….but I don’t want to run afoul of the asterisk-as-fig-leaf brigade.
A family is turned away by a local pediatrician, they say because of the way they look.
The doctor said he is just following his beliefs, creating a Christian atmosphere for his patients….
For Dr. Gary Merrill of Christian Medical Services, that means no tattoos, body piercings, and a host of other requirements—all standards Merrill has set based upon his Christian faith.
[SOURCE]
Hat tip: Chris. I’m praying this is an inaccurate story, but if not…
Isn’t it great amid such trivialities as Christian counselors and doctors fighting for the right to follow their consciences regarding abortion or homosexuality that we have this hero taking a stand against porn culture.
But then, there seems to be many professing Christians right now who have nothing better to do than inflict imaginary standards on others.
I’ll leave you all with a little song someone sent to me. It goes to the tune of Gilbert and Sullivan’s “I am the Captain of the Pinafore“
(song cont’d)
. . . Then give three cheers, and one big kiss,
For the hardy captain of the Warfield List!
ANDY:
I do my best to satisfy you all–
ALL.
And with you we’re quite content.
ANDY:
You’re confession-al-ly strict,
And I think we’ve got them licked
‘Cause their blogs are full of ex-cree-ment.
ALL:
We’re confession-al-ly strict,
And he thinks we’ve got them licked
‘Cause their blogs are full of ex-cree-ment.
ANDY:
Bible language or abuse,
I never, never use,
Whatever I do confess;
Though “Heretic!” I may
Continually say,
I never use a Big, Bee Ess—-
ALL.
What, never?
ANDY:
No, never!
ALL.
What, never?
ANDY:
Hardly ever!
ALL.
Hardly ever swears a Big, Bee Ess–
Then give three cheers, and one big kiss,
For the well-bred captain of the Warfield List!
Addendum: One should bear in mind that this entry covers two different issues (though related in my mind) and the categories are not meant to include both at once. Some with one and some the other.
ROTFLM*O!
What can I say Mark?
Whatsoever things are pure, noble, lovely…
Oh, well, no time for blogging.
Back to the busy work of the pastorate.
Perhaps staying too busy to post on the warfield list might be helpful.
Yes, Ken, it’s quite a pure, noble thing for you to call Peter Leithart, a fellow PCA minister, an “an overeducated prurient pig.”
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bbwarfield/message/24713
Hmm, typical of you guys. YOu get more upset about the fact of someone being called a pig, then someone acting piggish.
What, exactly, would motivate a minister in good standing to write on the etymology of a vulgar word for intercourse on a public blog? Very edifying that.
And, that, of course, is only one of the furnished examples:
http://www.leithart.com/archives/000454.php
http://www.leithart.com/archives/002420.php
http://www.leithart.com/archives/print/000453.php
http://www.leithart.com/archives/print/000772.php
But, then, most of us are too busy to occupy our minds with things like that, let alone be such prolific bloggers.
Hmm,
It seems to me that the whole ditty listed above is nothing but an attack on a minister in good standing in Eastern Carolina Presbytery of the PCA.
If you look at the Warfield thread, those guys are giddy about baiting the Leithart defenders into commenting. I’m about as neutral an observer as you’re gonna get, but most of the vociferous anti-FV zealots give me the creeps. I have seen enough quotes from Calvin, et al., to convince me that they are defending something other than orthodoxy.
One of those Leithart posts you list above, Rev. Pierce, is a well reasoned argument against vulgarity!
Leithart’s blogging is consistent, but not excessive. He seems to me to be using his blog as a way to keep notes on his readings and activities. It is like we’re standing over Jonathan Edwards’s shoulders as he writes his miscellaneous writings. I hope we will not conclude that Edwards wasted time being such a prolific blogger. Yes, I am comparing Leithart to Edwards, having read a lot of both of them.
Also, Leithart teaches literature and must think through all the facets of the classical world and the other historical backgrounds of the various works he teaches. The etymology of the f-word immediately becomes relevant the minute a student asks about it. You wouldn’t believe the random facts I’ve had to investigate in order to answer questions students have asked in class.
Barlow, of everyone I have read concerning these “FV” issues, you come off as the most rational and charitable contributor on either side. Keep it up — it’s a good testimony to all who are monitoring. The greatest of these is love, indeed.
Any way you slice it, posting things that might be ill-advised is a lousy handle to grab onto in an attempt to discredit a theological difference. Has everyone forgotten Mrs. Lee Irons, suddenly?
Ken, I would advise you to stop digging the hole you’re in.
Two points:
[1] As a professor who teaches constituitonal law, when we get to the first amendment, there is one class day that covers the number of Supreme-Court cases dealing with use of the f-word in public. At that point I always have a decision, do we (I) say the word or not? I used to avoid it in class, but it seemed silly to talk around the word. So now I explain to the class that we’re like doctors examining a patient. We’re not saying “f***,” we’re studying the use of “f***.”
One of the cases, Cohen v. California, pertains to an individual who wore the message, “F*** the draft” on his coat. The court points out that the phrase uniquely expresses emotive content, and so is protected. I ask my class whether this alternative would suffice, “I very strongly disapprove of the draft.” To say it is to recognize that there isn’t. Nonetheless, if there were a way of saying “f***” instead of actually saying the word, I’d probably use that. But there’s not.
Noneteless, I avoid use of the word in common conversation. (I also don’t recall ever calling someone a “pig,” whether overeducated or not. Although I would not have scruples about studying the use of “pig” in public fora.)
The point of the TNR article Peter reference is accurate: there is a difference between a lie and “bullshit.” It’s a distinction in everyday speech, and to my knowledge there is not a usable synonym. A post dedicated to noting this phenomenon as a scholar is different than owning the word. (On the other hand, Rev. Pierce clearly owns his use of “pig.”)
Jonathan:
People who blog often have a habit of asserting your defense when they post something imprudent or half-baked: “This is a personal blog; I’m just jotting down thoughts that come to me on the cuff.”
Nonsense. Keep a private journal if that’s what you want. But post on a blog, and you’re making it public. And you can’t whine if people actually read what you post and criticize you.
Hmm, typical of you guys. YOu get more upset about the fact of someone being called a pig, then someone acting piggish.
No, I’m upset at someone acting piggish.
Several, in fact.
Jim, I’m not sure that’s what Jon was saying….
Jon?
Right, Mark. Jim – my point about Leithart’s blogging habits wasn’t to defend him against the content, it was to defend him against the accusation that Peter is wasting time. Hope that clarifies.