• Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 205 other followers

  • Calendar

    November 2018
    M T W T F S S
    « Oct    
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    2627282930  
  • Usually Kind Reader Interaction

    moodyfastlane on Parenting is a Boring Ble…
    expastor2014 on Focus on the Preached One, not…
    Lori on I am Rachel Dolezal
    godcentered on I am Rachel Dolezal
    Dave on I am Rachel Dolezal
  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Advertisements

A Dispensationalist Fundamentalist Ponders the Difficult Charge of Social Irresponsibility

Following is a brief paper by Dr. David Burgraff of the Shepherd’s Theological Seminary that contributes to the discussion of social responbility for Christians. It was presented as a workshop at the 2006 Leadership Conference in Lansdale, PA. This paper is particularly interesting because the author, a confirmed dispensationalist, addresses the hesitation of dispensationalists to engage in social work. It is posted here with permission of the author. I believe this is probably the only place you will find this paper online.
Continue reading

Advertisements

Legalism is the Slippery Slope

The man who today forbids what God allows, tomorrow will allow what God forbids. ~ R.B. Kuiper

I want to push back. A Fundamental Baptist pastor has alerted his people to the dangers of Bob Bixby, saying that I am a New Evangelical and have opened the door to compromise and worldliness. I think a push-back is necessary because truth that is more important than my reputation is at stake. Quite honestly, the concern that this pastor and other Fundamental Baptist pastors may have about me is more flattering than realistic. The fact is that the people leaving their churches will, in the main, find my church to be utterly uninteresting to them. We take church and the gospel too seriously for most disgruntled fundamentalists.

But the psychological phenomenon of sectarian groups of attacking most vociferously the people closest to them remains a reality in the Fundamentalist world and though I could dismiss the criticisms as another illustration of how out-to-lunch some of these leaders are about the real situation they are facing, I feel compelled to write something because I know that there are many people from those churches who peek at my blog while in the secrecy of their own homes. And gospel truth matters. So, let me put it plainly:

I am more fundamentalist that many of the fundamentalists who criticize me because I actually believe that fundamentals are fundamental and non-fundamentals are not fundamental. If everything is a fundamental, nothing is a fundamental. The Gospel and the biblical outworking of that Gospel in life and practice, both individually and corporately, is a fundamental and to hold on to that Gospel without caving to the pressures of sectarianism or legalism is the tenacious commitment of anyone who really cares about the fundamentals.

You often hear the camel’s-nose-in-the-tent or slippery slope argument applied to the new electric bass in the church or the use of drums or the abandonment of a strict dress code for youth activities. We are told that these are evidences of a slide toward New Evangelicalism (ignore the fact that the term is anachronistic and irrelevant except in the Fundamental Baptist sect). The reality is that legalism is a long slippery slide into antinomianism and most leaders in Fundamental Baptist circles don’t have to look much farther than their very own children to see the proof of this. Thus, it is laughable that they should even perceive our kind of church as a threat because the reality is that most people who abandon fundamentalism are leap-frogging right over Gospel-centered churches and landing right in the thick of the most man-centered ooze of evangelicalism that they can find. They rush from Hyles to Hybles. The hard truth is that most leaders in hyper-separatistic fundamentalism should be filled with joy if their child would come to a church like ours. And some of them would privately rejoice even though they would faithfully denounce our supposed “new evangelicalism” in their ministries.

Having been relentlessly enculturated by a flippant treatment of the Scriptures and an unbiblical understanding of the nature of man many fundamentalists either stay in their churches where they can preen in holier-than-thou clubs without actually being a disciple or, not agreeing with the cultural taboos of the club, escape to another place with fewer if any cultural taboos to bask in another man-centered environment that will feed their self-righteous flesh while studiously avoiding any real Gospel demands. They mistake true discipleship as legalism.

This is because most fundamentalists have been nurtured to think that the legalism that they adapted to was discipleship. Consequently, when they see discipleship in a Gospel-practicing church — real discipleship —  they mistake it for legalism. That is why most fundamentalists who leave the far right will go to the far left overnight. They may pass our congregations on their way, but it is only to fuel up for their real destination, a haven where their self-righteousness can still be fostered minus the pesky and silly rules of right-wing cultural fundamentalism.  Minus discipleship.

What is Legalism?

