Monthly Archives: October 2011

Going “Deeper” in Church; a Caution


For centuries people have complained, protested, asked, begged, argued, whined, and have essentially driven themselves to distraction because the have desired to go “deeper in Church”. I imagine this has caused many Pastors to become very frustrated at times, if not downright discouraged. Its a familiar theme. It is the last refrain of the restless. People want deeper church, deeper bible studies, deeper worship and deeper community,  but I’m  not sure they always know what that means.  I would imagine that  from a Pastors perspective it is difficult to please the people who are always clamoring for “deeper”,  especially because everyone seems to have a different idea of what “deep” is.

1. Depth as facts and the accumulation of knowledge.

This is the group that thinks the teaching is deep if they’ve learned something they didn’t already know. Satisfaction and a sense of fulfillment comes if they can walk out of a sanctuary with more information than they had coming in. For some it is looking for new ways to read bible verse, or delving into a more thorough explanation of the context. For others it is hearing a proper exegesis, uncovering a textual variant, or pondering thoughtful nuances. What is the caution? In many ways this is “deep”, but  information is not the goal, and information alone is not depth. When this accumulation of knowledge becomes the main purpose it can produce an elite class of biblical hobbyists who are almost Gnostic-like in their love for more knowledge, isolating  themselves from the community of faith and breeding a superiority due to the rigors of their intellectual pursuits. Is that really deep? Knowing biblical facts is important, but surely we want to go deeper than the demons, who know more about Scripture than we do and are devils still.

2. Depth as “Insights for Daily Living”

This group believes that “deep” means “insight for life.” They want to see the scriptures applied to their daily living, as method and techniques, so that they can behave a certain way or garner for themselves certain results.  “Deep” means “applied well,” and transformation [rather than information] is the goal. The purpose is personal renewal, and so a high premium is placed on the unpacking of life principles which will be conducive to life transformation. In many ways this is good because Pastors don’t want people looking in the mirror of God’s Word and then walking away unaware of their reflection. Every teacher should hope for transformation. What is the caution? Even if people hope to apply the Bible to their everyday life, there is the propensity to be self-absorbed readers who skim the Scriptures in search for practical tidbits as if they are reading a self-help book.  Is that really deep? If we go about Bible study this way, we never deal with the big picture of Scripture and therefore end up spiritualizing earth-shattering truths into cute and quaint verses and sticking them on coffee mugs.

3. Depth as relationships and “doing life together”

This group sees depth in the width and height and breadth of their relationships. Interpersonal relationships where quantitative and qualitative time is spent together is valued and esteemed. The focus is not on shallow acquaintances, but rather the forming of loving communities where they feel they can be open and honest with each other. They thrive in small groups where the purpose of the gathered group is not as important or central as the friendships that will be formed there. They find themselves unfulfilled if they are in a Church where they find it difficult to connect and “do life” together. What is the caution? They like to talk about spiritual things, and yet thorny and prickly issues of doctrine are often avoided as there is the fear it will cause division.  To them the body of Christ  is a family that does not fight and unity is central, and with this can come a failure to take theology seriously. Is that really deep? Relationships are important, but not if it means sacrificing spiritual growth and  doctrinal proficiency at the altar of stagnation.

There are more categories than that,  but it serves to show what a frustrating thing it can be for Pastors who are juggling these complaints from different people, and what cautions can arise for those who have particular views of what “going deep” is. Clearly a certain degree of balance is important. But those are only three examples, and even then the situation isn’t so easy to untangle. Because then you throw in the people who like the preaching, but think the music isn’t deep enough, or who like the music, but think the liturgy isn’t deep enough, or who like the liturgy, but think the sacraments aren’t deep enough, or who like doing like together and the insights for daily living, but think the preaching isn’t deep enough. It is a wild mess  and it is a wearing, weighty thing for any Minister to endure. For this reason we need to check ourselves before we start talking about going deeper and how something isn’t deep enough, particularly at an individual level, lest we needlessly discourage our Pastors without some introspection on our parts.

The Lies of Lila Rose and Live Action

*This abortion intrument’s purpose was to hold the baby’s head with the spiked ends. Once the head was held, a long thin probe was
pushed deep into the skull. The instrument held the baby’s head, so once it was cut off, it would not float around in the uterus.

