From the Pantagraph: 

Slaughter is a star within the denomination and outside of it, for his success in mobilizing people for causes, such as relief to the genocide-threatened region of Darfur, Sudan, and for renewing dying congregations. But at the podium, he emphasized that numbers in the pew are not his concern.

The title of the conference was "Leading Your Church Out of Yourself and Into the World." Slaughter said his church's mission -- and what should be every church's mission -- is being "the hands and feet of Jesus," intent on bringing Heaven into the world instead of obsessing over getting people into heaven and motivating people to live the gospel through service rather than just professing it.

Comments

Search

bdor   |2008-04-15 16:28:23 Glad to see Pastors saying something besides come sit in the seats and consume our religious goods and services. My only worry, and it seems to be a cultural shift in many churches, is if we fully shift our understanding of gospel to being only "called to be Kingdom workers." I think there is need to still have an emphasis on personal salvation, as long as it is accompanied with a strong ecclesiology(regardless of whether it is hi or lo)... Can't tell from this excerpt whether or not that's the case, it's more me just spouting my opinion than anything.

patronpeter  - well...   |2008-04-15 17:15:32 Quote: it's more me just spouting my opinion than anything. i happen to agree with you. we've begun incorporating more of a praise service in order to get members more involved, but at the same time, pastor likes to point out that there should be more people in the pews and that the congregation should be "inviting" friends and family to join. i think there needs to be more concentration on the people that are there, and less on making our church look bigger people-wise. don't you think?

emperorbma   |2008-04-15 17:31:27 Quote: i think there needs to be more concentration on the people that are there, and less on making our church look bigger people-wise. don't you think? Partially. Certainly the church should be concerned with its own. However, it must also be a witness for Christ to a fallen world in need of His Redemption. We can witness through our lives and our vocations instead of just preaching, however. The "church growth" movement has another problem, however, which I feel is more damaging to its witness. They compromise the sound doctrine in order to bring people into the pews. This, I feel, is the most damaging thing one can do to the witness since it convinces people that "watered down Christianity" is the real thing.

patronpeter  - watered down? great!!   |2008-04-15 18:15:54 well yeah, growth is good... but it just sounds weird when they say "hey all you people who come here alone, bring somone with you next time..." especially when your one of those people that goes to church solo... sorry i don't have a husband and two kids at 20... jeez...

emperorbma   |2008-04-15 19:50:15 They could also be saying "bring a friend," which is certainly a good idea now and then. We don't twist their arm though. :P

patronpeter  - not pushy?   |2008-04-15 20:12:23 twist.... twist... *snap*... well, that's why God gave me two...

bdor   |2008-04-15 18:01:58 There is certainly still need to bear witness, I'm fairly skeptical of the model that says "drag them to church and we'll do the rest." It seems a model where we are seeking to bear witness in our own context would be a better one to me, it doesn't exclude the church, but it isn't all about getting people in the building either.

jester   |2008-04-15 19:54:15 Our pastor is in the process of turning the church in a new direction under the motto of “Giving the church away”, and “Being Jesus” under the guise that Jesus came to seek and save that which is lost. As members of the church we are no longer lost so it is our job to go and find the lost and show them the freedom, love and redemption that can be found in Christ. He says that his job is not to convert people on a Sunday morning that others have brought to church. His job is to equip the congregation to go and find the lost, so that they may show them the way to Christ, and then bring them to church. His job is to shake people out of applying their consumerist Western mentality to Christianity, his job is to help people into a revelation of the fullness of God’s love for them so that they can be transformed and affect others, not so that they can sit in church for 2 hours on a Sunday feeling better about themselves. Alongside this the church has undertaken a 2 year programme of teaching of the foundational basics to be taught from the pulpit during Sunday sermons, youth services, children’s church and house groups. The first step in this process was on Good Friday. We met at the church for 30 minutes of singing then went to a nearby community and walked every street in the suburb handing out bags of free hot-cross buns and inviting people to kids party at one of the local parks, where there were free bouncy castles, ice-creams etc. Nothing earth-shaking, agreed, but it got people out of the church and in a position of being willing to share the hope within them. Yes, there were many grumbles that this was not real church and many did not join in, but this was the first of many steps in a new direction.