The working definition of legalism is “anyone who is more strict than me.” No one thinks he is a legalist. We all look down our noses at people who get their underwear in a wad about something we find completely acceptable. Thus, the term is really difficult to use because people to my right will dismiss what I have to say because they are assuming that I’m looking down my nose at them for being more conservative than I am on various issues. However, I would like to assert that I struggle with legalism everyday and appeal for the sake of this article that we understand legalism with the following basic points in mind:

1. Legalism is righteousness or morality outside of Christ. It is anything I do that is good and upright that is not Christ doing it in me.

To effectively communicate the Gospel cross-culturally a preacher must identify the righteousness of the people, not their sins. It is our righteousness, not our sins, that is as filthy rags before God. Our righteousness is our sin. Before a person is saved he is completely in the flesh and every good thing he does is an abomination to God. “Even the plowing of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord.” When the person repents of his righteousness and submits to the righteousness of Christ he is a new creature but he still has his old nature that likes to do good. So sometimes he goes to church in the Spirit; it is Christ who is doing it through him. Other times he goes to church in the flesh. At that point he is doing good and living by a law that is other than the law of Christ and he is being legalistic.

2. Everybody is a legalist outside of grace.

We all live by rules. We either live by the rule of grace and walk in the Spirit or we live by our own rules. We make up laws all the time. The rules may be an attempt to please God or another god, but it is still rule-making. “Every man does that which is right in his own eyes.” The key is “that which is right.” Even the atheist does “that which is right” (righteousness), but it is a rightness that conforms to the laws of his own making. In this sense, everybody is a legalist in that it is our nature to “do that which is right,” but we do it according to our own way. Only grace rescues a person from that which is right in his own eyes.

3. Thus, there is a false dichotomy between the “legalism” and “licentiousness.”

It is common, particularly in Fundamentalist circles, to defend themselves against the charge of legalism by using a two-pronged defense that eviscerates the Gospel in the process.

The Two-pronged Defense Against the Charge of Legalism

A. “We are not legalists because we believe that man is saved by grace alone.”

This answer is obviously a simplistic reduction of the problem of legalism and essentially creates a straw man that is easily rebuffed. The fact of the matter is that few people are charging them with the heresy that they have to work for their salvation. Ironically, they are often charged with easy-believism. However, the simplistic reduction of the term legalism to mean only works-based salvation may score points in the immediate with unthinking congregants, but in the long run it fails to understand what the Gospel is. The Gospel is not only about saving people from hell, but saving them from their sins. It is not only that grace provides a way to heaven, but that grace is the way. The Good News is not merely that God has given us a ticket to the Pearly Gates through the work of Jesus Christ, but that the life of Jesus Christ in us is the only acceptable life we can offer to God even after our conversion.

B. “The opposite of legalism is licentiousness and we must live in the balance of liberty.”

My Christian college tried to explain legalism as polar opposite from licentiousness and that Christians were to exercise their liberty with great care as  if the ditch on either side was something to be avoided. It was understood, however, that legalism was the lesser of the two evils. But this is a false dichotomy.

The opposite of legalism is liberty. Period.

Some legalists are culturally restrictive. Other legalists are licentious and unrestrained. They both flesh out their own righteousness. Thus, this second argument misses out on the main point of the Gospel. Legalism is just as anti-Christ as licentiousness. Legalism and moralism are more dangerous in that they are so deceptive. As one old-fashioned preacher opined during the Prohibition Era, “If the Devil gets a hold of this city he’ll see to it that every bar is closed and all crime has ceased.” The wicked enemy is all about passing himself off as an “angel of light.” If the Devil had his way everybody would be going to church insofar as they did not come to Christ. Because churchgoers are far less inclined to see a need for another righteousness than the hooker in the gutter. Both the churchgoer and the hooker have lived life by “what is right,” but both of them need to be freed from their legalism and learn to walk in the liberty of Christ’s righteousness.

Now back to my points on legalism:

4. Legalism is operating by a different set of rules, a different law.

I’ll argue this more thoroughly, Lord willing, in another post on judgementalism, but suffice it to say right now that this is the point that James 4:11 teaches. If we presume to be able to speak evil about a brother outside of the parameters of the Scripture (we must judge at times), then we are making ourselves higher than the law and the Giver of the Law. By speaking evil about a brother, by passing judgment where the Bible is silent, I am speaking evil of God and His Law and thereby saying it is insufficient. I’m operating by a set of different rules. I’m making up new laws. I’m a legalist.

