“Dan” “Phillips” just finished teaching through the book of Titus at his church. He wrote a post about the experience, including some of the ideas and theories on the various ways in which one can teach expositorily.  Some good stuff — both thoughtful and thought-provoking.

But, his closing thought is absolutely amazing, though — to be frank — not really surprising:

I absolutely loved it. Titus is an amazingly contemporary book. It is a potent tour-de-force on some absolutely horrendous notions of faith and grace and Gospel and Christian living. With God’s own wisdom, it speaks to Post-Modernism and contextualization; to various church-growth strategies and philosophies; to Gutless Gracers and muzzy mystics; to real-live age-ism and racism and the good and false approaches to each; and to a whole lot more.

Note that among his praises for the book is only one positive thing (“the good … approaches”). There are a couple of statements that don’t lean one way or the other. But the VAST majority of why “Dan” loved Titus is because of the many, many ways in which it allegedly confronts error (as defined by “Dan”), both in the world and in other (lesser?) branches of Christendom.

Like I said, this isn’t really surprising. It’s long been evident that folks in the tribe of “Dan” believe that the purpose of the Bible is to tell people how much they suck. But to pack so much of that attitude into one measly paragraph is quite noteworthy.


move along; no irony to see here

Posted: April 25, 2013 in general

According to “Dan” “Phillips”, I am akin to “the tick or the mosquito, content to suck out others’ lifeblood … [seeking a] larger host organism”, ostensibly to ride its coat-tails to fame and fortune. This classification was given due to actions that I took in a neutral medium (Twitter).

So, I’m so inconsequential that I (and my ilk) get over half of the text of a post by “Dan”.


In Frank Turk’s sidebar (that I referenced in my last post), he requested that the sidebar issue not “derail the comments to [the topic of his main] post”. Wishing to honor that request, I took my qualms about the sidebar to my blog and its paltry readership.

Apparently, my blog is so inconsequential that taking my qualms to my “4 readers” instead of airing them to a much larger audience on the “host organism” that is the TP blog, got me banned from the latter.


sidebars are a wonderful thing

Posted: April 25, 2013 in general

One of my favorite things about Frank Turk — and I say this with all sincerity — is his self-deprecation. So when he writes about a blog contribution of his being “a stunning post”, it makes me smile. It’s obvious that he’s being facetious — no one outside the media is that narcissistic. While I disagree with Reformed theology, Frank has the “total depravity” thing down cold, and even presents it in a humorous light when applying the concept to himself.

I point this out so that the beginning of the following quote doesn’t get misconstrued by those who don’t know Frank as well. In a recent post, he started off with this sidebar, before getting on to his actual post.

When I sat down this weekend to come up with a stunning post for today, I had maybe a dozen ideas, including lampooning this utterly-awful post from Mark Driscoll which, in my view, demonstrates what sort of fellow he is — and not in a good way. Maybe we’ll get back to it eventually because it would be worth thinking about what sort of fellow writes that post when he’s got so much to actively and publicly apologize for to the other fellow who helped him go mainstream.

If you haven’t read the Driscoll article yet, go read it — it’s brief, encouraging, and in no way awful.

So, “in [Frank’s] view”, what’s the take-away from a tribute to a good man and how God has used him?

  • John’s faithfulness to serve God all these years? No.
  • John’s care and grace to attempt to mentor Mark (and many other younger leaders)? No.
  • John’s care and grace to attempt to share what he has learned with others? No.

How strong of a dislike for Mark does one have to have to nullify the good deeds of an admirable man?

But let’s kick it up a notch. Here are some more possible take-aways that Frank rejects:

  • God’s power to teach Mark through John’s life? No.
  • God’s power to use John? No.
  • God’s faithfulness in the lives of both men? No.

How strong of a dislike for Mark does one have to have to totally obliterate the glory of God?

The important thing (in Frank’s view) is not God’s glory; it’s Mark’s sin. Surely, though, Frank doesn’t actually think that the latter is greater than the former.

a message for the culture warriors

Posted: April 4, 2013 in NSFE

I don’t always agree with Russell Moore, but he hits it out of the park with this quote:

A gloomy “slouching toward Gomorrah” view of culture leads, I think, to meanness. If we think we are on the losing end of the arc of history, we slide into outrage. If we see ourselves, though, as part of a kingdom that is triumphant in Christ, we ought to display a kind of provocative tranquility. We see those who disagree with us not as threatening to us or to our gospel, but those who, like all of us were, are held captive to an accusing power. We speak with convictional kindness because we love our neighbors, and because we are confident in our gospel. If the gates of hell won’t prevail against Jesus’ onward march, then why are we terrified by Hollywood or Capitol Hill?

wrong side of the argument #3

Posted: March 28, 2013 in NSFE

Mark DriscollMark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, gets it from both sides. Conservatives bash him because he doesn’t wear a tie when he’s in the shower — which, if one believes meteorological stereotypes, is 24/7 in his home city. Liberals hate on him because he actually believes that stuff in the Bible about Jesus conquering Satan with absolute finality one day and Mark thinks that that may require a bit of violence.

Had God not called Driscoll to be a pastor, he surely would have been an MMA fighter — although he’d probably take all his opponents out for pizza afterwards and tell them about the love of Jesus.

So why is it that, given how they are incessantly spoiling for a fight, Mark’s conservative critics don’t fully embrace him?