wezlo   |2008-04-16 08:36:22 I think a lot of folks are reading the NT and considering that what we call "personal salvation" isn't necessarily found there. Salvation certainly is - but we're talking about a world that didn't have a concept of individuality as we know it so "personal savior" might not be the best way to describe a relationship with Jesus - at least, according to the NT. On the other hand, we've got an individualist culture (or, at least, we think we do - I have doubts) - so the whole "personal" language tends to make sense to people as far as they understand "being saved" or "working out their salvation with fear and trembling." As a pastor, I have to understand this as my context - and yet I wonder how much the idea can actually be used before it undermines the very notion of the Church as the body of Christ.

bdor   |2008-04-16 11:57:10 Certainly the terminology personal savior wasn't there, and that probably wasn't the best term to use. However, I think you can certainly pick up a theme of the individual being valued in more than just a collectivist sort of way. Why else the emphasis on personal conversion, need for cleansing from sin, parables such as the shepherd leaving the 99 to go look for the lost 1. It can't stay as a personal salvation though, which is where I very much agree with you and why I think that we need to develop stronger ecclesiology so that american christians see the church as of doing more than just being a tool to get individuals saved. I just don't want to see a swing to a full emphasis of being the hands and feet of Jesus to the exclusion of salvation and cleansing of sin and being right with God. To do so would be to undermine the entire thing and wouldn't be true ministry. It's absolutely important that we emphasize that the Gospel is preached in both word and deed. I'm just tired of this mentality that we can just pick one of the two.

wezlo   |2008-04-16 12:04:53 Yah, see with all your examples the individual is valued because of the fact that if they aren't found/cleansed, the collective will suffer. The point is that we read those stories and start with the individual, in the first century readers of those stories would have naturally started with the community. I think we need to do some hard work in trying to understand what/why it was important for single persons to adhere to the standards of the "camp" i that world - and how Jesus reapplied this to himself. It would be an illuminating process.

holmegm  - re:   |2008-04-16 12:27:39 wezlo wrote: Yah, see with all your examples the individual is valued because of the fact that if they aren't found/cleansed, the collective will suffer. Really? The lost sheep is only valued because the other sheep will suffer without it? The other coins are miserable without the lost coin? Huh? Is that in the text? If anything, the visceral reaction is "hey, he's leaving the other sheep alone while he looks; what's going on?" wezlo wrote: The point is that we read those stories and start with the individual, in the first century readers of those stories would have naturally started with the community. Sort of ... or maybe not so much. Or maybe they would indeed have started that way, only to find that their starting point is misplaced! Much of what Jesus says to the Jews is along the lines of "but are you one of God's true people?" "You follow me." "Who do you say I am?" In other words, it's easy to take this anti-individual bent too far in the effort to separate oneself from extreme individualism. This isn't an either or. To be in the right group, you have to be an individual who is justified before God (on the basis of Christ's righteousness). That Jesus is Lord instead of Caesar and the "boundary markers" between Jew and gentile are gone isn't going to help you if you are still a criminal rebel. If you aren't individually justified, then Jesus being Lord is Bad News, for you, the individual.

Jim  - re: re:   |2008-04-16 12:49:41 holmegm wrote: Really? The lost sheep is only valued because the other sheep will suffer without it? The other coins are miserable without the lost coin? Huh? Is that in the text? If you look at the rhetoric in Luke (which is where the lost sheep and coin are put side by side), the rhetorical thrust leads you to the larger issue of who gets into the kingdom and what those already in the kingdom do in response. So, yes, the focus of the parable in Luke is not individualistic. (Same goes for Matt, but the reasons are different.) holmegm wrote: If anything, the visceral reaction is "hey, he's leaving the other sheep alone while he looks; what's going on?" That's true. In Luke, it's because of the mission to those outside the covenant and integration of outsiders into the community. In Matt, it's about not cause little ones to stumble. holmegm wrote: Or maybe they would indeed have started that way, only to find that their starting point is misplaced! That would only work if there was some literary marker to indicate that you should read against the grain. In the gospels, it usually comes through using the Pharisees as a literary foil. For Paul, it's through rhetorical devices. Neither are present here.

