No, Jesus Wouldn’t Bake the Cake

[02/23: Today Powers has published ANOTHER fluff piece along with partner in church-wussification Jonathan Merritt, this one regarding a similar law that’s being proposed in Arizona. Since her attempt at exegesis worked out so well, this time she tries to use “logic.” Someone please tell this woman to stop before she hurts herself. Meanwhile, read Russell Moore’s measured response here. And Al Mohler’s here.]

Many of you may have been following the recent defeat of a bill in the Kansas State Senate (after passing in the House) that would protect Christian business-owners from lawsuit and potential financial ruin for refusing to lend their services to gay “weddings.” Unfortunately, this defeat has met with sanctimonious approval from a number of alleged Christians.

Among them is columnist Kirsten Powers, whose conversion to Christianity from her hard-core secular New York background was recently highlighted in Christianity Today. Conservatives passed the testimony around as an intriguing story. Of course I was pleased to see another soul won to Christ, but Powers’s testimony in that article and also in this video raised some red flags for me. I was concerned by her very evident discomfort with conservative politics in general and her relief at finding “other Christians who were like me—very progressive-minded.” She clearly now believes that she can be a Christian and keep most of her favorite liberal security blankets at the same time (except maybe for being pro-abortion). Tim Keller was the pastor who initially influenced her to become a Christian, but while he’s almost certainly more conservative than she is, he’s not the best pastor to provide hard-edged clarity of political thought to a Democrat who needs a wake-up call. (In fact, I heard a sermon where Keller said “moving” or “changing” in your politics is a sign of Christian maturity no matter which direction you’re moving—presumably becoming even more conservative doesn’t count. ;) )

Anyway, all those worries are coming home to roost in Powers’s shallow, childish little rant about the fact that conservative Christians (shocker!) thought the Kansas bill was a good idea, in which she proves that she still doesn’t grok Christian morality and enlists the aid of outright liberal pastors like Adam Hamilton and Andy Stanley in the process. Where to start?

Okay, even setting aside my personal libertarian streak, which leads me to believe that private business-owners should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason whatsoever (and see how long they survive in the free market), look at the constant equivocation between “serving gays” and “serving gay couples.” It’s misleading readers about the actual nature of the bill. To call it a “Jim Crow law” is ludicrous. The wording is very clear and specific—this is about so-called “weddings,” not just people walking in to buy stuff who happen to be gay. Also, Powers tips her own political hand throughout with her smirking, matter-of-fact references to “most married people” and “getting married,” innocently void of quotes around “married.” “Why, what? Haven’t you ever heard of two people getting married before?” Oy vey, where’s Peter Falk when you need him?

Worst of all is her cringe-worthy attempt to do a little bit of amateur exegesis, with some help from her favorite aforementioned clueless pastors:

Whether Christians have the legal right to discriminate should be a moot point because Christianity doesn’t prohibit serving a gay couple getting married. Jesus calls his followers to be servants to all. Nor does the Bible call service to another an affirmation.

Adam Hamilton, pastor of the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection, the largest church in Kansas, pointed out to me what all Christians should know: “Jesus routinely healed, fed and ministered to people whose personal lifestyle he likely disagreed with.” This put Jesus at odds with religious leaders, who believed they were sullied by associating with the “wrong” people.

[snip]

Evangelical pastor Andy Stanley leads North Point Ministries, the second largest church in the U.S. He told me he finds it “offensive that Christians would leverage faith to support the Kansas law.” He said, “Serving people we don’t see eye to eye with is the essence of Christianity. Jesus died for a world with which he didn’t see eye to eye. If a bakery doesn’t want to sell its products to a gay couple, it’s their business. Literally. But leave Jesus out of it.”

Christians serve unrepentant murderers through prison ministry. So why can’t they provide a service for a same-sex marriage?

Some claim it’s because marriage is so sacred. But double standards abound. Christian bakers don’t interrogate wedding clients to make sure their behavior comports with the Bible. If they did, they’d be out of business. Stanley said, “Jesus taught that if a person is divorced and gets remarried, it’s adultery. So if (Christians) don’t have a problem doing business with people getting remarried, why refuse to do business with gays and lesbians.”

Maybe they should just ask themselves, “What would Jesus do?” I think he’d bake the cake.

