We would applaud this because it makes us feel that the science isn’t as truthful as scientists would like for us to believe. Yet we, in regards to our our own theology and worldview, would refute that idea. Me Genoto! (May it never be!) We’re just being biblical…

The answer this scientist had was this: Let’s just let everybody admit our biases and backgrounds and have an honest discussion about evolution and intelligent design.

Maybe, if we could just admit our biases and admit that our biases are born out of experience, then we could have an honest, open, and friendly discussion about theology, whether it is liberal/fundamentalist, Emergent/emerging, missional/attractional, baptist/non-baptist, etc…

Can you please let me know his availability and schedule or if he does speaking engagements?

Thank you!
Joni Fanning
(970) 242-7970
Canyon View Vineyard Church

Twitter only gives 140 characters to describe an event. I think your guesses are really good. Combining 8 hours of sleep and coffee will create an overactive imagination for MOU (Memorandum of Agreement). As a committed OU fan my mind would have likely trailed off to Switzer, Boz and a host of others from Soonerland.

Is your thesis on the greatness of “The King” Barry Switzer? How about a thesis on the greatness of the wishbone? Maybe A Historical comparison of Brian Bosworth and Ghandi?

Have a good one Broseph.

(sorry, i got 8 hours of sleep last night and i’ve already had my coffee)

Great contribution. I recall Willard’s statement. More to chew on.

John does have a way of asking those pesky penetrating questions. Surely this is a dilemma. For example, one of my friends was making a turn toward pacifism and implied he would not bear an arm to protect his family when threatened. I do not mean a “what if” scenario, but I mean he indicated were someone to threaten his family he would not do them violence. I cannot help but think that such a position stretches the limits of love for neighbor if one is willing to sacrifice his or her child or spouse. Now, if we consider the matter of retribution that is another matter. A non-violent approach to retribution would certainly negate taking up arms in a “lex talionis” styled act. So, if my friend’s family were attacked, even in the midst of his defense, his attempt at retribution would take the form of a non-violent act.

If we were to switch to the world scene, one wonders why we would invade Iraq and not bomb the Sudanese government into submission to curtail the end of the genocide that continues under the same eyes which monitored Hussein and company. I realize a pacifist would think the action in Iraq unwarranted - and I may well agree. It is just a apt illustration when considering the complexities surrounding an even handed ethical position.

I like that John fellow - he sure knows how to make us think - and deeply. Sure wished more people had an appreciation for him. I am glad you do!

I think Kris Anne also gets at the tension I find in Dallas Willard’s statement that, while Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, he didn’t instruct us to turn someone else’s cheek.

There’s a lot to think about here.

Is there ever a time when “love of neighbor” means taking up arms and doing violence, in order to protect another or deliver another from suffering?

I wonder… Because I had never made that connection before. I always thought of this in terms of “my enemy IS my neighbor, therefore I must not do violence.”

Here’s how you can help me

Let your friends know about my Conversational Evangelism Conference in Minneapolis on May 16-17

If you have the space post one of our Banner Ads on your blog or website

I’ll have my new site and blog coming soon so let’s stay connected