Guest Post + Guess Who

I’ve had a Guest Post before, and I’ve had a Guess Who too — now I give you two great tastes that taste great together! Like Echo_ohcE, zrim suffers from having too much good stuff lost in comment #87 of a thread that only about 3 people read. By elevating (copy&pasting from Albino Hayford’s blog) his proposed quote for discussion, at least 2 more people will read it, and my own blog won’t look so sadly neglected!

So I give you zrim’s proposed quote for your reaction: any guesses who is quoted, and what do you think of it?

———————————————-

Disclaimer: I [zrim] am posting this as a way to generate discussion. I am not baiting or seeking to trap anyone and trumpet myself (whatever that might mean).

I wonder what anyone thinks of the following quote. Is there anything wrong with it, do you think? Is it generally right but a little simplistic or spot on?

If the truth isn’t inside of us but outside of us, then it’s something we can’t make up. If you’re a weather reporter in Chicago telling your audience every day during winter that it’s going to be a beautiful, sunny day, just perfect for sailing or beach-combing at Lake Michigan, then you’ll be fired by early January. Christians, too, are witnesses, reporters, announcers whose commission is to tell it like it is, not to make it up. In Jeremiah, God attacks the false prophets for “dressing the wounds of my people, as if it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace.” Really what he was accusing them of was spin.

Similarly today, the church seems all too prone to spin the truth rather than face it and proclaim it. Like many politicians, preachers seem to think that they have to hide their convictions in order to get re-elected. God’s holiness is not that terrifying or strange; it’s more like friendliness. God’s justice doesn’t require satisfaction, and as for God’s wrath, when’s the last time that was part of the conversation? In any event, whatever God’s scarier traits, love will always win out.

The wages of sin is not death, but unhappiness and lack of fulfillment. Jesus Christ is not a substitutionary sacrifice for our sin, but an example who helps us live above it. We’re not the ungodly who can only be justified by an imputed righteousness, but the righteous who need encouragement and a good life coach. We’re just consumers who need to see the relevance of Jesus, not sinners who need to repent of our having thought for one moment that we knew what was relevant in the first place.

The church craves the world’s approval. We call it evangelism, mission, and outreach. But what we really want is the world’s approval. We’re like the unpopular kids in school who are always too willing to do the bidding of the jocks on campus in the hope of a little respect. But respect is the last thing that empty flattery carries. Whether the world likes us or not, those who become believers will thank us for telling the truth, and those who don’t may at least be taken aback by a church that finally knows its place and its message.

powered by performancing firefox

Advertisements

47 Responses

  1. i.e. if it’s not offensive, and not foolish, then it’s not really the gospel?

    I’m sure that nobody will raise their hand and fess up to watering down the gospel, so everybody will think that the quote is preaching to their own particular choir. But I think the problem is not one of spin (understanding and believing the true gospel, but consciously or unconsciously delivering a watered down version), but bad doctrine (believing a watered down gospel, and delivering exactly what you believe). (Not that anybody would raise their hand to fess up for that either!)

    Also, we have to make sure that we don’t add offense and foolishness for the sake of offense and foolishness, but that we only maintain the offense and foolishness that are biblical properties of the gospel. The offense and foolishness of the gospel is not, IMO, “you are a sinner”. The offense and foolishness of the gospel is “you can be justified by faith, and only by faith, not by works”.

    That is an offense and a stubmling block to Jews who couldn’t believe that the wages of sin could be avoided by faith, rather than through the law (and its never-ending sacrifices), which, after all, came from God in the first place.

    And that is foolishness to the Greeks, because to human rationality, it’s nonsense that I could be justified based on someone else bearing the consequences of my sin, and the imputation of someone else’s obedience to myself.

    However, the offense of “you are guilty of sin, and deserving of eternal damnation” is a necessary precondition to bringing the offense and foolishness of the gospel.

    Or maybe a case could be made that “offense of the gospel” = “you are a sinner”, and “foolishness of the gospel” = “you can be justified by faith”?

    Or consider v17:

    For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

    That’s amazing! Preaching the gospel with words of eloquent wisdom empties the cross of Christ of its power!!

  2. here’s a hint on who it is for anyone who has actually taken the time to READ my posts: i have referred to this perosn before as the patron saint of my reformed conversion…patron saint of my reformed conversion…anyone? this person is well loved and respected by many.

    having some fun for all those who take thmeselves a bit too seriously,

    zrim

  3. I know who it is – I had a hunch, then Zrim gave the clue and that confirmed it. I’m not going to spoil it for others who don’t know who Zrim’s patron conversion saint is. He’s one of my favorite modern-day theologians.

