Skip to content

I must be confused, Absinthe

There’s much to learn about these days:

  • Peter Leithart teaches us about a truly biblical epistemology. I’m all for it.
  • Church and Pomo is hold a symposium soon on Graham Ward’s new book The Politics of Discipleship.
  • James Merrick has a probing post about theological and historical interpretation of Scripture. And a plea for help. So go help him out.
  • Also an interesting quote from T.F. Torrance about mission that, I think, doesn’t get the matter of universality and catholicity quite right.
  • Also it looks like John Milbank may be running around the blogosphere under the pseudonym Alasdair Maclagan. Hmm.
  • The National Association of Evangelicals have come out with a survey of their leaders about the greatest moral issues facing America with, shall we say, predictable results. The Slavtivist has a great send-up of the whole matter.
  • An amusing obituary for the emerging church. Doesn’t something have to have been an actual living thing in order for it to die, though?
  • Debra Dean Murphy also has some comments on James Cameron’s failure of imagination in Avatar.
  • And finally, you can catch me doing a bit of sermonizing at the EP blog this weekend. I found a way to sneak in another Will Campbell quote. Here it is:

Yes, we know something they do not know. We know that God so loved the world, with all its people, their sins and problems, that he became like one of us and dwelt among us and died that we might all be one people—his people. We know that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself and breaking down all barriers and walls of hostility which separate us from one another and from him. We know that God, in establishing the Church, has enlisted us to proclaim that message of reconciliation. We know that we are called not to build a kingdom, but to bid men to enter one already established, here and now, in which race is as irrelevant a category as redhead, baldhead, fat man, lean man. We also know that Jesus fed the hungry and healed the sick and bade his followers do the same.

That is what we know, and that is the evangelical message we must now proclaim to both revolutionary and defender of the status quo. And to those who say we have not earned the right to preach to the revolutionaries, we can only say “God, in Christ, has earned it for us.”


  1. Gene McCarraher wrote:

    The Milbank/Maclagan post is hilarious, if also sad. If it is indeed Milbank, I’m not surprised. Having met and conversed with him a few times, I’ve been less impressed by his capacity for civility, to be charitable.

    Is Peter Leithart the same Peter Leithart who once co-authored books with Gary DeMar, Gary North, and other Reconstructionist nutballs? The “biblical epistemology” was the giveaway — sounds like “Biblical worldview” a la Van Til, Rushdoony, et. al. If so, Halden, you might want to think again about being “all for it.” Or perhaps Leithart has regained sanity.

    Saturday, January 9, 2010 at 8:29 am | Permalink
  2. Halden wrote:

    Leithart does indeed have a reconstructionist background. However I think he ended up doing a PhD with Milbank and developed into something quite different. To my reading he’s something of an oddball. Sometimes I think he’s a little crazy, but often very interesting and thought provoking anymore.

    Saturday, January 9, 2010 at 11:22 am | Permalink
  3. Jason Oliver wrote:

    Leithart’s insight is funny and quite persuasive. I confess I am ignorant of one of these delights. I love to eat!

    Saturday, January 9, 2010 at 12:09 pm | Permalink
  4. dan wrote:

    So should we combine Leithart’s insights and conclude that we gain the most knowledge when we combine sex with food? (I’m reminded of a woman I dated who once tried to order a porn video and ended up receiving, not what she ordered, but a video of some rather large naked women, covering their bodies with cake… would watching that video have granted me insights into the mysteries of the divine??)

    Saturday, January 9, 2010 at 12:57 pm | Permalink
  5. Halden wrote:

    Reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where George tries to combine sex, eating, and watching television.

    Saturday, January 9, 2010 at 1:12 pm | Permalink
  6. dan wrote:

    I never got into Seinfeld (or incorporating food into sex).

    Saturday, January 9, 2010 at 2:02 pm | Permalink
  7. Nate Kerr wrote:

    George’s imagination was severely constricted in that episode. It was not the TV part that he got wrong, nor even clearly the eating part. It was that he lacked an adequate understanding of the perichoretic interrelation of the senses — and thus mutatis mutandis of sex, eating, and television. Surely, he was in need of that biblical epistemology!

    And yes, I’m talking about the art of cunnilinigus.

    Saturday, January 9, 2010 at 6:33 pm | Permalink
  8. Halden wrote:

    Somehow I think this thread had just reached perfection. Which is really saying something for a links post.

    Saturday, January 9, 2010 at 6:36 pm | Permalink
  9. Steven D wrote:

    Love the content here, keep up the great work, Halden.

    Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 6:48 pm | Permalink
  10. micah wrote:

    with all those posts on drinks , i’m surprised he can keep it up at all

    Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 8:45 pm | Permalink
  11. Nate Kerr wrote:

    No, Micah’s comment has just perfected the thread!

    Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

Switch to our mobile site