys came and posted on my blog first–in fact, YOU were the second poster on the blog. I assumed your post was an invitation.
I wasn’t even aware of the Slice link until I noticed the increased traffic (believe me, mine is not a widely read blog) and the trackback to CRN Info and Analysis.
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:10 pm
True that, but still it seems odd that you don’t care what we think and yet you came here and engaged us in conversation. I’m glad you did. You and I have had fairly exchanged conversation in the past and perhaps we will in the future. I also have to say I find it ironic that a guy says these things about men he’s never met. and then later says, “What’s the big deal? It’s just a blog post that nobody reads anyhow?” (I know I paraphrased you).
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Mountains out of molehills.
It’s what humans do best.
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Julie,
Sometimes your cynicism scares me.
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:11 pm
I know the feeling.
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
I will never understand why it is deemed wrong to attempt to be relevant…what does in matter as long as the gospel is not compromised?
There is always much banter from the so called ‘discernment’ folks about the pastors who are attempting to reach the world by doing what it takes.
Again I say…what does it matter what they call themselves, how cool they look, where their church meets, or any other think like that…as long as the gospel is not compromised.
I get so feaking sick of hearing their flipping weak arguments spouting the same old tired junk. (the freaking and flipping words were for you Keith)
If ‘they’ are reading the same scripture I am, it says to ‘go into the highways and byways and compel them to come in’!
I could go on…but I won’t.
Peace!
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Actually, no, that’s not the point. While finding fault seemed to be the theme behind your blog post, I’ll let you determine whether or not that was the case.
Here, the goal is not fault-finding, but discussion to find acceptable orthopraxy behind acceptable orthodoxy. Thus far, you’ve really only chosen to engage us with a verse (I Cor 1:21) to justify your position. Perhaps you have a hermeneutically sound hypothesis about how the men that you have called out are somehow spiritually inferior for their being ‘relevant’. Or, perhaps it is solely based on your opinion and supposition. To this point, you’ve been fairly unwilling to give scriptural support for your hypotheses, instead just telling us we won’t listen to it.
Our primary purpose on this site is to defend fellow Christians against slander and debasement from within the church and to discuss issues of import in living the Christian life. At this juncture, you have chosen to malign some men of God without willingness to back up your words with sound scripture.
We might be wrong in this particular case, but you’ve been unwilling, to this point, to persuade otherwise. My apologies for noting your use of John MacArthur w/in your defense of the faith. Your idolization (or lack thereof) of Johnnie is your business, but your public ridicule of these pastor-teachers is the issue here.
Can you go beyond ridicule, opinion and supposition to support your contention that they have ’sold out’?
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Keith,
“No. No matter what I say, you will find fault. That’s the goal, isnt’ it?”
No, that is not the “goal”… the goal is that we find a way to unite under Christ and not slander and lie and accuse others without true biblical cause.
the Goal is to realize we are all sinners saved by Grace and that no man is perfect.
the goal is that we understand we are not each other enemies but that united in Christ Jesus we are to reach the lost… and not condemn them… as Jesus did… and who is our example.
When finding fault we need to truly act on the Bibles teachings lest we fall into Satan’s trap of gossip and slander that leads to division.
Christ gave us the ministry of reconciliation, not the ministry of judging others fruit that is just as rotten as our own.
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 23rd, 2007 at 7:37 am
Jimmy’s comments are exactly what I’m talking about. Honestly, why is that necessary?
If I cite passages like James 1:26, James 5:4, or Eph 4:29 in re: to a pastor’s/Christian’s use of certain words, you will come back with other verse(s) or some circular reason as I’ve heard before: “That’s my vocabulary” or “that’s just the way I talk” or “check out the Greek; Paul talked that way.” It’s always something. There’s always a reason it’s OK. The idea that one’s vocabulary may be offensive or as I’ve already suggested in Peter’s case (Matt 26:74), hearers may assume we are not associated with Christ. Why not err on the conservative side and avoid the discussion/argument?
Same for endorsing some “R” rated movies or questionable TV shows (or any other activity). If I cite 1 Thess 5:22, 1 Cor 10:31:32, or Matt 18:9 appealing to our witness to non-Christians or even young, immature Christians, the response will again be one that justifies.