I abhor abortion. I consider it a grave evil and a terrifying loss. It is the outright murder of babies by their mothers with the help of men and women whose consciences are seared.  Because it is so monstrous I welcome any and all efforts to stop it, especially through the efforts of Lila Rose and the Live Action group. They have become infamous through the use of undercover operations where they go to planned parenthood clinics and pretend to be victims of statutory rape, pimps with underage prostitutes, and so forth. After they give a clever and convincing story, they catch clinic workers offering illegal advice and services. They record these interactions on video and post them on YouTube, the result which has been a fair amount of public outcry and a blow to these abortion clinics and organization.

I love this about them. I love the effort- that they’re doing something and that their efforts have seen tangible results and impact. Some states have opted to introduce or pass legislation to defund planned parenthood, in part based on these videos. That is a wonderful, phenomenal relief.

There’s only one thing though.

Lila Rose and her organization are lying to these people. As pleased and grateful as I am to see such a murderous industry exposed, it does not change the fact that they are using lies, deceit and falsehoods in the pursuit of exposing these people. They are pretending to be people they are not. They are telling the nurses and aid stories about themselves that are made up. They are communicating falsehoods about their backgrounds and the situations they’re in.  That is wrong.

It is sinning in order to expose another sin. Are they helping reduce the number of abortions? Probably. I sincerely hope and pray they are. But just like we don’t murder abortion doctors, and we don’t blow up abortion clinics, likewise we don’t lie in order to further our goals.

So a few questions; 1. Can Lila Rose and Live Action, from a Biblical perspective, justify their actions in light of their lying and deceit? Is there a Biblical case that can be made here? 2. Should they stop these undercover attacks for the very fact that they are lying in the process? 3. What should our attitude be towards Live Action be?

Books I’m Currently Reading

I have these books on my Kindle and I’m slowly working through them. I just finished up the Steve Jobs biography and found myself surprised at how much I dislike the man and how little respect I have for him. Great accomplishments in business aside, Issacson did paint an awful picture of Steve Jobs that seems to be well deserved. In any case, these are the next 5 on the  queue.

What is the Mission of the Church? Kevin De Young [2011]

Sermons on the Card. Hugh Latimer. [1485-1555]

The World-Tilting Gospel.  Dan Phillips [2011]

The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.  John Knox  [ 1514 – 1572]

The Imitation of Christ. Thomas A Kempis. [1380-1471]

Night at the Oscars? Harvest Festival? Thoughts on the Halloween Alternative

On Halloween night the MGA is hosting a Halloween alternative. It is advertised as

“Come dressed as your favorite celebrity & walk down the ‘Red Carpet’ to Hollywood! Prizes for best dressed celeb, best chili &/or pie at the Top Chef Chili & Pie Challenge. Bring 2 homemade pies, one for judging &/or one for eating! There will also be a candy land  and a slime making station, and surprise celebrities! Donations of nut free candy are welcome!”

I’ve been to several Halloween alternatives in my life, primary as a volunteer for the Churches that were putting them on but also as an attendee  I was never part of a Church that would do a Tract and Treat [ Christian children dressing up as Bible characters or saints, knocking on doors, and passing out tracts in exchange for candy] but I have attended “Hell Houses” that were put on by local Churches. While the former two are not as common, Halloween alternatives are.

Believing that Halloween as it’s celebrated by our culture is less than ideal, the Church has created an alternative where Children, so as not to feel left out or that they are missing something, can go to experience a similar celebration without the negative and dark elements. Its sort of like a sanitized Halloween, with all major components there and sharing all similarities. Fun time with others? Check. Getting free candy for minimal effort? Check. Elements of the harvest, such as pumpkins and scarecrows? Check. Other themed decorations? Check. Scary/Evil elements? Not so much at harvest festivals, but if they put on an evangelistic hell house, check! Kids in costumes? Check/ Adults in costume? Check. “Noticeable” teen or adult females wearing costumes highly noticed by teen and adult males? Oh the stories…….

Amorphously tied in to Autumn and Thanksgiving motifs, these events are usually  how we were to be thankful for the bounty God gave us. Parents would bring their kids dressed up as frogs, farm animals, pirates or Disney princesses and they would go to different stations manned by the youth group volunteers to collect treats, oftentimes of a homemade nature, but more often than not consisting of pure sugar and high fructose corn syrup. After the harvest festival was over, the teens would vacate and go home to get dressed up and hit the local neighbourhoods and businesses.  They rarely worse costumes, opting instead to go in their regular street clothes,  though there was the occasional sketchy nurse and bloodthirsty murderer.