    And he’s right on

  4. Well I could go search various blogs for the phrase “patron saint of my reformed conversion”, but that wouldn’t be any fun, now would it?

    Instead, I’ll lob out a guess of Piper, second guess Sproul. Dark horse Kline (but what non-reformed person is going to pick up a book by Kline and just start reading it?)

  5. This seems to be a “shot across the bow” to all the consumer-driven mega-churches that exist today in America. I, too, am unhappy with the watered down preaching that exists in many churches today. The “feel good” messages that do nothing to convict, but only to stroke the ego of the 21st century believer. Anyone who has turned on the TV on a Sunday morning knows what I am talking about.

    My one caution would be to refrain from stereotyping or “herding” all churches into one of two camps: i.e either you are reformed and preach Christ crucified every Sunday or you are a consumer friendly mega-church that does not preach the gospel.

    BTW what is meant by the following statement?

    The church craves the world’s approval. We call it evangelism, mission, and outreach. But what we really want is the world’s approval.

    Is he diminishing the role of these things in the church today? Or saying no one knows how to do these things correctly anymore?

    Believe it or not there are churches that do not fall into either of these categories, churches that are well represented on these blogs.

  6. now i am feeling quite UN-reformed! it’s not about ME but the quote! maybe i should dispense with the mystery as to the author now so we can discuss the quote?

    har-har.

    zrim

  7. This seems to be a “shot across the bow” to all the consumer-driven mega-churches that exist today in America. I, too, am unhappy with the watered down preaching that exists in many churches today. The “feel good” messages that do nothing to convict, but only to stroke the ego of the 21st century believer. Anyone who has turned on the TV on a Sunday morning knows what I am talking about.

    My one caution would be to refrain from stereotyping or “herding” all churches into one of two camps: i.e either you are reformed and preach Christ crucified every Sunday or you are a consumer friendly mega-church that does not preach the gospel.

    Believe it or not there are churches that do not fall into either of these categories, churches that are well represented on these blogs.

    BTW what is meant by the following statement?

    The church craves the world’s approval. We call it evangelism, mission, and outreach. But what we really want is the world’s approval.

    Is he diminishing the role of these things in the church today? Or saying no one knows how to do these things correctly anymore?

    (this is how it is supposed to read, sorry rube)

  8. matt,

    may i quiet your consistent fears of dreaded “stereotyping” with something?

    often you seem to think our side of the table thinks of “reformed” or whatever other nomenclature as some sort of magic dust or something. if only it were that simple. for my part, i must admit up front my own naivete when i found the reformation so many years ago. i thought, “all i gotta do is get me to a chruch that has ‘reormed’ over it and i can escape all the crapola in american religion.” i ahve been sadly mistaken (yes, i said it, folks, sadly mistaken and naive).

    i have been settled in to the reformed community for about 9 years now (echo, my rage phase has long since been past). and i must say, i have been saddened and let down in that time. if i had some sort of reformed prejudice based upon the assumptions many have charged me with having (“how can you be so sure YOUR system is better”?) i would turn my nose up and retreat into the “reformed” community, sticking my tongue out at you the whole time.

    but what i have found in my own reformed community is A LOT of the same evangy’ism i sought to get away from. it seems that as i was coming in through the front door plenty of these dutch reformed types are going back out because they hear the loud music of the evagy fiesta going on down the street.

    i am not dutch; i am not some old, cranky dutch dude who is set in his “reformed” ways. i come to the reformed faith quite deliberately (out of a secular and then brief evangy background). i wish these reformed would embrace their confessionalist past and reject the ways of american religion. but i do not hold my breath.

    anyway, that is all to say that when we former evangies criticize our old camps it is not out of some misguided hatred or myopic prejudice. and it is not to say that all evangies are somehow evil or bedeviled or to otherwise demonize them. it’s to honsetly take it to task and be clear about what we both embrace and reject. and sometimes, indeed often, that means things may be said that make folks discomforted.

    zrim

  9. Rube,

    you wrote:
    “but what non-reformed person is going to pick up a book by Kline and just start reading it?”