I think it DOES matter what we watch, what we take in with our eyes. The first thing they did to Samson was gouge out his eyes–indicating to me the Philistines knew exactly what his weakness was: Samson focused/looked at the wrong things and it effect his “ministry.”
I assume that the statements I’ve made above will be scrutinized and immediately dismissed. That’s the reputation you have with me. EVERY emergent I’ve ever met and tried to engage spends way too much time defending their language, their Beer and Bible studies, the movies/television they watch, etc. when it would be so much easier to just avoid them. Are their lives REALLY enriched by the inclusion of those things? Do they really bring glory and honor to God?
I know, I know. “Jesus ate with tax collectors and prostitutes…” Figured I’d just beat some of you to the punch.
Chris, regardless of what you say, the tone of this thread is not one of “discussion.” I can almost fell the tension of people’s fingers, hovering over their keyboards in anticipation of blasting every word I’ve said. I will be wrong…once again.
Have you (or the other posters) personally met Ingrid Schlueter or Jim Bublitz? That seems to be the prerequisite for saying anything around here.
(I must be a real glutton for punishment.)
July 23rd, 2007 at 8:22 am
Keith’s photo on his blog looks like a cartoon. How are cartoons reverent? He also has a goatee. I thought only crazy-liberal youth pastors had goatees.
Something’s fishy here. Is Keith an emergent in sheep’s clothing?
July 23rd, 2007 at 8:54 am
Keith,
This says all we need to know about your hermeneutic. There is absolutely nothing in scripture to indicate that this is the case. Here’s the text from Judges:
What indication do you see here that the Philistines were at all concerned about what Samson had been looking at?
That’s the kind of thing that drives us crazy. You’re abusing scripture over and over again by reading back your previously held theology into the scriptures, instead of allowing the scriptures to shape your theology. You sit there and quote all these passages about speech and the tongue, yet have no problem with shredding eight different guys with your own speech. The reason you can do that is because you’ve read your theology of naughty speech equating with the FCC’s list of no-no words, instead of equating it with speech that damages and hurts in general. I’d far rather hear a Christian drop a million f-bombs than engage in nasty personal attacks.
Other than people like Ken, and Ingrid who, btw are already Christians, who has complaints about their “witness”? This becomes even more absurd when you see the success they’ve had in spreading the gospel and creating disciples. Obviously the people and places they minister to don’t have a problem with it, so why do you?
That’s probably because people like you, Ken and Ingrid have created entire ministries criticizing them. I wonder how much time Luther would spend defending his beer, and his language if he was blogging today?
Yes.
It seems your biggest problem with discussion and conversation is that we don’t all instantly run to agree with you. Check out these statements:
Well duh. You’re not the protestant pope, and orthodoxy doesn’t require us to change our theology to agree with you. Your tone in these two statements seems to indicate that there’s something inherently wrong with disagreeing with you. We’ve all given some pretty good justification based in scripture as to why we believe what we believe, meanwhile your responses are disconnected from scripture, you assume your positions are found in scripture and then you dismiss all disagreements as unreasonable. Try actually addressing scripture and you’ll get a lot further.
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:25 am
See. I told you I’d be wrong. Thank you Tim for once again setting me straight. I knew there was something wrong with my “hermeneutic”, but I just couldn’t put my finger on it.
Emergents are NEVER wrong. Never. Never. And they love Jesus WAY more than me.
Actually, you’ve given me some food for thought. You said: “[my] responses are disconnected from scripture.” You know…I think you’re right! Because the more I think about it, the whole push to be cutting-edge or relevant seems to be fueled by everything BUT Scripture! It’s about looking as little like the church as possible. I feel a blog post coming on. Thanks for the inspiration.
And BTW, you shouldn’t have any trouble finding “a Christian [that will] drop a million f-bombs than engage in nasty personal attacks.” Are you saying “nasty personal attacks” are a worse sin than foul language?
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:28 am
Keith,
You wrote:
I happen to agree with you on the language issue, and I think that it does not make one ‘credible’ or ‘relevant’ to use coarse language.
Sometimes, though, it seems that what we consider ‘coarse’ is up for grabs. For instance, I’ve used ’suck’ for longer than I can remember to mean ‘that was bad’ and never considered that coarse until it showed up as a criticism in a CRN article (not aimed at me, but someone else), by a writer that used the same term in a later discussion.