wezlo   |2008-04-16 14:15:25 Also the example cited with the "who do you" say that I am and it's link to the people of God - is collectivist. The radical nature of Jesus' calling wasn't to have a "personal savior," but to be joined to a completely new people-group formed in is image - it's a new community.

holmegm   |2008-04-16 14:32:04 The radical nature of Jesus' calling wasn't to have a "personal savior," but to be joined to a completely new people-group formed in is image - it's a new community. I'm not disputing that. I'm suggesting that there's not an either/or here. To be part of the new community, an individual needs to be born again. Both/and.

wezlo   |2008-04-16 14:35:52 Right, I'm not disputing that either. I'm just pointing out that the elements of the both/and in the NT are typically reversed from our frame of reference, and that leads to interpretation problems.

holmegm   |2008-04-16 14:54:26 I'm just pointing out that the elements of the both/and in the NT are typically reversed from our frame of reference, and that leads to interpretation problems. Ah, I see. Thanks!

wezlo   |2008-04-16 14:30:04 Quote: Really? The lost sheep is only valued because the other sheep will suffer without it? The other coins are miserable without the lost coin? Huh? Is that in the text? I don't understand. What coin? You also have the "why" the shepherd goes and looks for the sheep - if he loses one, he loses face and brings shame on his family. Also, shepherds kinda bound themselves together (as we find in the nativity narrative). It's not like the sheep would have been considered in that culture to be left unguarded. I should have made clear that I was talking about the shepherd, not the sheep. And, just to reiterate, ceremonial cleansing was part of you not causing the camp to be - smited rather than avoiding the cosmic smack-down for one's self. Quote: That Jesus is Lord instead of Caesar and the "boundary markers" between Jew and gentile are gone isn't going to help you if you are still a criminal rebel. If you aren't individually justified, then Jesus being Lord is Bad News, for you, the individual. This is actually demonstrative of my point. As American's we're culturally conditioned to start with the individual - we see life's interactions in that light. In the Ancient Near East (much like it is today) you'd start with the group. So, why is being branded a criminal? In our world it's because you'll suffer the stigma of incarceration, trial, and other personal troubles.  The damage to the family, for instance, is usually seen as the "wake destruction" left behind. In the ancient world, the damage to family/clan was of paramount importance. If you are branded as a criminal, your whole community is likely to suffer - either through shame (diminished social standing) or through collective punishment. That an individual caused the crime is seen as the sub-plot, whereas in our world it's the primary tale. Quote: In other words, it's easy to take this anti-individual bent too far in the effort to separate oneself from extreme individualism. I think you're hearing more than I'm actually saying. All I'm trying to point out is the problem of translating cultural assumptions so we can better communicate the Gospel in a context that is entirely different from the which appears in the text. I'm not advocating a return to a collectivist mind-set because that world-view has it's own problems (xenophobia on a scale we can't imagine is a big one - it's one of the ways slavery has been justified). My problem is, without this cultural translation we end up with "personal salvation," and the Church ends up as an after-thought. When, in the Bible those elements are reversed.

emperorbma   |2008-04-16 14:41:20 Yup, I think it is effectively summarized extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Of course being in the ecclesia takes the form of the individual having a saving faith rooted in God's grace.

holmegm   |2008-04-16 14:50:15 I don't understand. What coin? Parable of the lost coin? I think you're hearing more than I'm actually saying. That may very well be :) All I'm trying to point out is the problem of translating cultural assumptions so we can better communicate the Gospel in a context that is entirely different from the which appears in the text. That makes good sense. I'm just not seeing how you get to such a completely collectivist reading, given all the various teachings and events in the texts. * Jesus' encounters with many various individuals from quite varied communities, for example. Just not getting the collectivist feel from that. * Jesus' confrontation/engagement with "the Jews" - dare I say, directly challenging the "collective salvation" viewpoint. They're baffled because they're thinking "but we are God's people; we're children of Abraham" and He's saying "but *you* might not be". * Any number of parables. The guy without wedding clothes seems to be the one with the problem; we're not told of any shame or agonizing on the part of the other party goers. The women who ran out of oil seem to be the one's in trouble; the ones inside behind the closing door don't seem to be troubled by that (we aren't told that they are, anyway). It just sounds like to get a completely collectivist reading you have to read that back into the text, because it isn't intrinsically there. I don't doubt what you're saying about the cultural context - which actually suggests to me that the initial witnesses/readers were probably startled by the lack of complete collectivism.