    Not one person

    The way you get into Kline is by reading those he’s influenced, those who have popularized his teachings and have made them accessible: Riddlebarger, Horton, Irons, Beale, Godfrey…

    oops, the answer’s there somewhere.

  10. It’s funny, but if you Google, “Patron Saint of my Reformed Conversion” and put it in quotes, you actually find it.

  11. rube,

    how come on some machines your psost are all column-like and on others they are more blocked? is that a default setting per machine or something? my machine does the more annoying column-ing thing.

    zrim

  12. ? “all column like”? “more blocked”? All I can think is your browser size, which might also be affected by screen resolution. Before I Google, I would have to guess Riddlebarger, as he is probably the best-selling of the authors in Rick’s list of hints.

  13. D’oh! Should have known that zrim’s bias against the world’s approval would predispose him against bestsellers!

    :-)

  14. Horton.

    Wrote his first theological book at the age of 13.

  15. Definitely Horton. I could tell by reading it. I thought Piper or Sproul at first too, but by 2/3 of the way through I realized it had to be Horton, who is the man.

    He is of course precisely right.

    Zrim,

    If you failed to escape the evangelical church, you failed to get out of the evangelical church. Come to the OPC. We have greener pastures. Trust me, there’s a BIG difference.

    E

  16. Echo,
    Greener pastures can also be found in the denomination of Horton, Riddlebarger, Godfrey, and R.S. Clark…The URC

  17. hey, guys.

    yes, it is “the man” horton.

    the quote is from the latest commentary from WHI.

    echo and rick, for my part, while i am solidly instituional, etc. i must admit i place no hope in any one denom. when i say i am a localist i mean that will adhere to any LOCAL reformed church that is true to our confessional standards: i don’t care if it’s OPC, URC, RCA, PCA or even CRC (although that would be a fantasy). i must admit that the guys i find so solid are OPC and URC.

    echo, you might recall how i pointed out here that i found sinner’s praters on the web sites of both the OPC and PCA. as petty as that might seem, there again i cannot escape evagy’ism no matter how hard i try, at least when we are “talking denom”! if i shopped for a denom and saw that stuff, i might be temppted to…who knows what?

    zrim

    ps, rube, you have not responded to a thing i said over at albino’s house, which i truly wonder about. namely, my notion that to take an arminian revivalist to task for being one and not being a reformed, confessional calvinist instead of “worrying about our own” who act/think/speak like arminian revivalists (PREF’s)seems quite misguided, especially when we have whole reformed denom web sites offering up sinner’s prayers. thoughts?

    zrim

  18. oh, i have to share this with folks who might appreciate it.

    about a year or so back MR sent out a questaionnaire. i had suggested that they establish a little sliver spot for laity who might like to contribute their thoughts. i am sure my suggestion was not the reason for their having now made what they call a “diary” column, but i am glad for it. i am also glad that they seem to have accepted a little diary piece of mine and looks like they may publish it in their july/august edition. i used to have a writing hobby years back (double english major) but dropped it. i picked it back up about a year ago and wondered if i could couple that up with a publication i find so edifying. here’s to seeing something i wrote in actual print, humble as it might be!

    zrim

  19. Hey Guys,

    I know a lot of you are in the OPC, which I knew came out of the PCUSA way back in the day. I go to a RPCUS church, which is only 25 years old or so. I’m not sure on the differences between the RPCUS and OPC, since I believe both are strict subscriptionists to the WCF.

    The RPCUS does have 4 distinctives (which they argue are set forth in the WCF): presuppositional apologetics, postmillenial eschatology, theonomy, and head of houeshold voting. They require officers to subscribe to these views?

    Is there liberty granted officers in the OPC concerning the above distinctives? Are those the chief differences?

    Thanks,

    Ben

  20. ps, rube, you have not responded to a thing i said over at albino’s house

    I know — I have mostly dropped out of those discussions, and haven’t even read most of it. I did just respond here, though.

    And congrats on the MR “diary” piece — please drop us a reminder link when it’s available!

  21. Zrim, you wrote: “i must admit i place no hope in any one denom. when i say i am a localist i mean that will adhere to any LOCAL reformed church that is true to our confessional standards: i don’t care if it’s OPC, URC, RCA, PCA or even CRC (although that would be a fantasy). i must admit that the guys i find so solid are OPC and URC.”