Some pastors really need to do the Church’s collective IQ a favor and stop thinking out loud. For starters, there’s the oh-so-tired attempted “gotcha” line about baking a cake for a re-marriage. I realize this is a contentious issue within the Church, but at least one position that has some solid biblical backing is that Jesus allows for divorce under the exception of infidelity. So for all the baker knows, it could be a “legit” remarriage. Furthermore, it’s not a “double standard” to absolve Christian business-owners from interrogating their clients to make sure no product is used unbiblically, yet argue they should be free to withhold their services when the client is rubbing their faces in it. God doesn’t hold you accountable for what you don’t know. But to deny Christian business-owners the right of conscience when the choice is dropped in their lap is to leave them vulnerable to the remorseless thuggery of the homosexual activist. And that way lies anarcho-tyranny. Is that really the America we want?

Another line plucked from the carnage: “Christians serve unrepentant murderers through prison ministry. So why can’t they provide a service for a same-sex marriage?” You mean like baking a cake for the unrepentant murderer to celebrate the anniversary of his crime, complete with figurines of himself killing the victim with his weapon of choice? And pink frosted letters spelling out: “For your special day”? What’s that you say? Prison ministries don’t do that? Well golly gee, I wonder why not!

And if I see one more liberal using and abusing the “Jesus rubbed shoulders with sinners” angle, I’m going to tear my hair out. At no point did Jesus facilitate a sinner in his sin. He called out people’s sin and told them to repent of it. This isn’t about “not feeding/serving people we disagree with,” this is about “not legitimizing sin.” Let me know when you find the verse where Jesus does that.

“What would Jesus do?” No, Pastor Stanley, no, Pastor Hamilton, no Kirsten dear, Jesus wouldn’t bake the cake. Jesus would say, “Repent.”

About these ads

32 Comments

Filed under Faith and Culture

32 responses to “No, Jesus Wouldn’t Bake the Cake

  1. Well said. I can’t imagine Jesus attending a “gay marriage” at Cana and turning water into wine there for the groom and the groom, even if He was a Man of good deeds.

  2. To the gentleman who just attempted to leave his excuse for a comment on this site: Please come back when you can argue like a man. Also, work on your smirk. You’re very lucky I didn’t wipe it off for you. Thanks for reading!

  3. Kiley

    I’ve been a reader of your site for over a year. I think posts like this are necessary, yet too often necessarily dismissed (or worse). The liberal shift (probably an understatement: it’s more of a pirouette) that’s been dominating postmodern/emergent (do they still use that word?) Christianity today isn’t altogether alarming, but I think it’s more harmful than they have the foresight to recognize, usually in subtle ways. If your comment thread on some of your other (un)popular posts is any indicator, I’ll undoubtedly be sneered at by those I just criticized. That’s fine. If nothing else, I want to say thank you for speaking up when few others have. I guess the truth is still important somewhere.

    • Actually, I think most of the “sneering” brigade, e.g. on the Brennan Manning thread, is imported from google searches and not a regular reading bloc. A few of my posts have inexplicably become heavily read that way, but those people are no more than drive-by commentators. I’m primarily addressing a strongly conservative audience, most of whom are content to read without leaving their thoughts. Thank you for yours!

      • Kiley

        I think I’d love to see the Google searches that lead them here, in that case. “Something to sneer at”; “Where can I find a replacement Brita water filter…and something to sneer at?”; “What is the most indirect way I can argue vicariously with Challies?”

        Sorry. Not very edifying of me, but I couldn’t resist.

      • Well, googling “Brennan Manning” “death” brings up my post on the first page, and “Brennan Manning” alone brings it up on page two. I’m still at a loss as to how everyone has found my post criticizing Michael Buble though!

      • Drake Masters

        It’s interesting that you can be critical of everyone, but your loyal bandwagon won’t let anyone be critical of you. Hmm…

        Regarding my comment about Cana… I was actually being quite serious. Do you expect that Jesus would say “this miracle is for everyone but those with one particular kind of sin?”

        You’ve got a lovely little racket going on here. You get to “sneer” at whomever you like, only to block comments of anyone who you disagree with or who you think are “sneering” back.

        I wonder how you would respond to a blog where someone out of the blue became unreasonably critical of you, as you have of others.