wezlo   |2008-04-16 20:27:16 Quote: I don't doubt what you're saying about the cultural context - which actually suggests to me that the initial witnesses/readers were probably startled by the lack of complete collectivism. Yah, I not sure that's necessarily the case in a lot of parables. The scandal in "who is my family?" is certainly a challenge to the standard understanding of the collective mind-set, but even then Jesus turns around and tells people that he's actually creating a new collective.  Matthew's pretty clear with that theme in his gospel, especially. Like I said, I think it's more because we are individualist, and so we tend to see it in the NT, where in a lot of circumstances people would likely have been directed to this new kin-group Jesus was forming.  It's not less scandalous - just different than what we tend to think it is.

bdor   |2008-04-16 18:03:23 Quote: My problem is, without this cultural translation we end up with "personal salvation," and the Church ends up as an after-thought. When, in the Bible those elements are reversed. This is the point I keep trying to make about a strong ecclesiology. Without that as one of my profs puts it, the church becomes "a voluntary association of religious individuals, whose true allegiance lies to the nuclear family, the economy, or the state." Sorry I had to post this twice, I pulled a n00b again and forgot to embed. One of the admins can feel free to delete the duplicate.

emperorbma   |2008-04-16 20:30:17 New software, new mistakes... we'll get used to it eventually.

Entity   |2008-04-16 20:49:54 I wonder if some warning (message box, yellow background, text already in box) for a top level post would help this. I'm not sure what is possible.

bdor   |2008-04-16 12:33:51 You're going to have to expand on what you mean in the second paragraph Wezlo... are we talking just in the context of Judaism here? And furthermore, on a basis of conversion here how do you see it happen on any sort of level other than individuals converting? I am hard up for ever seeing a family all convert at the same time. I'm trying to see how this makes a difference in how we engage people with the Gospel.

Jim  - re:   |2008-04-16 12:58:12 bdor wrote: And furthermore, on a basis of conversion here how do you see it happen on any sort of level other than individuals converting? I am hard up for ever seeing a family all convert at the same time. Checkout Acts 10.2; 11.14; 16.15, 31, 34; and 18.8 for some examples.

bdor   |2008-04-16 13:07:50 Sorry, I wasn't clear. I am well familiar with the occasions in Acts. I was more meaning in a contemporary sort of way, I don't really know of any circumstance where I've even seen families all convert at once. I guess you could make the argument that it is because we don't have good methods, but I'm hard pressed to see how this would work in our culture currently. I don't see inroads outside of individual conversion, which is why I keep coming back to the solution being in having a stronger ecclesiology that stresses the importance of the church, rather than a "me and Jesus" mentality.

wezlo   |2008-04-16 14:12:04 Right, this is the problem. You don't see this happening now because it wouldn't occur to Americans to even consider this. Individualism is the context of ministry. This creates a problem in translation what salvation is, and how to experience it - because the context of ministry in the NT (and all the language we have regarding it) is entirely collectivist. As you and Jim both remarked. The problem is that a good many churches in our culture tend to think that the social structures in the NT world were "pretty much like ours" and so read our assumptions about individualism back into the text. This keeps us from being able to translate the Gospels across the eras effectively.

bdor   |2008-04-16 18:06:47 So then Wezlo, I just want to make sure I understand you correctly... Are you saying that this is necessarily a bad thing, or that it's a bad thing if we just leave it at an assumption of personal salvation? Because it seems to me that if the only way for someone to understand it is in an individualistic term(because it is of sorts the air we breathe and water we drink), that we start with that, we are just never okay with leaving people at that point, we want to continue to grow them in maturity of faith and in connection to Christ and His church. This is my biggest criticism of many of my other co-evangelicals, we stop at getting people to pray the prayer, rather than seeing it as the beginning of a journey.

wezlo   |2008-04-16 18:15:24 Typically, it's that we just leave them at the point of individuality. Sadly, it must be a point of contact because that is our culture - but we can't leave folks there.

emperorbma   |2008-04-16 18:49:15 True, the culture tends to be too individualistic and guards its privacy too strongly. On the other hand, we should not become the peeping neighbor who scrutinizes everything about peoples' lives and forces people to "tow the line." There is a balance between the discipline of living as the Body of Christ and one's individual freedom as a member of the Body.

emperorbma  - "hands and feet"   |2008-04-15 17:27:34 While there is a place for a call to social gospel, we also must be concerned with the rationale for living the message. Are we simply doing this because we think we earn "credit" or are we doing this because God has so graciously saved us from sin, death and the power of the devil and we wish to share the Good News of God's Kingdom? Secondly, are we doing this simply to get more people or are we actually concerned with the substance and soundness of the doctrines that we teach? If we care not for doctrine, we have merely degraded into a social club. We are called to preach the Word of God, not to make more friends or help our social standing.

bdor  - re: "hands and feet"   |2008-04-15 17:59:42 emperorbma wrote: While there is a place for a call to social gospel, we also must be concerned with the rationale for living the message. Are we simply doing this because we think we earn "credit" or are we doing this because God has so graciously saved us from sin, death and the power of the devil and we wish to share the Good News of God's Kingdom? Agreed, the call to Christians for social action should be a bearing out of the faith rather than as you said "earning credit." Tim Keller has talked about this a little as he believes it is important even with people unfamiliar with Christianity that we preach against legalism. So we clarify that the gospel is not "I obey, therefore I am accepted" but rather "I am accepted therefore I can obey." Obviously a very simple version, but it has come in handy for me. emperorbma wrote: Secondly, are we doing this simply to get more people or are we actually concerned with the substance and soundness of the doctrines that we teach? If we care not for doctrine, we have merely degraded into a social club. We are called to preach the Word of God, not to make more friends or help our social standing. I'm assuming you have the church growth mentality in mind here. Certainly we should teach sound doctrine, becomes complicated though as far as whose definition of sound we use, and for that matter what doctrines we have in mind here don't you think?

emperorbma   |2008-04-15 18:08:13 Quote: I'm assuming you have the church growth mentality in mind here. To use the ubiquitous Christdot-ism: *ding* That is indeed the movement I am addressing. Quote: Certainly we should teach sound doctrine, becomes complicated though as far as whose definition of sound we use, and for that matter what doctrines we have in mind here don't you think? Obviously it is complicated by that fact, but presuming that this is a Christian church of some doctrinal persuasion, it should operate in the doctrinal parameters that it professes instead of embracing the latest fad theology. Since I am coming from an LC-MS viewpoint, this will not mean all the same things that it would to a Roman Catholic or a Southern Baptist. However, if I were holding to my above focus, it would mean that an LCMS church teaches LCMS doctrine instead of "The Purpose Driven Life" or some interpretation of Pat Robertson.

karhu   |2008-04-15 18:23:03 Does Wezlo still get royalties?

grizzly  - royalties   |2008-04-15 18:52:52 Yes, he does. And now we have that handy Donation link on the home page where you can pay them. :)

patronpeter  - HA!   |2008-04-15 19:08:33 You'll never get a dime from me!!!! muahahahha.... of course... I realize Wez has lil' clingons to feed... lol

emperorbma   |2008-04-15 19:39:14 cling? That's Klingon, mon ami.

patronpeter  - oh?   |2008-04-15 19:50:05 je suis désolé! Sorry to Wezlo and his peeps.

emperorbma   |2008-04-15 19:52:09 I was kidding, of course. Klingon is a Star Trek reference. :P

patronpeter  - Do trekkies have "the force"?   |2008-04-15 20:15:44 no duh... i know about those... "fans" *ducks*.... they have conventions in which they can all be *ducks again* fanatics together... so what does Wez go as? Spock? One of the green alien chicks?

WebbedFeetOfClay  - shrug   |2008-04-15 20:20:59 a friend just posted a couple youtube videos of Data crooning.

patronpeter   |2008-04-15 20:22:41 crooning?

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-04-15 20:41:31 a style of singing, think Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby

patronpeter  - oh!   |2008-04-15 20:46:52 frank is so romantic, who doesn't love "cheek to cheek"?... ok.. who is Data?

emperorbma   |2008-04-15 20:50:11 Data is Brent Spiner's character, an android made by Dr. Noonian Sung.

patronpeter   |2008-04-15 20:56:02 Oh... and he sings??..hmm...

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-04-15 21:03:13 well this was brent spiner singing with a photo montage, largely comprised of Data.

patronpeter   |2008-04-15 21:35:51 brent spiner?.... you guys have to remember that i am not picking up what your laying down when it comes to anything... uh... nerdy. :-)

emperorbma   |2008-04-15 21:46:43 Um, Brent Spiner is an actor.

patronpeter  - talented?   |2008-04-15 21:52:15 don't recognize him... he's so old!!!

emperorbma   |2008-04-15 22:00:30 You've never seen Star Trek:TNG or Star Trek:Enterprise, I take it. :P

patronpeter  - Telemundo!!   |2008-04-15 23:03:11 wha? no, of course not... i'm too busy keeping up with the kardashians and dipping into the lives of disturbed celebrities on E!News... jk. Honestly, if it's not on AdultSwim or Comedy Central, I probably haven't seen it. :-)

emperorbma   |2008-04-15 23:07:34 *facepalm* All you gotta do is watch SciFi or Spike at the right time. Oh well, to each their own, I guess.  Of course, I like Battlestar Galactica far more than Star Trek even then. You should ask wezlo about BSG, patron. :P

patronpeter   |2008-04-15 23:20:08 don't tell me what to do!! i do what i want... ok, i'll ask him. :-) what's a bsg?

emperorbma   |2008-04-15 23:21:32 BSG = Battlestar Galactica On IRC, I found out that it's one of wezlo's fav. shows. :)

patronpeter   |2008-04-15 23:22:26 oh, that's neat... i just realized you all know entirely too much about Wezlo. heehee...

emperorbma   |2008-04-15 23:38:32 That's about all I know, that he enjoys BSG... :P

holmegm   |2008-04-16 05:30:02 Um, I know we said this back on Christdot, but you guys really need to get a room ...

patronpeter  - she can blush?   |2008-04-16 15:41:55 i do hope you mean to take our conversation to p.m...

wezlo   |2008-04-16 10:01:03 BSG is the freaking best show on TV. Actually, my current order is: 1. BSG 2. Lost 3. Heroes That is all...

emperorbma   |2008-04-16 13:38:08 I liked Heroes too. Are they on Season 2 yet? I wish they'd show it on SciFi if they are....

wezlo   |2008-04-16 14:30:49 Yah, they finished an arc before the writers strike, not sure if they are airing any more this year.

patronpeter   |2008-04-16 15:43:09 check out cucirca.com to catch up on heroes, and yes, they are far into season two.. maybe three? you'll have to check on there..

emperorbma   |2008-04-16 15:44:25 Wow... I wonder why SciFi isn't showing it now though.

patronpeter   |2008-04-16 15:53:38 ... cause the interweb is cooler than scifi?

emperorbma   |2008-04-16 15:56:30 SciFi integrates the interweb, I guess it's trying to use the web to boost its limitations.

patronpeter  - ay! tha's my word!!   |2008-04-16 15:57:41 or maybe.... cucirca is like limewire and everything you see is... "borrowed" from television. :-)

emperorbma   |2008-04-16 16:01:06 Sounds like The Pirate Bay.

patronpeter   |2008-04-16 16:07:11 yup, 'cept minus the movies

emperorbma   |2008-04-16 16:11:28 What'choo talkin' 'bout? Them Pirates torrent movies too.

patronpeter   |2008-04-16 16:20:41 oh... i didn't notice, just watched the show. i mean... this is not an admittance of participating in any piracy or piracy-related web site. :-)

emperorbma   |2008-04-16 16:23:31 If we are to believe the MPAA, watching copyright stuff on YouTube is piracy. *wink*

patronpeter   |2008-04-16 16:25:47 ...then you are a co-conspirator.. afterall, you were the one who introduced me to the fun-ness that is youtube.

emperorbma   |2008-04-16 16:28:17 I never said I agreed with the assessment of the MPAA. I think they're full of baloney.

patronpeter   |2008-04-16 16:42:08 baloney is gross

emperorbma   |2008-04-16 16:46:20 My sister loves it. I don't like it either.

grizzly   |2008-04-16 17:54:09 so is the mpaa and the riaa.

patronpeter   |2008-04-16 18:02:12 i agree.. on the bright side, this sandwich is delicious. :-)

holmegm   |2008-04-16 18:48:00 This really ain't workin' in Firefox ... not at my screen resolution, anyway ;)

patronpeter   |2008-04-16 18:56:30 what? the commenting or the sandwich? sorry, i finished it already.

patronpeter   |2008-04-16 15:44:36 no stargate then?

emperorbma   |2008-04-16 15:45:22 Stargate SG1 is over and Atlantis is not in season.

patronpeter   |2008-04-16 16:15:37 ... i was kidding dude. but thanks for the fyi

emperorbma   |2008-04-16 16:18:32 :P

Entity   |2008-04-16 09:15:22 keeping up with the kardashians Nope. That was Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

wezlo   |2008-04-16 10:01:32 I still want my own personal Defiant - that thing was freaking AWESOME.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-04-15 21:51:56 I barely know who he is, but 3 comments up emperor told you who he is.

patronpeter   |2008-04-15 21:56:46 yeah, the whole confusion with who Spiner was, what a Data was, and what that has to do with Frank Sinatra and Wezlo confused me a bit... but i see it coming together now. :-)

emperorbma   |2008-04-15 21:59:51 Yeah, I'm surprised Wezlo didn't comment on my obvious Star Trek reference. :P

patronpeter   |2008-04-15 23:04:02 good point... maybe we upset him? uh.. .Wez, only joking your my favorite and uh... sprinkles on top? much love, p.p

wezlo   |2008-04-16 10:02:13 Nah, just happened to be busy - I've rectified my lack of posts...

Entity   |2008-04-16 10:56:00 You still don't show up in the list of top ten posters...

wezlo   |2008-04-16 11:28:59 really? Maybe it's because I'm still "super-admined."

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-04-16 12:00:26 what list of top ten posters? is that kept secret to avoid folks getting competitive (perhaps a good idea)

Entity   |2008-04-16 12:11:10 I have yet to find a list of top ten posters, which is why Wezlo doesn't show up.

grizzly  - what list?   |2008-04-16 13:00:30 the list that I haven't written yet. once I do write it, it will be available on the Top 10 page.

patronpeter  - wez #1!!   |2008-04-16 15:48:19 i agree with webby, a potentially bad idea.. .some of us are competitive.. can't wait to see it!!

wezlo   |2008-04-16 09:59:43 Actually, I've never been to a convention - but if I did I'd probably dress as a Romulan. They rock.

patronpeter   |2008-04-16 15:40:18 that's hilarious that i was right (sort of)...

laika   |2008-04-15 20:04:58 are we witnessing the first use of "ding" at ThP?

emperorbma   |2008-04-15 20:50:36 From the lack of replies about it, apparently not... :P

wezlo   |2008-04-16 10:02:38 ding!™

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-04-16 10:15:27 do you owe yourself royalties now, since this trademearked by christdot-wezlo, I'd assume a different legal entity

wezlo   |2008-04-16 10:17:49 No, I've been legally transferred.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-04-16 10:22:35 somewhere I've got a paper with a tally of how much I owe you, I was thinking i'd let it be lost in the archives of christdot, but that doesn't seem fair.

bdor   |2008-04-15 18:25:23 Agreed, that's pretty much what I was driving at. People actually listen to Pat Robertson?

bdor  - forgot to embed   |2008-04-15 18:27:33 again

emperorbma   |2008-04-15 19:41:16 no problemo. :P

bdor  - re:   |2008-04-16 18:01:31 Quote: My problem is, without this cultural translation we end up with "personal salvation," and the Church ends up as an after-thought. When, in the Bible those elements are reversed. This is the point I keep trying to make about a strong ecclesiology. Without that as one of my profs puts it, the church becomes "a voluntary association of religious individuals, whose true allegiance lies to the nuclear family, the economy, or the state."

Only registered users can write comments!

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.20

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."