It should be evident by now that fundamentalists do not have a monopoly on legalism. Some of the most legalistic people that I confront, hyper-judgmental individuals, are often people from evangelicalism. Fundamentalists merely have a monopoly (we must admit) on a host of often-silly cultural taboos which is only one of many forms of legalism.

Therefore, it is completely legalistic of Fundamentalists to be worked up about T4G and the Gospel Coalition and literally scare their people from joining places where “pseudo-Fundamentalists” are enjoying the fellowship of these conservative evangelicals. These “bad boy mavericks” like myself are unabashedly enjoying fellowship around — gasp! — the fundamentals. And you people that are in the FBF type churches need to understand that we actually have more in common with historic fundamentalists than your churches; doctrinally, ethically, and socially. The Gospel and the practical outworking of the Gospel in the local church is the focus of a real fundamentalist church and therefore I would say that the tragedy of the times is that the name “Fundamentalists” has been hijacked by a movement represented by the likes of Jack Schaap and the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship.

The reality is that I am the fundamentalist and a growing group of churches and pastors who have begun to understand soteriology and ecclesiology and the importance of Christian discipleship and are no longer bullied by the intimidation of the mother-ships. I relinquish the title to Jack Schaap and Brad Smith. They may have it. They share the common fallacy of adding to the fundamentals so many things that their own followers cannot discern up from down. Soon they begin to think that the real fundamental, the one that really matters, is loyalty. Loyalty to the pastor’s description of the movement. Loyalty to “the man of God.” Loyalty to the one or two favored institutions. Loyalty to a mishmash of incoherent and contradictory teaching and practice that make no logical and biblical sense once a person begins the process of thinking. The title of fundamentalism is theirs.

I will not, however, relinquish the claim that it is I, not these other men, who is the real fundamentalist. And I will argue that it is a matter of faith and doctrine that their legalism and unscriptural practices must be denounced. Go to an FBF meeting and look at their leaders beginning with the president and do a study of their adult children. (The last one I attended in 2009 it was obvious that most of the attendees were old enough to have adult children.) You will find that the second-generation of Fundamentalism results very frequently, if they are graced by God, in abandonment of their fathers’ ideology while retaining true fundamentals (thankfully) or, sadly, a whole-hearted plunge into antinomianism. Do a survey of all the graduates of any Christian school in Fundamentalism and discover what many of us know and others refuse to acknowledge. You can tell a tree by its fruit. And the fruit of legalistic fundamentalism and its unbiblical application of separation from the world and the Body of Christ is rotten.

My brother pastors in fundamentalism: if you think that your disgruntled are going to come to our churches, you’re mistaken. Most of your disgruntled will find that we take the Gospel and the Church too seriously. So, for the sake of the Gospel and the health of your churches, I plead with you to stop embarrassing yourselves by making us the enemy. Our enemy is lurking in our hearts. It’s our anti-gospel flesh.

That is what I’m fighting. That is what I wish you’d fight.

John Murray was right:

Many … Christians today seek to impose standards of conduct and criteria of holiness that have no warrant from Scripture and that even in some cases cut athwart Scripture principles, precepts and example.  The adoption of extra-scriptural rules and regulations have sometimes been made to appear very necessary and even commendable.  But we must not judge according to the appearance but judge righteous judgement.  Such impositions are an attack upon the sufficiency of Scripture and the holiness of God, for they subtly imply that the standard of holiness God had given us in His Word is not adequate and needs to be supplemented by our additions and importations.  When properly analyzed this attitude of mind is gravely wicked.  It is an invasion upon our God-given liberty just because it is an invasion upon the sufficiency of the law of God, the perfect law of liberty. It is therefore, appearances to the contrary, a thoroughly antinomian frame of mind. It evinces a lamentable lack of jealousy for the perfection of Scripture and invariably, if not corrected and renounced, lead to an ethical looseness in the matter of express divine commands. In the words of Professor R. B. Kuiper, “The man who today forbids what God allows, tomorrow will allow what God forbids.”

Legalism is the slippery slope. And some fundamentalists are finally beginning to get off the slope and find a firm footing in the grace of God and true biblical discipleship.