    Yep, I totally agree. The kind of stuff that Horton describes in the quote crosses denominational lines and infects many who belong to solid denominations. My comment toward Echo was just a little rib, not an attempt to show some kind of denominational superiority – because tit-for-tat the OPC may just have more local congregations that are true to the confessions. But I’m a 3-former so I sought a home in the URC and I found one. There are about 10 or so URC’s in the Grand Rapids area and I think I would feel like a fish out of water at most of them.

  22. The RPCUS does have 4 distinctives (which they argue are set forth in the WCF): presuppositional apologetics, postmillenial eschatology, theonomy, and head of houeshold voting. They require officers to subscribe to these views

    How odd to find a requirement for presuppositional apologetics in WCF! I didn’t know evidential vs. presuppositional was an issue until recently.

    Echo is on track to OPC ordination, he can better speak to this specific question.

    But here are my impressions: As for postmil and theonomy, I think they largely intersect. Also, I think it is pretty clear that the original WCF was theonomic, and the American revision of 1788 — the only revision ever — had the sole purpose of speficically denying theonomy. This PDF lays out the changed sections side-by-side, so you can judge for yourself, and this PDF offers additional analysis.

    To my knowledge, officers in the PCA and OPC are not (and should not be) required to subscribe to presupp (vs. evidential), postmil (vs. amil — but hopefully not premil!), theonomy (vs. 2-kingdom), or head-voting (vs. majority-age voting). For instance, I know that at least one my elders is postmil, and my pastor is amil (as are I assume most of the rest of the elders). Also, I have heard sermonaudio.com of Joe Morecraft III of Chalcedon Pres (PCA) (somewhere in the south — GA?) describe that elders in his church are required to be Theonomists, and he has taken some flak from the denomination about that.

    So I guess things vary by congregation and presbytery, but as a rule I would doubt that OPC/PCA ordination requires specific doctrinal checkboxes like you describe. I don’t know URC at all.

  23. rick.

    yeah, i have often referred to evangy’ism as a virus. at least luther had a door to nail upon. evangy’ism i smuch more wily than our roman “enemies” during the reformation because they are just so darned anti-institutional. this is a huge dimension.

    rube, that’s why you get relatively no where with albino (which has been my larger point over there). once someone can nail jelly to a wall then maybe we can hunt albino down and make progress! i read you rreply but am still quite confused…ah, i should not say that since i could fathom why you think you should hold his feet to the fire. suffice it to say i gained much of my own mind back when i realized my PREF pastor was NEVER going to see it because his system was just plain different. we should be concerneed with those who “accept the collar” but behave otherwise. al doesn’t even accept his rightful collar. it’s like trying to teach basic algebra to someone who refuses to concede that a thing called math even exists!

    zrim

  24. RubeRad,

    Thanks for the details, and the PDFs. I went from Albino’s church to John Piper’s church to an RPCUS church, so I’m largely ignorant of the larger Presby movements out there. I’m not fully convinced of theonomy.. I do believe in presuppositional apologetics and postmillenialism, though, not as a litmus test for elders.

    Chalcedon (Morecraft’s church) is actually the first and founding church in the RPCUS (back in 83). He used to be PCA. Said “flak” was the reason for leaving the PCA. It’s still a pretty small denom – 8 churches, and several mission works.

    Anyway, if you’re ever looking for some good sermonaudio stuff, check out Chris Strevel, the pastor of my church.

    Ben

  25. Haven’t visited Rube’s church, since I always preach at LWC when I’m in San Diego, but have attended Ben’s church. It is probably what you would expect in a conservative reformed church. The people were very friendly. Chris is a good communicator. You will probably want to leave your tamborine and any urge to clap at home, though. :-)

  26. Zrim,

    Let me get this straight. All the guys who you think are the most solid are in the OPC and the URC, but because of a sinner’s prayer on the PCA website (I remember the conversation, and was unconvinced that you had anything bad to say about what was on the OPC website), you’re going to stay in the CRC, which doesn’t even adhere to its own confession anymore, and in the words of one prominent minister in the URC, “has become another American Methodist Church.” Do I have that right?

    Greener pastures, my friend. Greener pastures.

    E

  27. Ben,

    Thanks for your question. You wrote:
    “The RPCUS does have 4 distinctives (which they argue are set forth in the WCF): presuppositional apologetics, postmillenial eschatology, theonomy, and head of houeshold voting. They require officers to subscribe to these views? Is there liberty granted officers in the OPC concerning the above distinctives? Are those the chief differences?”