But I’m getting off track - I think that language is important, and I am not at all fond or accepting of Christians using coarse language. Where I start to bristle, though, is when we get into plank-speck games with pointing it out in others. It is one thing to point it out as a concern, but (since what is ‘coarse’ is culturally defined) completely another to base definitions of apostasy on it.
We tend to look at it on a word-by-word basis (”****” is a dirty word), whereas in other cultures (like in the first century Roman world) and languages it was on word usage. Like the difference between pointing out that there is cow dung on the ground and suggesting that someone’s brains are made of the same substance. The best example I can think of in English is the word ‘bloody’. If I say that I cut my arm and it is all bloody, that is a valid description. If I call something a ‘bloody mess’ (that does not involve blood), I am using a mild swear word that would not be used in polite British culture.
So - I will agree that one’s speech should be pure, based on scripture, and that there are individuals who see impure speech as being ‘relevant’, when it is really just poor orthopraxy.
However, as I reread your blog post, language is not mentioned there. Your criticisms seem, initially, to be completely based on looks, age, etc., and on technical terminology (”campus” vs. “church”, etc.)
You also wrote:
I agree, as well, to a point - with the point being the definition of “questionable”, as GBA (guilt-by-association) often then comes into play, or other definitions of what is “questionable”. (See this article for an example of what I’m talking about here.)
It does matter what we watch, and our conscience, led by God’s Word, should be a guide. This is not, though, a one-size-fits-all sort of thing.
That said, I will briefly take a side-bar here with your use of Samson. The reason Samson was blinded was twofold (neither having to do with the Philistines “knowing” his weakness):
1) The primary reason for maintaining slaves in the Palestine region was for the grinding of grain with a millstone. Because of the circular motion involved, animals had to be blindfolded and slaves were blinded. Otherwise, they would become dizzy fairly quickly, and be useless. Blindfolding humans was fairly ineffective, as well, for similar reasons dealing with the optic nerve.
2) You also blinded your enemies so that it would be harder for them to escape, and - if they did - so that they would be less a threat to you, especially if they were stronger.
Back to the topic at hand. In your list of criticisms, you have mentioned endorsement of R-Rated or questionable TV shows in one bullet point (and the pastor in question doesn’t appear in your photo-spread). This is a valid topic of discussion, and I think that numerous Christian blog sites take reasonable and unreasonable stances on the topic - from both ends of the spectrum.
I have also highlighted the word ‘endorsed’ - because the simple act of referencing an artistic work does not make said reference an endorsement - which is a disctinction often missed in the watchblog world.
You wrote:
Knowing a good number of ‘emerging’/'emergent’ Christians, I can point to as many - or more examples - who don’t try to use or defend coarse language (though they aren’t as quick to point it out in others, either).
As for “Beer and Bible” studies, we’ve had a number of discussions on this site about alcohol which might (or might not) surprise you. Do a search of this site, or start here. I do know of a number of EC churches which meet in pubs, and they do so because that’s a place where they are very likely to meet people who do not know Jesus. It is not an issue of personal piety (the Bible has no prohibition on the use of alcohol, only its abuse, and no prohibition on entering establishments which serve it), but one of orthopraxy. It’s not about “enriching” their lives, but about living in the world but not being of it.
Certainly it would be easy to avoid places where non-believers go and congregate and to sequester ourselves where we never have to be exposed to them. But is that what we’re called to do? It’s not about our own “enrichment” - and if it is, then it shouldn’t be.
As for movies/TV, I take an active interest in what is going on culturally, though I don’t go to very many movies or watch all that much TV. I do get Entertainment Weekly, which allows me to be conversant enough with what’s going on in this arena so that I can guide my own children with music/books/TV/movie choices and so that I can be conversant enough to be able to relate with the people I meet in day-to-day life.
In first-century theater (which was incredible disgusting on many levels), each performance was opened with a rhetor giving dedication to the god Dionysus, the Greek god of theater, wine and orgy: “May all that is done, whether in word or deed, be done in the name of our lord, Dionysus”.
In Corinthians, Paul gives this instruction: “And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus”. Here, Paul takes something that his contemporary listeners would have recognized as an invocation to a despicable god and alters it into something for the one true God. This very quote, though, would also damn him in the eyes of a number of watchbloggers because it exposes Paul as someone conversant (dare I say ‘relevant’) with his culture, and likely suggests that he attended at least one theater performance.
Certainly, we can completely avoid the culture and sinners, but is that what we are called to do? Certainly, we can become polluted by the culture, but is that what we are called to do? Where is the best place in the middle - to be in the systems of the world but not a product of those same systems? I would argue that this is where God allows us and expects us to use our judgment, but also to extend some grace by minding our own planks far, far more than others’ specks.
This, too, is a valid discussion. However, it is not the gist of your blog post - which, as previously mentioned, was primarily on external appearances and technical terminology.
You’ve noted:
I can only speak for myself, but that has been my tone in writing. Knowing a bit more than you probably do about some of the other posters, I would disagree as well - though some of the posters in this thread would do better to disagree w/o ratcheting up the DefCon level immediately…
At the same time, though, absent personal knowledge of the individuals behind the keyboard, we often supply our own tone as an equal reflection of the tone of those who disagree with us (which is often most evident on the “Slice of Laodicea” site, more so than others). I try, though I often fail, to supply a calm demeanor as my mental image of those I disagree with, as it helps me do the same.
I have not met Ingrid or Jim. I have attempted to carry on an email exchange with Ingrid (which was excruciating), and I did have a back-and-forth with Jim on my personal blog earlier this year that was very genial. You can see it for yourself here. With both Ingrid and Ken, I have attempted personal exchanges in the past, per Matthew 18, and it was the animosity and infalliabiltiy of the replies which led me to move beyond personal discussion into actual criticism.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:02 am
Keith,
You wrote:
Hermeneutics - the way we read and interpret the very words of God, as contained in scripture - is important. Probably the biggest key to hermeneutics, which I think both John MacArthur and Brian MacLaren (hmmmm… should we call them ‘Big Macs’…?) would agree, is that scriptural interpretation should fuel theology (what we believe about God), and not the other way around.
This isn’t an “Emergent” issue - I don’t think any of the writers here, save Nathan, attends an ‘emerging’ or ‘emergent’ church. I don’t. Unfortunately, battle lines get drawn - particularly by watchblogs - in which “true Christians” must believe a certain way, and those who don’t must be “Emergent” (or worse, Catholic, but that’s another ball of wax). There is room in the body for a difference of opinion on non-essentials of the faith, and holding a different opinion on such things does not make one ‘Reformed’, ‘Emergent’ or ‘Texan’ (another problem, as well - just picking on my wife there, if she’s reading ;).
This puzzles me. The only reason ‘looking like the church’ would not be ‘relevant’ to being salt and light is if the church, itself, has become ‘irrelevant’ (or at least, appears to be so). I can give you all sorts of examples of how Jesus, his disciples, Paul and other Biblical figures were ‘relevant’ - and applied scripture to those real situations (some have already been given, above). Additionally, if you listen to a Mars Hill (Seattle or GR) sermon podcast, you will see for yourself that ‘relevant’ and ’scripturally based and sound’ are not mutually exclusive terms. In fact, being ‘relevant’ is part and parcel with being ’salt and light’ - which is perfectly scriptural.
You queried (assuming this was serious):
First off, as sins go, all are equally damning in the eyes of God. As for import - or seriousness - I would say that yes, ‘nasty personal attacks’ are much worse than foul language (assuming it does not blaspheme God). The latter is a sin unto ones self, whereas the former is a sin against your neighbor. Since we are to love God first, our neighbor second (as we would ourself), and ourselves third, personal attacks would be worse than foul language.
Also, if we make nasty personal attacks against our neighbor, that also speaks of hatred toward our brother, and not love, on the inside. What is worse - dirt on the outside of a cup or dirt on the inside? I think Jesus had an answer to that, which I will gladly accept.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:24 am
Absolutely. In that in some circumstances “foul language” is not a sin and “nasty personal attacks” always are.
I’m not emergent/emerging, my church isn’t emergent/emerging, and I’ve written quite critically of emergent/emerging leaders in the past on my personal blog. Acting like I reflexively support emergent/emerging individuals regardless of the context is either dishonest or ignorant.
Try this, just this one time. Instead of blowing off a challenge actually answer it. Show me in scripture where the motive for the Philistines putting out Sampson’s eyes were because he had failed in his ministry based on what he looked at.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:25 am
Keith, maybe this will help you understand how we (I) sometimes interpret these b