2 Thessalonians 3

I am not one that feels comfortable with building an entire doctrine of separation as it is fleshed-out by many in the fundamentalist orb with the 2 Thessalonians 3 text alone, but I think that it is just as imaginative, if not creatively blind, to limit Paul’s instruction to the lazy man as so many are inclined to do in their effort to debunk the fundamentalist argument.

If, as some insist, 2 Thessalonians 3 gives us insight into what we are supposed to do toward the lazy person exclusively, then what does 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 teach us about dealing with anybody in sin except for the rare occasion when a church is faced with the problem of a man having an incestuous relationship with his stepmother?

If anything, one could argue reasonably that the 2 Thessalonians passage is a classic lesser-to-greater argument. Of the many sins that one can commit, belligerent laziness is relatively benign compared to some gross sins. If this is what we are supposed to do toward the idle, it seems at least reasonable that some kind of withdrawal from the belligerently erroneous would be justified.

Back to 1 Corinthians 5. Paul obviously did not intend for his instruction to be limited to an incestuous relationship with a stepmom. In chapter five he gives two lists, and as is typical with Paul, they are illustrative and not exhaustive.

“I wrote to you,” says Paul, “not to keep company with sexually immoral people. For I certainly did not mean with the

1. sexually immoral people of this world, or with the

2. coveteous, or

3. extortioners, or

4. idolaters, [four sins] since then you would need to have to go out of this world. But now I have written to you not to keep comapny with anyone named a brother, who is

1. sexually immoral,

2. or covetous, or

3. an idolater, or

4. a reviler, or

5. a drunkard, or

6. an extortioner [six things] — not even to eat with such a person” (1 Corinthians 5:9-11).

Well, Paul, who does “such a person” define? The first list or the second list? Because there are going to be certain people in the year 2008 that will refuse to apply anything in this chapter to any sin that is not specifically listed by you. And you, Paul, have confused all of us by giving TWO lists!

The way we read the Bible we’re going to apply 2 Thessalonians only to a “lazy person.” We’ll ignore the fact that the weight of the NT decries the evils of false teachers, the importance of doctrine, and the abomination of those who will change doctrine; and we’ll simply close our eyes to the force of logic that compels us to acknowledge the fact that a Christian who does not withdraw from those kinds of people is himself in disobedience.

That 2 Thessalonians applies to more than just the lazy person seems reasonable to me, and that is before one even begins to explore the possibilities of what Paul is speaking about when he uses the word “tradition.”

I challenge my friends on the evangelical side to give me something better than, “Well, that passage only applies to the idle person.”

I Think I’m Disappointed with John MacArthur. I hope Not.

I can’t understand John MacArthur.

Why is he speaking at the Billy Graham Training Center’s Pastors’ Institute?

I would like to post at length about this in the near future, but I want to be quite clear about several issues:

Unless John MacArthur is planning on going in like the unknown prophet that approached the altar at Bethel to rebuke that entirely compromised organization, the organization of a man that he just recently denounced for apostasizing, then my respect for him has been diminished.

Not my gratitude. My respect. I will always be grateful for him. But these kinds of speaking engagements do not increase my respect for John. They diminish it. At some point, it’s fair to hope for explanation. I don’t think John is obligated to explain, I just think it would be nice.

It smells of either naive evangelicalism or reckless schmoozing; naive because fifty years of evangelicalism has proven that you don’t cozy up to determined ecumenicalists and succeed in changing them, and reckless because MacArthur seems to dismiss the effect his associations will have on a whole new generation of people who are ready to take a strong stand for the gospel.

The genius of the failed New Evangelicalism of the 1950s (remember, they don’t perceive of themselves as failures) was to hitch its wagon to every star in evangelicalism, right or left, in order to draw into its ever-extending orb of influence the thousands of followers that came in the wake of their bedazzled leaders. And no-one could do it better than Billy Graham. How brilliant of the BGEA to schedule one of the foremost leaders of conservative evangelicalism who is so strong, so outspoken, and so conservative that he even has referred to himself as a fundamentalist. How genius to do it literally one week before the increasingly head-turning conference on the gospel, the “Together for the Gospel Conference,” where more and more conservative and fundamentalist leaders are finding a brotherhood around the uniqueness of the Gospel.

The BGEA, always alert to the times, says, “Hey! We like John MacArthur too!” And thousands of soft-headed evangelicals and spineless fundamentalists say, “Well, you must be ‘together for the gospel’ with us!”

What evangelicals have failed to realize for over fifty years now is that anybody will say they’re together for the gospel — anybody — as long as its where all the action is. Opposition never presents itself first as opposition. It always presents itself as cooperative.

Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard heard that they descendants of the captivity were building the house of the Lord God of Israel, they came to Zerubabbel and the heads of the fathers’ houses, and said to them, “Let us build with you, for we seek your God as you do and we have sacrificed to Him. . .Ezra 4:1-2 (emphasis added).

Hey, John, why don’t you come on over to the Cove and talk to us about “Christ alone.” We know that gets your motor running and, hey, we love Jesus too, John! Yes, Sir! Like one of our friends in Pilgrim’s Progress said, ”Tis true we somewhat differ in religion from those of the stricter sort, yet but in two small points: First, we never strive against wind and tide. Secondly, we are always most zealous when religion goes in his silver slippers; we love much to walk with him in the street if the sun shines and the people applaud him.’ And, well, you know it sure seems like thousands of people are really applauding whatever is happening over the hills there in Louisville.

Why do you go to a pastors’ retreat hosted by Byends of Fairspeech? Especially when you have gone on the record as approving the conclusion of Ian Murray’s “Evangelicalism Divided” and at the last “Together for the Gospel Conference” publicly rebuked Billy Graham? Could it be that the BGEA is attempting to massage the one most likely to point them out at the next Together for the Gospel Conference? How slick of the BGEA to cordially invite the very man, and the only man, who was the clearest at the last T4G about the need to articulate a separatistic stance toward those who were compromising key elements of the Gospel.

Sometimes the best answer to an invitation to cooperate is Zerubabbel’s answer: “You have nothing to do with us in building a house to the Lord our God” (Ezra 4:3).

I’m sure the JMac camp will have a rationale to offer to their fundamentalist fan base in order to assure us that they really are the separatists that have figured it all out. Their blogging machinery will explain this if enough people ask, but I think that it is naive to think that speaking at the BGEA Pastors’ Institute is as profitable for the Gospel as declining to speak there.

In the meantime, three observations:

1. The “emerging middle” of Gospel will continue to evolve, but the leadership of this development will not be the old guard of either side. John MacArthur is a has-been on the evangelical side of the middle just like most institutional fundamentalist leaders on the fundamentalist side have already shown themselves to be. And this, by the way, goes for Piper and others of his generation as well. I don’t mean to imply that they won’t be greatly used or that their influence will diminish. I hope not. But I do mean that they have yet to show any understanding of how to embrace the sweeping changes in their side of the emerging middle that is finding a key component of Gospel expression to be separatistic. Which leads to my second point….

2. The evangelical side of the “middle” is beginning to understand, appreciate, and embrace the logic of secondary separation; not as it has been abused and mishandled by so many fundamentalists, but as it is rationally explained in the real-life actuality of daily ministry. In other words, I know a lot of conservative evangelicals that would be just as burned as I am that John MacArthur is speaking at the BGEA Pastors’ Institute. The successes of some Evangelical teachers has resulted in devotion for the doctrines they revived.

God’s truths are humble and they wait in line, often one at at time, to be revealed to dull men. But they generally go in a prescribed and logical order. The truth about how one gets to heaven (soteriology) is usually revealed to men before the truth of the importance of going to church (ecclesiology). Sometimes these truths make their impact one generation at a time. God’s truths are not only humble; they are patient. Therefore, my third point:

3. American Evangelicalism was given by God excellent Bible teachers like R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and John Piper. This generation of leaders gave to a small part of the compromised and dying evangelicalism that had bought the New Evangelical dream a biblical soteriology. God used this generation of leaders to restore sound thinking on the doctrine of salvation.

A younger group of leaders followed in the steps of these excellent teachers with another emphasis that naturally followed the recovered soteriology: ecclesiology, the doctrine of the church. This is nowhere more vividly illustrated than in the collection of speakers at the last T4G conference. There, four younger men (Dever, Mahaney, Mohler, and Duncan) invited some of their “heroes” to speak. The great contribution of those younger men to evangelicalism has been in the area of the church. Just consider their works.

This is natural. Martin Luther was used by God to recover the biblical doctrine of soteriology. Once people are saved, however, they need to congregate. It was Calvin (and then later the divines of the English Reformation) as well as some great Anabaptists who advanced the doctrine of the church on the foundation of justification by faith.

This discussion is wonderful, especially for fundamentalists who have little teaching in the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ, who have been taught to abhor unity, and shun anyone who was outside of their sect. But the “church” discussion is not finished. It is still in its embryonic shape. For when the church is discussed it is then necessary to discuss who’s in and who’s out. And when that discussion has begun in earnest, the logic of biblical separation will once again have to be addressed. Thus, two questions haunt me:

1. Will history repeat itself and separatists fail to articulate a biblical rationale for separation that is accompanied by a bold expression of commitment and love for the unity that is already given to all those who are in Christ Jesus?

2. Will history repeat itself and evangelicals continue to shun the obvious teachings of Scripture that the false teachers are to be avoided and alienated and the obvious logic that calls for a separation from those who refuse to separate from them?

If today’s younger pastors cannot answer these challenges with their own convictions, they are doomed to repeat the last fifty years. And it has to be our generation that addresses these particular challenges. So far it seems apparent that most of the current leaders in Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism are hopelessly locked in yesterday’s discussion: on the one hand, a shrinking group of separatists huddle together in their denomination-like sub-culture while, on the other hand, a shrinking group of strong evangelicals refuse to acknowledge the fact that you really can’t be serious about the gospel if you’re going to hobnob with those who have squandered it.

Venues are significant. I cannot say that John MacArthur is sinning to go to the Pastors’ Institute. I just cannot see why and I really hope for a good explanation. But I do know that prophets are used by God wherever He sends them. Prophets usually went to venues uninvited. They just popped in, pointed their finger, and left. If they were invited, they often preached in such a way that secured for them the assurance that they would never be invited again. God’s prophets understood that deluded people would only perceive their presence as affirmation unless they spoke in such a way that was so clear they couldn’t escape the meaning.

Will MacArthur’s visit be affirming to the BGEA? Of course. Unless, of course, John gets prophetic as he is sometimes known to do.

If God has written Ichabod over the door of a house, John, why enter it unless you’re going there to preach in such a way that you will be absolutely sure that you are never invited again?

If possible, I’ll order the recording just to see.

NLC 2008, #2 – A Fundamentalist Conference – What One Can Learn.

Continue reading

Book Review and Interviews

I just want you to know about a book review and a couple of interviews. Nope! Not my book, nor interviews by me or of me. I’m just lucky enough to be acquainted with powerful people in the media, so I got to be on the inside scoop of some of this stuff! Joy McCarnan, Cindy Swanson, Jason Janz, and Bob Roberts. All in one day. Only now am I realizing that I let the whole thing go by me without one signature or group photo to frame and hang in my office. What a waste. Anyway…

Joy did a book review on SharperIron that you ought to check out if you get the time. It’s about racial segregation in the church. I have written a few things about Rosa Parks this week since she died, but I’m too tired to do much in the realm of blogging these days except to go spy out what others are doing (and writing and mingling in the occasional argument on someone else’s site). It’s terrible for blog ratings to be as laissez-faire about blogging as I am. But, there is more to life than the blog.

So, for the two of you that still read this thing, be conscious of the fact that today Cindy Swanson interviewed Jason Janz of SharperIron.org and Bob Roberts of Kids4Truth, both friends of mine. (Jason is here for North Love’s Reformers Unanimous conference. Being the separatist that I am, I didn’t go.) I did sit, however, in on the interviews, enjoying Cindy’s easy-going style of interrogation. You’ll want to make a point of listening to her interviews. Bob Roberts’ interview was particularly impressive. He’s got something good going with his doctrinal alternative to Awana, the King’s Kids, and the Patch the Pirate Club. I’m not sure when Cindy will air the interviews on her show. Maybe somebody will do me the favor of posting the times.
Learn about the Kids4Truth Clubs!

Random Thoughts about SI

SI is the townhall of a small fundamentalist village. In my opinion, it is foolish of the uppercrust aristocracy of the establishment to ignore the fact that there is a townhall, a crowd has gathered, and it is going to make a difference.

Continue reading