    – Echo:
    The OPC is the very denomination that Van Til (presuppositional apologetics) was in when he wrote all that he wrote. Almost every minister in the OPC who was old enough to have been in seminary when he was teaching actually sat under him. Today, all the reformed seminaries to my knowledge teach presuppositional apologetics. However, the OPC does not make this a test for fellowship. We don’t see presuppositional apologetics being described in the Westminster Confession. That said, however, I doubt a guy who really believes in something else would have a very easy time getting ordained, though I suppose it’s possible.

    About eschatology: the OPC only requires that you NOT be dispensational. Post-mill is allowed, but most are amillennial. The only views that are unacceptable are those of the Left Behind series. However, the men who are getting ordained will be asked about their view, and they will be asked to defend it. Same with creation. Many views are allowed, but you better be able to explain both your view and the other major views fairly.

    Theonomy: The OPC has no official stance on theonomy. Once upon a time, there might have been a number of folks in the OPC who were into it, but today they are few. Most ministers in the OPC would probably feel that theonomy is an error of doctrine, and some would even be very passionate about that. But the fact remains that the OPC has never condemned it, and it will never require it – most likely. In fact, I think if the OPC ever did vote to require theonomy, you’d see an almost immediate split. I’d leave.

    Head of household voting? Well, we have elders who govern the church. So technically, the elders get the governing vote. However, when we have annual church meetings, to vote on various things like the budget, women also get a vote. Communicate members get to vote (those who have made a public profession of faith). But we do not allow women to be elders or deacons or ministers. And there again, if that happened, there’d be a split. Which is why the CRC split, forming the URC. Zrim. So the answer to your question is no, there is no belief in a head of household vote in any context, but with the caveat that the elders are the ones who actually govern the church.

    So to sum up, yeah, there’s liberty on these things.

    E

  28. Zrim,

    You said:
    “I must admit i place no hope in any one denom. when i say i am a localist i mean that will adhere to any LOCAL reformed church that is true to our confessional standards: i don’t care if it’s OPC, URC, RCA, PCA or even CRC (although that would be a fantasy). i must admit that the guys i find so solid are OPC and URC.”

    – Echo:
    It sounds to me like there is an implication here in your statements. It sounds like the guidance of the local elders is all you need, and the denomination is irrelevant to the layman. This seems to be an implication of what you’re saying. So for instance, if the denomination throws out the confession, but the local elders still hold to it, you can feel free to continue to go to that church.

    The only problem with that is that there is authority behind the scenes that you seem not to be considering. The denomination governs the classis, and the classis governs the elders of your church. The elders of your church need to be held accountable, and need to be in submission to a higher authority. That higher authority needs to be held accountable too. Of course, you can only go so high, but you get the idea. The precendent in the Bible for having such layers of authority is found in Acts 15, which was the first General Assembly. Furthermore, the church continued to make use of councils throughout her history. This is an important thing to do, especially for churches like ours that don’t have bishops. You need to have someone to appeal to if you are falsely accused or wrongfully punished for something you didn’t do. The Synod of the CRC does have indirect authority over you, and you are under their leadership, like it or not. Furthermore, when you put money in the plate, part of it goes to them. They govern you, and you support them.

    The denomination matters because man didn’t just make it up. Denominational gatherings are biblical, therefore they come from God. This is God’s idea. Sure, way back then it was the entire church, but since then, the church has broken up. We can lament this, but it doesn’t change the fact that large gatherings to decide on crucial matters has a biblical precedent. It’s part of what maintains unity and peace in the church. The denomination does matter.

    E

  29. Ben,

    You said:
    “I’m not fully convinced of theonomy.. I do believe in presuppositional apologetics and postmillenialism, though, not as a litmus test for elders.”

    – Echo:
    Well, please stay unconvinced about theonomy. Many prominent theologians find that theonomy undermines the gospel. A study of the Roman church during the Middle Ages should be sufficient to demonstrate that theonomy is not from God. (Otherwise it would have remained, according to postmill theology, right?)

    The litmus test for elders is whether or not they can, in good conscience, subscribe to the WCF. Although I would like the WCF to say more about certain things, the fact is, it doesn’t. And that’s ok. The WCF is not exactly what the Bible says in all its detail. It is a document that provides the limits of what we will accept. It provides the limits of what you are allowed to believe about the Bible, if you are to be an officer in our church. We don’t elevate it to the level of Scripture, because we believe that parts of it are deliberately vague to leave room for certain disagreements. That’s exactly what we said about creation. Lots of views are held, and those men don’t have to declare a scruple with the Confession over it, because “the space of 6 days” is a deliberately ambiguous phrase, which is open to interpretation.