      • Well, aren’t you cute. All right, since you didn’t take the hint to go troll somewhere else… I am honestly in the dark about what your precise point is with regard to Jesus’ miracle at Cana. John was making the point that Jesus wouldn’t participate in a ceremony celebrating sin. If your point is that maybe one of the wedding guests was gay… well, number one, you’re just pulling that out of thin air, and number two, that has nothing to do with celebrating sin. So, you’ve still offered absolutely nothing in the way of an argument. I blocked your initial comment not because you were “disagreeing” with me, but because you were trolling. Until you can learn to disagree substantively, you’re done here. I refuse to let you suck my valuable time down the drain.

  4. Kiley

    Short of I think a grand total of two comments on another blog stretched out over a period of three years, this is the only other time I’ve commented at all. I hardly think that constitutes me swooping in to the blogger’s defense every instant someone says anything in disagreement. A quick glance at the majority of her comment threads shows she defends herself well enough on her own.

    I also think there’s a difference between sneering and criticizing. I believe the blogger also does, which is why she asked for something more substantive before she would respond further. To me, and apparently to many of her more colorful comment threads, it appears like she welcomes actual criticism.

    I obviously lent myself to this after my initial comment, and now realize this is clearly sidetracking what could have led to more fruitful discussion on topic. I apologize.

  5. Ragamuffin and Drake's Roommate

    I have two idiot roommates who have been going on and on about this blog. “She said this about Brennan Manning” “She said this about Jesus and cake” blah blah blah.

    Their comments here are embarrassing.

    They showed this blog to me thinking I would have a similar reaction. I don’t. I apologize for the way they’ve behaved.

    Here’s what I do think:

    Trying to approach Jesus from a “liberal” or “conservative” or “right” or “left” framework just doesn’t work. He wasn’t a part of them in his time, he isn’t in ours. I think he’d have plenty to say to both sides today, and not much of it would be favorable.

    The LGBT community considers themselves to be social outcasts. I frankly think they’re right about that. It’s pretty hard to deny. They have growing social acceptance, but they are still largely outcasts. Especially in churches.

    If we’re going to say “Jesus would/wouldn’t do this” about them, we need to look to scripture to do it.

    Would Jesus bake them a cake? Perhaps not. I’m not even going to get into my roommate’s wine comment. He told me about it, and he’s a moron. (When he reads this, he’s going to say “yeah, he already told me I’m a moron).

    Maybe a better question than “Would Jesus do it?” is the cliche old question we used to wear on our silicon bracelets as youth group kids. “What *would* Jesus do?”

    You’ve asked “Would he do this?” and answered “no.” So, what would he do?

    I think we need to look at John 8. When the Pharisees brought a sinful outcast woman (for the sake of our discussion, let’s liken her to an LGBT person) to Jesus in order for Jesus to condemn her so that they could stone her, Jesus acted in a way that surprised them all.

    He didn’t do what the conservatives wanted him to do. He didn’t do what the liberals wanted to do. He chose a third way all together.

    He didn’t bake a cake. He didn’t join in on the stoning.

    He disarmed the angry mob (the conservatives *and* the liberals of his day) and spoke to the woman in a way no one expected. “I don’t condemn you.” Remember, this is a SINFUL woman. Then he said “Go and sin no more.”

    Maybe to the gay person, our response needs to be different entirely. “I have no condemnation to speak against you. I’m a sinner, too.”

    And if we can start with that humility and common ground, perhaps they’ll listen to us when we finally say “Go and sin no more.”

    Maybe we could offer forgiveness and ask for forgiveness, and stop worrying about cake. Because let’s face it… cake isn’t the issue. Baking cake for gay people isn’t the issue. That’s all politics and propaganda. The issue is, how WOULD Jesus respond to the gay person?

    I get it… you said Jesus would say “Repent.” But unlike the typical church person today, he wouldn’t scream it in their faces. He wouldn’t kick them out of his cake shop… (honestly, this is a little absurd…).

    I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t be concerned about where they purchase their wedding cake.

    I read a few of your posts… nothing extensive… just to see where you were coming from. I’m convinced on one hand that my roommates were idiots. They believe the “liberal” end of the lie. On the other hand, in a couple of the posts I’ve read, you seem to believe the conservative end of the lie. Neither are the way of Jesus. He just didn’t participate in a conservative/liberal system.

    It might shock our American ears right off our heads, but there are are more than two options, and often, the third, fourth and fifth options are better than the first two.

    • Thanks, I enjoyed reading those first couple paragraphs. So… what, you guys all live in a frat-house or something? My blog: The talk of dorm rooms across the nation! Sorry, I do appreciate your comment, but I couldn’t resist. You guys all do realize I’m a complete nobody, right? Challies linked one piece of mine about Steve McQueen’s conversion to Christianity from his site, and that was only because I sent it to him. (Though that was a good piece if I say so myself.)

      Here’s where I think you’re confused: Your language here is anachronistic. You simply can’t compare the political climate of 21st century America with that of 1st century Israel. And you can’t really compare the modern-day church with the Jewish authority structure. Huge apples and oranges thing going on in your analogies here. Jesus and the apostles “didn’t participate in a conservative/liberal system” because there was no liberal/conservative system! So, that’s the first problem.

      RE your comments regarding LGBT people vs. the Church today, you’re speaking in fuzzy generalizations here. Be specific. Use examples. Specifics are badly needed and enormously clarifying in any conversation of this sort. When you say that “gay people are outcasts in the church,” or “the church needs to apologize for how they’ve treated gay people,” to what precisely are you referring, and to what extent does it have broader applications beyond the fringe contingent who also harasses the families of dead military veterans? For example, would some or all of the following count as “mistreatment” in your estimation?

      1. Refusing official church membership to people who are not merely struggling with the orientation, but un-repentantly living it out.

      2. Refusing to stop referring to homosexual orientation as unnatural or a sign that something is fundamentally broken about one’s sexuality.

      3. Refusing to treat homosexual temptation any differently from other sexual temptations in the sense that just as we don’t tell the adulterous man, “I know, I really, really wish you could leave your wife for that hotter chick, but you’re not allowed and I know how hard that is for you—want a hug?” we don’t tell the homosexual, “I know you want to ignore the definition of what marriage is and have perverse sex with someone of the same gender, and this is a huge struggle for me to accept, but I just gotta go with what the Bible says! Yeah, it doesn’t always make sense to me either. Hug?”

      4. Telling “trans-gender” people who are just “testing the waters” at a church that they need to either stop cross-dressing inside the church walls or leave altogether. One day you may have children, and you may understand why parents want to shield their young ones from the slow horror of realizing that the lady in the dress is really a man as long as possible. Now maybe you’re going to call me “trans-phobic” for saying that, but it’s not going to make any difference to me. Do I believe God is willing and able to forgive any sexual sin, any sexual deviancy? Yes. But “God can forgive it” is not equivalent to “My 5-year-old might as well know all about it.” We need to reclaim a little sense of common courtesy here.

      Moreover, I can’t really let you get away with trying to wave your hands and say “it’s just a cake.” No, no it’s not. This is about whether or not Christian business-owners can be forced by the government to violate their consciences (remember, this isn’t about “feeding gay people” either, this is about participating in the fabricated institution of “gay marriage”) or get sued for all they’re worth, and lose it. Now, if you don’t see that as a problem, then I can’t persuade you to change your mind. But you need to understand what’s at stake here, and you need to understand how quickly things have mobilized even just within the past half-decade. In time, you too may be forced to make such a decision. Christian employees are already facing harassment from their employers to participate in “gay-affirming” work activities. I’m talking big, mainstream corporations here. That employee could be you some day. And when your time comes, you must choose to live not by lies.

      You say we need to “ask for forgiveness” from gay people. Why? What does the baker personally need to apologize for to the gay couple who walks in demanding his service? How has he wronged them? Also, where do you get the idea that the bakers and other business-owners who have refused service to these couples are “screaming it in their faces?” In every single story like this that I’ve read (and there are many), the Christians have simply offered a polite “No.” Every Christian I know would do the same. I did say that Jesus would tell the couple to repent to their faces, because that was Jesus’ ministry motto and something he tended to say, a lot, because he was God after all. I wasn’t necessarily saying business-owners should launch into a long disquisition against homosexuality at the precise moment when they’re denying their business—although I wouldn’t say it was wrong for them to do so. But since Kirsten and co. were bringing up the question of “What Jesus would do,” that seemed like an obvious point to make.

      You seem like a nice, well-intentioned kid, and I appreciate you coming in to pick up after your room-mates here, as it were. I would still encourage you to become better informed and think a little more deeply about these issues. I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. Thanks for reading.

    • Chuckles

      53 And every man went unto his own house.

      8 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

      2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

      3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

      4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

      5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

      6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

      7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

      8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

      9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

      10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

      11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

      Please read the whole text before trying to use the Bible to justify your position. Focus specifically on where in verse 6 where it says that the Pharisees did this so that they might be able to accuse him, and where Christ sends the woman off with these words, “Then neither do I condemn you, GO, AND SIN NO MORE.”

      Stating that the “third” option “could be better than the” first two options means absolutely nothing because it operates under too many assumptions to yield anything of meaning of substance. That said, as a Christian the “option” we should seek and pursue is the only that most closely follows the example set by our Lord, Jesus or through the revealed Word of God. That is our ONLY option.

      • John Situmbeko

        Suppose the cake baker said to the gay couple seeking his services for their wedding, “I do not condemn you, go and sin no more.” Would that sound more acceptable? I think they would work up a more fiercer fit than if they were just told a plain no. In scripture, Jesus did point out that what she did was sin by telling her to sin no more. “Sin more” is what homosexuals (about to get married or not) don’t wanna hear. To them it ain’t sin. But as Christians following Jesus’ example, ain’t it not our duty not to condemn but to point out that what they do is sin, something they can by God’s grace leave behind and walk the “sin no more” route? Are we suppose to say “hey, what you’re about to do is actually sin, but I don’t condemn you, here is some cake to celebrate the holy matrimony.” Is that Christianity?

      • John Situmbeko

        Sin no more, I meant to say.

      • Chuckles misread John in a comment here and wanted me to delete it before it was even approved, but I didn’t catch his comment. I have now deleted the sub-conversation per his request. Sorry for the misunderstanding John!

      • John Situmbeko

        No problem and no offence taken, I must confess that I actually do need to work on my English and how I express myself :) . I’m one of ‘em slow thinkers that take ages to construct meaningful sentences. High school was easy, but that trait of mine has me sweating blood in college, where I’m ever required to write and submit on time, lengthy multi-page essays that not only contain logical arguements but written in correct British grammar.

        Back to the topic at hand, Uganda just passed a law that restricts homosexuality, making homosexual acts worth life behind bars. Talking about homosexuality there is also illegal, unless you’re condemning it. Also, not reporting homosexual offences is now a crime.

        Conservative though I be, I think that’s really severe, but nonetheless very effective at sending the homosexual lifestyle underground. It is sad that It should take such measures to put in check this vice, but judging by the way homosexuals under liberal governments behave, it seems like a suitable solution. Homosexuals get too big headed and behave like spoilt brats when the government is on their side. They regard all against their lifestyle as foes that deserve to be punished by the law, they use the government’s arm to grip “foes” by their necks and force them to pay for not supporting homosexual activities. If morality is to be upheld, I’d rather a government be against homosexuality than for it.

        Personally I wouldn’t mind if homosexuals where left to practice their homosexuality, in private. They have power over their own bodies, and they have a say on how their bodies are used and they have a choice to whom they give themselves. But because it’s always the case that such liberties make them mean, going about demanding cake hither and thither, and punishment for all who refuse to serve them cake, I afraid they have to be stopped by law, if possible.

      • I believe you talked about this on an old thread some time back. I would disagree that banning homosexual acts is necessary to de-fang homosexual activism in civil society. All that’s required is for the governing authorities to take an entirely hands-off approach and let the chips fall where they may. Let ordinary people react in ordinary ways without repercussions, short of violating the homosexual’s constitutional rights of course. Also, a court system that didn’t throw in everything plus the kitchen sink under the penumbrella of “constitutional rights” to begin with would be very helpful. It may not stop their sin by law, but it would prevent them from using that sin as a lever to trample on the rights of others, and that’s the primary issue under discussion here.

      • I am sincerely sorry for how I expressed myself, I can at times be very snobbish/elitist and misread people by downplaying their intelligence in how I read them…as for criminalizing homosexuality…gosh, I shudder to think what would happen if those words would ever come out of the pulpit. Worse, I wonder who we are pleasing by refusing to fully address this sin…

      • No problem. As for what would happen, well, I’m pretty sure the pastor’s life would be ruined short of getting lynched by a mob. Not that I agree with criminalizing homosexuality. I just think there are better ways to control the effects of the sin on society. The problem is you need a sensible government/court system, and we don’t have that right now. It would also help if we could get back to the place as a society where homosexuality was viewed as a sign that something is WRONG with you. In short, a mental illness. That way it wouldn’t be treated as a normal thing to be talked about and embraced openly in public. It would remain a deeply private issue.

  6. Lydia McGrew

    I must say that I get baffled when really, really liberal people get all outraged at a blog like this. I mean that it seems like such a waste of their time. Here’s an individual blogger without a big platform expressing a lot of conservative opinions. This blog has always had a consistently conservative perspective, so it’s not like this should come as a surprise. How can it possibly be worth their energy to get upset? That’s why I (very conservative) don’t go reading the individual blog of some left-wing person and working myself up into a fury of outrage. Why would I bother? I suppose I could see that they would feel they were on some crusade to answer this (to their mind) terrible, no-good, “homophobic” opinion if it were at an influential site, but a one-girl show? It’s just weird.

  7. Great, just what we need, another misrepresentation of Christianity. It is a very sad day when pastors do not even know what their own Bible says. Lord have mercy on us!

  8. Kiley

    I do not think Mohler went far enough in his response. Although for whatever reason I’ve found his writing style seems to have shifted over the last year or so with more tedious exposition and less argumentation (i.e. “We live now in a digital age…”).

    I think Moore’s response was very good.

    I still do not know for the life of me where Kirsten Powers emerged from as a sudden lightning rod for progressive Christians. This is the same Kirsten Powers that persistently rolls her eyes as a regular guest on Bill O’Reilly. Progressives would say rolling your eyes is the only appropriate response to anything Bill O’Reilly says anyway. But I’m having a really hard time reconciling her unyielding apathy on prime time cable news with this sudden sympathetic turn in a progressive Christian outlet to those she deems are oppressed. The two characteristics seem mutually exclusive and I do not know which Kirsten Powers I should take seriously. Or I guess which one she is even taking seriously.

    • She’s a flake either way, so I wouldn’t take her seriously no matter what she’s saying or doing. Frankly I think it regrettable that Moore, Mohler and co. are taking the trouble to give her the time of day. Like Rachel Held Evans, she’s not nearly as clever as she thinks she is.

      • Kiley

        Well I don’t think she should go unchecked, either. Of course she’s so entrenched in self-aggrandizement nothing anyone says is going to make her openly reconsider or retract her words in the slightest. But I’m really not following this gentle pushing back approach by Mohler, etc, which is why I further appreciate your post. Dismantling her rhetoric without apology is not necessarily all that time consuming, and is its own reward. It just isn’t a very good investment.

        The Rachel Held Evans comparison seems quite fitting. They’re both about eight different shades of awful. I’m actually surprised Held Evans hasn’t jumped into the foray yet. I’m only half kidding.

      • She hasn’t? I wouldn’t know, I never pay any attention to what that woman says. I just saw Kevin DeYoung referring to her as a “bright light of Arminianism” the other day when she gave a positive blurb to a book by someone who converted away from Calvinism. I was a little annoyed. If RHE is the “brightest light” anyone can come up with for Arminianism, something is very wrong. She’s not even a theologian! She’s a blogger, for crying out loud!

        Conservative Arminian pastor-pundits: Where they at?

      • By the way, I’ve since found some blunter/more colorful replies to Powers that you might appreciate more. I like Keith Pavlischek’s approach. I gather he tends to focus more on foreign policy, but he’s tackling the social issues quite nicely here:

        http://juicyecumenism.com/2014/02/24/jonathan-merritt-christian-artistic-expression-and-the-preferential-option-for-caesar/

        I also like Doug Wilson’s characteristically zesty contribution;

        http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/put-an-egg-in-their-shoe.html

      • Kiley

        Are you sure DeYoung didn’t mean to say a “bright blight of Arminianism”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s