Bringing it back to the MGA, I have to confess that I really don’t get the idea and purpose as coming dressed up as Hollywood actors and starlets. I understand the Halloween alternative, but I cannot think of a concept that is more foreign to me and strikes me to be as poorly conceived than having Christian boys and girls dress up as their favourite secular movie stars. Hollywood seems to be the epicentre of a worldview that is squarely at odds with a biblical one. The whole thing more often than not seems like a celebration of money, sex, power, drugs, violence, vanity and materialism. The lusts of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life... In very real ways they have contributed to the sexualization of our culture and normalization of every kind of aberrant and perverse behaviour. Furthermore, there are very few actors and actresses  whose movies are wholesome and pure, and who would be Godly and righteous role models that we ought to look up to, much less dress up like.

I’m trying to think of who I would come dressed up as, and I can’t even think of a person. Who out there is worth emulating and dressing up as, and what does it say about us and our Christian identity that we want our kids to dress up as Hollywood stars? What does it say about our idolatry? I suppose its a given that some of our girls will come dressed up as Miley Cyrus and other young actresses who regularly exhibit in their private and public life what can only be described as “whoremonging skills.” Dressing up as  Hollywood movie stars attending the Oscars to celebrate movies which often showcase their sin and depravity, in the name of entertainment.

The only thing I can compare it to would be if Timothy or Titus instructed their congregation members that  instead of celebrating some pagan festival, that they should  have their kids and congregation members dress up  as gladiators. They could decorate the houses and catacombs with sand on the ground and weapons in little piles. They could be dressed up as the slaves, criminals and prisoners of war that found themselves entertaining the masses as they cut bone and shed blood in the Flavian amphitheaters. If the women think they would be left out, no worries- there were female gladiators too, and from all accounts they were just as fierce and like a lot of women celebrating Halloween wore just as little clothes.

Clearly I don’t get it, and I wonder if I’m part of some misguided minority. What do you all think? Do you like the idea of a Halloween alternative, and secondly- what do you think of the theme? Is it harmless fun to dress up as Hollywood movie stars, or does it betray some troubling reality? Discuss!

Lecture on Sexual Identity, Orientation, and Gender Dispensation. No Clobber Verses Allowed.

Justin Taylor posted this over at his blog. It is not a lecture about a biblical/theological/ exegetical defense against homosexuality, but rather assuming the position, answers questions from a pastoral/ psychological/socio-developmental/ counseling perspective. I have never come across anything as good and helpful as this. Highly recommended.

  • What causes homosexuality?
  • Can we be responsible for that which is not consciously chosen?
  • What is the difference between having same-same attraction, same-sex orientation, and being “gay” or “lesbian”?
  • How many people self-identify in these ways?
  • Do people with same-same attraction actually change?
  • How can they change?
  • What does the gospel have to do with this issue?
  • How can we promote change in the church for those who struggle?

Almost [saved] Poet Ezekial Azonwu

This is a phenomenal video by the people over at P4CM. Poert Ezekial Azonwu is simply electric and the gospel-centeredness is majestic. I would strongly recommend that everyone watches the whole thing through. And yes- I would give anything to be there. The next Poets lounge is going down October 29, 2011. See for more details. Highly Recommended!

The Evolution Of This Blog; Sermon Reviews, Being Shut Out, And Serving the Church

I started this blog back in August of 2009 with different intentions. I had originally envisioned it as a place that could serve as a hub for local churches in the area  to post their sermons online, share local news and events, advertise guest speakers that they were having, give praise reports of baptisms, and update with the joys and tears of their missionary work.  That was the purpose of this website at its earliest conception. The more I thought of it however, I realized that I did not have the time and energy to dedicate to such a large endeavor. It would be a fairly massive undertaking, especially in order to do it well and I was not up for it.

I then decided to switch gears and make the focus of the blog sermon reviews. I had been listening to 20-60 sermons a week leading up to this, for quite a few years, and while at this point I was unable to listen to that same quantity, I was still listening to 10-15 a week.  Some were treasured podcasts and the rest were local Fort McMurray Churches.  I found myself alternately edified by some and angered at others. Believing myself to be adequately equipped with a decent knowledge of the scripture,s  I thought it would be a good idea to review and evaluate sermons. My reviewing philosophy was born and has been posted since day one.

“What I do when I review a sermon is I mainly look to see that the law is being used lawfully, that the gospel is preached as it should, that the bible verses aren’t being taken out of context, and that historical Judeo-Christian orthodoxy and biblical theology is being preached”….. “As such, I try to respond as gently as I can. I know far too well how easy it is to just sit back and take pot shots at a Pastor for sermon that he may have spent hours or even days on, and that doing so really doesn’t help anyone. As such, when I comment on a sermon, it’s never my intent to tear down or to be dismissive of anything or anyone, but rather to simply see that these preachers are rightly dividing the word of truth, and to build them up and encourage them when I can, and to correct them in truth and love as a brother in Christ when I feel they require correction”

When I started off, I envisioned that this could be a place where I could have robust dialogue with the pastors who preached these sermons, the elders who supported the church, and the people who attended these churches. Whether it was a word of praise or a critique of how they used scripture, the intention was always to build them up and help them become stronger. Ironing sharpening iron, whetting the word of God until it could pierce bone, sinew and marrow-straight to a man’s heart. It was all about the Bible- that’s all I ever wanted to talk about. At this point someone might say “But who asked you to do that? Nobody asked you to play judge and jury.” It’s true. Nobody asked me. But I felt this was a worthwhile ministry in which I was gifted in. I am a good teacher and I have a good understanding of the Bible and what it says. I know how to read it and how it should be read. I know what is prescriptive and what is descriptive- the ebb and flow of it, the arc and worldview, how to exegete it and how to apply proper hermeneutics to it. I figured that because I didn’t critique the pastor personally or take shots at his personality or his homiletical style,  I hoped we could relegate this to the arena of ideas and theology proper, and that they would be ok with that. I went ahead with it.

Things did not go as planned. There was almost no interaction, though I would send the pastors emails and inform them of what I was writing. Sometimes I would write them in advance and ask them to comment before I posted something because I wanted the clearest possible understanding of what they were preaching. I might say something like “In your sermon you used this verse to prove your point, and said so forth and so forth. But in doing so you did not quote the verse right, and in fact fused two verses together, neither of which works.” One or two ventured a comment. One wrote me an email saying “Thank you very much. You are absolutely right. I was speaking extemporaneously and completely messed those up and gave the wrong impression. Thank you for your work.” That was a rarity. Most just ignored me. Every once in a while I would receive a comment about a sermon review I did and the same charges were always laid;  that I was being mean, graceless, nitpicky, overly zealous and unloving.

I tried to interact with these people, ask them for specifics and ask them about the issues I raised, but no one wanted any meaningful interaction or dialogue. This was strange to me because its not like the reviews were all negative. I rarely if ever brought up minor quibbles or nitpicks. I’m not bringing up minor issues or doctrinal distinctives that I disagree  with, but issues of substance. In fact, the overwhelming majority of  thoughts that I had involved how they used the Bible. More often than not I would give 5 or 6 ways that felt edified and built up, told them how blessed I was because of the things I learned, and then inquired about a few things which I had questions about. Again, silence.. One low point was when one of the local Churches invited a word-faith heretic to preach and teach On Sunday morning. The man absolutely butchered the Bible. I have listened to close to 8000-9000 sermons in my life, and this was easily one of the worst. I reviewed the sermon and sent it to the leadership of the Church several times. They never responded. I waited to see if they issued a public rebuke and repudiation of the man and his sermon, I never heard one. I contacted a friend who attended the Church and asked them if they heard anything- they never did. As far as I know, that Church still stands behind this man and his message.

I think that is what has surprised me about a lot of these pastors. I love these guys and I admire and respect them all so much, even the ones that we don’t see eye to eye, and yet despite my affections, good will, and straight up love for this men,  many of them treat me like a pariah. What I had intended to be a blessing they see as a curse. They don’t respond to my emails, even when I am asking something neutral and innocuous. My intentions are treated as suspicious, even though I have never tried to be that. I don’t know if  its fear, embarrassment, immaturity, or something else that prevents them from interacting with what I actually said. Maybe they believe that there is no such thing as a godly critic- that any criticism is personal and is an attack against them and their church. I honestly don’t know.  But I can send out email after email after email, to multiple pastors in the same church, and the result is silence.

I’m not some anonymous blogger who fires potshots from his mom’s basement- I’m a friendly guy who lives and works in town and would like very much to sit down and talk anyone who wants to talk. I’m always up for that. I have my contact information available and I’ll talk with people face to face anytime. I understand that these men are busy- they are shepherds of a flock, after all, and as I don’t even go to their Churches they have to prioritize. They don’t owe me an answer. I’m not so special that I deserve an answer, necessarily, or that my objections demand a response. I can also understand that what I say can be wearing. Though often I’ll say “Great sermon, Loved these 10 points. Excellent!”other times I’ll take exception and dedicate quite  a a bit of time showing why they used the Bible in an improper way. That’s not fun for either of us, and I don’t relish the prospect of that. In many ways I approach it with grief, sorrow,anger and frustration that it has to happen at all. But happen it does- or did.

Anyways, as a result, I’ve slowly started moving the focus of my website away from sermon reviews to more general theology. I still listen to every sermon that is released by every Church in this city, but only comment when they are exceptionally good or exceptionally bad. Most of the time they good sermons with some questionable things thrown it, but it takes great energy to review one.  I spend 6-8 hours on each one, easily, listening to them multiple times, transcribing large sections, pulling up bible verses, looking for sources, reading commentaries, doing my own in-depth exegesis, tracking down this and that, and then writing it all out. Its time consuming, and as no one cares to interact with what I say, it has become less and less important to me. Though I should mention that there have been some Pastors who have been nothing but kind and gracious to me, and also not the ones you would probably expect.  You would be surprised at some of the emails I have received. Some have been incredibly rude, gruff, and downright mean. Others have been generous with their time and have shown me great kindness in ways that makes me admire them all the more.

But the blog is evolving.  I try to give as much original content as I can, and I know my efforts have been imperfect. My passion has always been the Gospel and making sure the Bible is being used correctly. I don’t see that changing. I try to keep things interesting and fun-  biblical and provocative, and talk about a host of subjects that interest me and which I think would interest my readers. I have a few extremely provocative blog posts planned before now and November, and a few which will do some exegetical teaching. Going forward, it will be a bit more broad, but I will always be referring back to my niche, which is blogging about events that are relevant to Fort McMurray and the Churches in the area. I have been blessed to have some wonderful readers who have supported me and have interacted with me, which I truly appreciate. This blog has pushed me and has helped grow me, offering its joys and hardships, but I am a better man for and a better believer for it.

Thank you so much again, and thank you all for the way that you’ve contributed to this.


And the winnner is….

Jeff Moreau! Congrats, man. I’ll send it out to you as soon as you send me your mailing address. You can facebook it to me or email me at [email protected]. Thank-you everyone who entered. Next giveaway will happen mid- November and our Roman Catholic friends especially will want to get in on the action.

Mush before Milk before Meat?

Right now churches across Canada are covering all sorts of topics and series in their series and sermons. Among these will be series and topics on better sex, happy marriages, how to be a strong leader, parenting techniques, how to manage money, positive thinking, vision casting, spiritual lessons from movies, and a host of other subjects. Good topics all, I suppose, but I can’t help but wonder if those are the best things to be preaching on when we consider what is not being preached on. Let me explain a bit.

I wonder what Pastor here in Fort Murray, if I were to survey their congregation and ask them to define and explain the Trinity, would feel confident that the bulk of the responses would not be some form or variation of  arianism, subordinationism, adoptionism, modalism, polytheism, monarchianism, tritheism, patripassianism, appolinarianism, socinianism, monophysitism, or nestorianism. How many people in the Church would be able to offer up a robust, biblical explanation of the Trinity? Could they defend it from Oneness Christians or their Muslim and Jehovah Witness friends and coworkers? To what degree of scrutiny can it withstand?

If I were to ask “Because God, Jesus, and the Holy spirit are one, would it be fair to say that the Father is the Son, The Son is the Spirit, and the Spirit is the Father?’ How many people would answer yes to that question, or be unsure how to answer it? And how many people know that if they did answer yes, they would be affirming the heresy of Sabellianism and repudiating the Athanasian creed?

One could argue that teaching on the Trinity is too abstract, or complicated, or esoteric, or has no bearing or application in the real world. I don’t think that’s true at all and would love to be a dog in that fight. While I know that not everyone in a Church is going to have an seminary-level grasp of the Trinity, are the leaders of the Church confident that most people will have a strong grasp of it most of the time?

And if not, is it possible that it might be important that foundational things are taught like the Trinity [Or Justification, or sanctification, or the nature of the gospel, or a host of other fundamental doctrines] before we embark on an 8 week series on how to manage one’s wealth or how to be a good leader?

Just some food for thought.

Church kids need to stop being so gay

There is a microcosm of our popular culture today that is spread and spewed on a daily basis by many members of the Body of Christ, and this is the fact that “gay jokes” are socially and spiritually accepted within the Church. That is  tragic, disturbing, and damaging. Most Christians know that you shouldn’t tell dirty or sexual jokes and if you confronted a man telling a coarse joke, more often than not he’ll become embarrassed, self-conscious, and acknowledge that he probably shouldn’t be saying them. There is no such stigma for “gay jokes.”

Congregation members, especially teens and young men, have made this a part of their daily repertoire of insults and wit, specifically using the term “gay” as a disparaging epitaph. Innuendos and insinuations of effeminacy and queerness come naturally and quick. They do this based on perceived character defects, personal mannerisms,  speech patterns, clothing style, affectations, interests and oftentimes for no reason whatsoever. It doesn’t really matter what the impetus is, if there is an opportunity to burn another soul [usually in jest]  it’s rare that someone would think twice before saying  “that’s pretty gay” in order to frame them as a homosexual and demean and marginalize them. That’s part of it. The other part is when people  thoughtlessly define “gay”  and make it a synonym for stupid, lame, week and boring.  They might say “that restaurant was pretty gay” or that band is so gay”. Its very, very common, and Church kids love saying it.

Church kids are being bombarded by one of the worst dimensions of  Christian culture which says it’s either alright to make fun of homosexuals, or as is far more prominent and is usually the case, that they don’t care when you make fun of homosexuals. It doesn’t register. They are lethargic and apathetic, and they need to be woken. It is  inexcusable. It is an immature, uncaring and unloving practice. Our culture does it all the time, and instead of making this a dividing line where we draw a distinction between the hateful rhetoric of our culture and the loving, welcoming, nurturing character of the Church’s soul towards homosexuals, our young men have joined the party and have become indistinguishable in this regard.  The pastors and leaders need to take them to task and correct them when they say things like that. They need to be told that what they are doing is a sin and that it has no place in that community of faith. The pastors need to rebuke, shame and discipline them. Call them out on it and take them aside and help them develop it as an issue of personal sanctification.

It is a shame in every sense of the word, and it needs to be seriously dealt with.  It’s not funny and it demeans the name of Christ when they are being allowed to profligate it with impunity through careless and crass words.  Their joking may not all be overt, but they implicitly bleed superiority and condescension when they  take a facet of a person spirit  that they’ve wept  and trembled over and use it as a dismissive disparagement- when they reduce such an important, raw part of gay person’s identity to a punchline to score points.

A while ago I was in discussions with some people about what I would say if I were apologizing on behalf of the Church for how they’ve treated the homosexual community. I think what I wrote then has some relevance to the topic at hand and I figured would share part of it to close out the post;

“I would not apologize for the theology, but rather how we have presented it. I would apologize that we haven’t been more accepting of homosexuals in the congregation and have not aggressively been evangelizing them. I would apologize that we have related to them as lepers, instead of as image bearers needing Christ- and that we are less “leprous” than they. I would apologize that we have not denounced the young men in our congregations who have made a habit of telling “gay-jokes” and other shameful humor. I would apologize that we have been ambivalent and have not paid attention to the men and women in our congregation who have been struggling with same sex attraction. I would apologize for not ministering to them enough, and for not supporting them enough in their desire to be free from this. I would apologize for the tactlessness that certain ministers have exhibited in public forums and for the lack of loving tone with outsiders and unbelievers. Last of all, I would apologize that we have not been clear, intellectual, concise and consistent in our theology of marriage. We have let people who have no theology of marriage hijack the conversation and speak for us. We have let ignorant people with loveless rhetoric and billboards saying “Adam and eve, not Adam and Steve” represent us, instead of thoughtful, wise and well spoken men and women of God who are  able to intelligently lay out a loving, clear presentation of why and what we believe marriage and sexuality to be and how that relates to the homosexual and heterosexual.”

*note. the title of this blog point is deliberately provocative and ironically tongue-in-cheek. When contrasted with the content and thesis, I believe it serves its purpose well.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 28 other followers

Powered by