    E

  30. Ben,

    http://opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf

    This is a report about Creation that the OPC published recently. There is an extremely helpful section on Confessional Subscription, which I think will tell you a lot about the OPC.

    E

  31. echo, point very well taken. my only point is that nothing is perfect. i live and move locally. so, i may find plenty of local communions that reject what is trying to be done at the higher level (local, bad and higher up good). that affects me directly. the higher up may be trying to reform worship for example. but if the 10 locals are resisting, i am left with the short stick.

    my point is that we live locally. would i want the local and distant denom to be both faithful and consistent with each other? of course. but i also want atari to reissue its system from 1981. there are lots of things i want. but the only thing i have some say over is where i go locally, not what happens higher up. we must choose our battles given our scene.

    zrim

  32. Zrim,

    True, but you’ve only proven why a good denomination is no guarantee of a high quality of the church. A good denomination doesn’t always yield a good church.

    However, what is virtually guaranteed is that a bad denomination won’t have any good churches in it for very long. Of that you can be sure.

    “Luke, come to the dark side.” Seriously, the pastures might be a bit greener than you think.

    E

  33. i know. that is why i am still in a conversation with 2 PCA ministers about a church plant in my area (no high hopes though) and why i am visitng rick b’s TURC next week. as much as i love my local CRC communion, i feel quite at odds for many reasons. and believe it or not, the fulcrum is not sub/ordination of women. i understand why everyone outside the CRC only thinks in these terms, but even if that was somehow reversed, i consider the CRC at large to be all about american evagy’ism and leaving its confessionalism in the dust. and that’s not to say the other denom’s hold some sort of magic dust about them (rumor has it is only a matter of time before the PCAGA ordains women). it’s much more complex and invoved, i think, than any one issue. all would not be well in the CRC if all of a sudden the subordinationists won.

    zrim

  34. Zrim,

    IN all honesty, what happened even at the OPC GA this summer (justification report passing) was a tremendous relief. I flew out to see it for myself, so deep was my concern.

    So I know what you mean. And I know the CRC has many, many problems. You’re right, they are abandoning the confessions. I take no joy in it. I hope you leave for your sake, though I really do know how immensely difficult and horrifying that is.

    E

  35. The last new thread was a week ago…

    Boo!

    E

  36. I’m going to stick with the first rule of blogging here…

  37. Echo,
    What are your thoughts on the age of the earth?

  38. … by which he means hop on over to my blog, where there is an interesting discussion going on (including Rube)

  39. Rube,

    Bah humbug.

    E

  40. I didn’t mean that at all, we can talk right here. Chart new territory.

  41. Well if you want to do it “here”, that’s OK too, but it should really be over here. I will not tolerate (much) threadjacking!

  42. That latest link from RubeRad is a good one since the final argument in that thread lacks a response.

  43. Echo,
    Can I guest post your first comment at my blog sometime? I liked it, I really really liked it. Unless you want it re-posted on a better blog. You don’t have a blog do you?

    Also, are you a WSCAL alum? If so, what year? You may know the guy I was talking about who didn’t pass his exam because of Gen. 1

  44. Rick, you might want to be a littler clearer about “first comment”, because I don’t think you mean this one, which is Echo’s first comment in this thread…

  45. Thanks,
    First comment left at my blog on the young earth topic.

    Although, posting his first comment here would be interesting too. Kinda like Jeopardy – people would have to guess what the topic was.

  46. Rick,

    I’m a WSCAL student. First year. I probably don’t know the guy, but I might have heard of him. Come to think of it, the situation is ringing a vague bell somewhere in the deep recesses of my mind. I’m sure we know people in common. While you’re only 6 people away from everyone in the world, so they say, you can’t be more than 2 people away from anyone in a denomination this small.

    But you may do with my post whatever you like. It’s on a blog, thus it is public domain.

    Echo

  47. Echo,
    Thanks, I thought I’d ask anyway. WSCAL senior S. Lems used to go to my Church when he was here in MI.

    The guy I’m talking about has a the first name Dave and his last name starts with an H and ends with ‘omlund’ he graduated around 4 years ago from WSCAL – and is now studying under Muller at Calvin.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: