Tuesday, January 31, 2006

What I Bring To The Text When I Read The Bible

Each of use bring our own experince to the Bible when we read it. Here is some of my own story.




I have been reading and interpreting the Bible for years. I first started reading the Bible seriously the summer between my sixth and seventh grade year. Our family was going through some tough times. One night after my mother and I had had a tiff, I prayed that God would change me. Soon after I developed an ear infection and was confined to bed. I was in a lot of pain so I started to read the Living New Testament. As I read the words jumped out at me and felt as though they were especially for me. That season in my life started me on a path of Bible reading. As I approached the text as a young pre-teen, I had little direct guidance from others except that the Bible was true. Through the years, my approach and views of have changed, I hope matured for the better. The interpretive forces in my own life are not uncommon but are how God has sovereignly worked in my life. The goal of understanding the interpretive forces in my life is to understand myself so that I am accountable to the text, not the text bending to my own prejudices unaware.
I am a 42 year old male. I have been married to my wife Barbara since August 27, 1983. We have five daughters. The oldest two are in college. The youngest is a preteen. There is ten years between the oldest (20) and the youngest (10). As I approach the Scriptures and I see the promises to Abraham and his seed, I long to have my family embrace the faith that I desire to pass on to them. Not every one in my extended family is a believer, and the tension regarding my faith and their's makes family time tense. I feel an obligation to do my best to pass faith in Christ Jesus to my children, and then see, then in turn, faith passed on to their children also. I want them to embrace a warm and enduring faith in the Savior. As I read the text, I see God made us as individuals, but also as families. I bring that to the text. Someone who is single may wonder what I am thinking about when I read the Bible through these lenses.
My church background is eclectic. As a child, I went to an independent, fundamental, premillennial Baptist church which was a part of the Baptist Bible Fellowship. There I was taught the basics of the gospel message of trust in Jesus Christ for salvation, and strangely enough about the accuracy of the Genesis account of creation. In my preteen and teen years I went to a Cumberland Presbyterian church in rural Missouri. Many people in that church had a warm piety as they walked with the Lord. The Bible was embraced warmly. Later when I joined the military, we sought a good church in each new community where the Army sent us. We joined or attended the military chapel, Cumberland Presbyterian, Evangelical Free, Bible Church, Calvary Chapel, an independent Charismatic Church, Southern Baptist, and Presbyterian Church in America. The various church have made me want to steer clear of legalism, liberalism, and a gospel watered down by cultural relevance. It has also made me appreciate the need to build precept upon precept doctrinal teachings so as to advance in faith and understanding. For the most part I come to the Scriptures with a Calvinistic view of soteriology, covenantal theological view in regard with how God has dealt with man in various ages, a neo-Calvinistic view of Scripture and society, amillennial view regarding prophesy, and view the creation as having happened in six literal days. While I support the evangelical mind set of broad acceptance of all Bible believing Christians, I feel a great need for advancing beyond a basic doctrinal statement in regard to each Christian's personal growth. This means studying the Scriptures both with charity towards those who hold opposing views to my own, and with conviction as to the truths in God's Word.
For years my evangelical leanings were such a strong force that I held all doctrine at arms length except for the basics. Any controversial issue of doctrine I took the mediocre middle road, lacking commitment on one side or the other. In a sense I fell prey to the idea that not taking a stance on an issue was to rise above the debate, when in reality I was merely on the sidelines, not understanding the theological debates at all. I also felt that theological debates were inconsequential. Then the Lord took me on a journey that broke up my lack of rigor in my thought and lack of decision on my theological stance. I was deployed to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. On Sundays I would attend Chapel services on Eskan village. The Chaplain was leading a study during the Sunday School hour on Romans chapter two. He read the verse that says “You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?” I had memorized this passage in the King James Version where it said “thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?” The chaplain's explanation of the passage was that Jews at the time robbed Gentile temples because they had disregard for Gentile religion. I felt his interpretation was not right. He asked me to read the text, which of course said “temples”, not sacrilege. I did not know how to come to a decision what the text actually meant. I wrote my pastor a letter asking about the right interpretation. I got back a letter saying that it was not a big issue. But in my mind there was a nagging question, if I could not understand a passage that I had memorized, how could I ever know the Bible? I prayed that the Lord would teach me the Bible. This began me on a road of trying to come to grips with how to interpret a passage of Scripture. (By the way, I do not believe I have arrived at knowing what each passage of Scripture means, but I am learning principles by which to interpret.) Recently I was reading Romans 2 in the Greek and I found out the Greek word translated “rob temples” is a verb. A more grammatically centric translation would be “Do you commit temple robbery?” This is not a major issue, but it got me searching a number of years ago.
People who have influenced my reading of the Scriptures has been Bill Holdridge who is the pastor at Calvary Chapel of the Monterey Peninsula and Bill Kampsen who was a fellow soldier who had attended some seminary. Bill Holdridge taught the Bible verse by verse. He gave me appreciation for teaching the Bible the same way that I read it. Bill Kampsen taught a weekly Bible study in his home. He approached the text with the attitude that it could be understood through sound interpretation principles. There are many things that I disagree with Bill Kampsen on regarding particular teachings in the Scriptures but he started me on a path to the historical-grammatical method of interpretation.
As a child, I was not exposed to different cultures, racial or ethnic backgrounds. There was very few Hispanics and very few African-Americans in my home town. In sixth grade there was one Hispanic boy in my class. Until I reached Junior High, I had never been in a class with an African-American. Even then it was very few. My exposure to various cultures was mostly through television and then I did not pick up on it since it was not something with which I had to interact. While I lived in a fairly homogeneous society, I was always an outsider. I lacked social awareness and did not make warm friendships. During my childhood years we moved every two to three years. When I went to college I met Muslims from the Middle East who had come to America to get a college education. They became my friends and I was excited to witness to them. The Scriptures taught Israel to be kind to the stranger within their gates. Since I had been a stranger, I could sympathize with those who were strangers in our country. Ultimately this led me to become fascinated with cultures, linguistics and languages. I took Koine Greek in college. I desired to engage in missions work. Needing to support my family, I joined the Army. With the Army I studied Arabic at the Defense Language Institute. Every opportunity I could I practiced speaking Arabic with people from the Middle East. I also studied Hebrew at a small seminary near Baltimore in the late 90s. While my proficiency at all of these languages has gaps and holes, it has influenced my reading of the English text. I sense Semitic structures quite naturally while I read the Old Testament. I recognize Semiticism in the New Testament. I enjoy translating the text for myself out of the original languages.
From a socio-economic point of view I am middle class, though I have had some years that were a struggle financially. Generally speaking I hold to the middle class value that people should play by the rules and in turn playing by the rules is to be rewarded by the social system. The idea that if you do the right things you should get the right results leads me to sometimes look to techniques rather than God for success. I have at times read modern management and leadership styles into the Bible. This kind of thinking has sometimes caused me to reading the Bible as a rule book rather than the story of God and His might deeds.
I am a white middle aged American family man who reads the Scripture through the lenses of my linguistic education, my Presbyterian theology, and my many short comings.

Saturday, January 28, 2006

Leadership Blog: Out of Ur: Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question: Finding a Pastoral Response

Leadership Blog: Out of Ur: Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question: Finding a Pastoral Response: "Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question: Finding a Pastoral Response"



Brian McLaren has written an article for Leadership Journal on how we should be more pastoral in our response to homosexuality. One of the things he says "Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements." I find the article to be left of my own position. He is trying to meet people where they are, however, his position would miscommunication, as much as it communicates. The main thing that I think it would miscommunication is his proposal for a moratorium on debate of the issue. While he would be wanting to show good faith of open discussion, I'm sure the pro-gay agenda would not do the same. The use of humor in both private conversation and TV has changed the way most Americans view homosexuality. My guess is that most Americans who watch TV are now comfortable with it at a certain level. I would also guess that the actor Chad Allen who plays both Nate Saint and his son in The End of the Spear took the part in order to make the evangelical comfortable with homosexuality. And he probably will open some doors for what I'm guessing his agenda is. Again my guess is that his assumption is that the idea that Christians are uncomfortable with homosexuality because of fear and prejudice. (Of course he could just be needing to work, and this was a job. I've met pastors who seemed to take that position when filling the pulpit.) My assumption is that most evangelical Christians are like myself. We know relatives and friends who are gay. Some openly struggle with it and ask for prayer for victory. Some hide it, sometimes giving clues as to their disposition, sometimes not. Then there are people who are openly gay. My guess is that most evangelical are like me, in that they treat these people as people first. The homosexual issue does not make them less of a person. But then when we look at morals and ethics we believe sexual behavior has moral practices and immoral practices. The scriptures teach that adultery is wrong. Viewing pornography is wrong. This is basic to Christian ethics. I think most people who do not follow Christianity would agree that some things just should not be done. I would guess we would get 99% agreement that an adult having sex with a minor is not only a crime, but immoral. So when we know of our friends and relatives who struggle with the issue homosexuality, we believe that behavior is immoral. Then again hate for or violence against those who practice this behavior is also immoral. I know I do not speak for everyone in the evangelical community. But my guess is there is a lot evangelical who feel the same way.

Brian McLaren has good and genuine concerns about people in his flock, but he gives much more credence to the idea that there could be a legitimate biblical position which says homosexual behavior is moral. I have to say that I disagree with his position. Further than that, to stop talking about the issue will not clarify the issue. I'm sure those who believe the homosexual behavior is a moral behavior will not slow down on their promotion of it in the media.

One other point, it is my intention to see the movie The End of the Spear. I hope Christians take their friends and relatives to go see it.

Friday, January 27, 2006

Olympic Medals Table

At summer Olympics two years ago there was an Aussie blog that focused on the Olympics. They produced a Java Script table that I was able to add to my blog which tracked the medals of the each country. I have been looking for something similar. If any one knows of a similar table, please give leave the URL in the comments.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

The Dormitory Boys

My daughter showed me this blog of two chinese boys doing some very funny lip sink videos. If you want a laugh you have to watch them.




The Dormitory Boys: " The Dormitory Boys

We're two boys, and... erh... Chinese. :)"

Monday, January 16, 2006

New Name

I have noticed that on more than one occation, people took my blog to be a business blog. While I have a pipe dream of having a small business which includes setting up websites and other modern media for ministry, I don't think that is the main idea here. So to better communicate what this blog is all about, I'm thinking of changing the name of this blog. Vote on the your favorite.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Fundamentalist - Context is Everything

I was looking at a posting on my good friend the Jollyblogger about Rick Warren. Warren is quoted as saying he is against all forms of fundamentalism, Christian, Muslim, secular, etc... and that they are the real enemy. This shows a extremely shallow view of Muslim fundamentalism and of Christian fundamentalism. His mistake is a common one. Muslim fundamentalism is sort of misapplication of the term. In Christian fundamentalism the inerrant Word of God is regarded as such with some other cardinal doctrines. In Muslim fundamentalism has as its goal a religious state that follows the sharia, Muslim civil law. They beleive that impurity of Western civilization has desecrated them and that the road to once again recieve the blessing of their former glorious past is to create Islamic governments. While some would think this is what Christian fundamentalists want, in reality most are decidedly for seperation of church and state. They just don't think that means the state supports the religion of a secular world view. I am sure you can find the odd ball who is the exception to this rule and wants the church to run the state.

The other big issue in Christian Fundamentalism circles is outward forms of piety, such as don't smoke, drink, dance, play cards, etc... Muslim fundamentalism would likewise be narrow on outward forms of piety. But so would Rick Warren, he stresses the importance of signing committement cards, participating in small groups and tithing. All three, Muslim Fundamentalists, Christian Fundamentalists, and graduates of C.L.A.S.S. 201 Level members class at Rick Warren's church would place a high value on tithing. In the case of the Muslim it would be called zekat. I'm not saying it is wrong, just that it is very much an outward sign of piety. I thnk all three would be trying to deal with issues of the heart by doing this.

Sunday, January 08, 2006

Lesson on Romans 8:1-11

Key Words: law, Spirit, flesh, death, condemned, mind, righteousness.

Main idea: As we walk in this life we should walk in the Spirit.

Outline:

1.We are not condemned because we live according to the Spirit (verses 1,2)
2.We partake of Christ's righteousness as we walk in the Spirit. (verses 3,4)
3.We can set our mind on the flesh or on the Spirit. (verses 5-8)
4.We overcome the flesh and spiritual death by the indwelling of the Spirit. (verses 9-11)


Many of the following thoughts were taken from John Walvoord's book The Holy Spirit.

  • Baptism of the Spirit – Cleansing from sin, union with Christ, union with the community of believers. Common experience of all 1 Corinthians 12:13, Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, Acts 1:5, 11:16, Rom. 6:1-4, Gal. 3:27, Eph. 4:5, Col. 2:12
  • Indwelling of the Spirit – Not the image of God in all, but the Holy Spirit coming into the believer's heart to live there. John 7:37-39, Acts 11:17, Rom. 5:5, 8:9,11; 1 Cor. 2:12; 6:19-20; 12:13; 2 Cor. 5:5; Gal. 3:2; 4:6; 1 John 3:24; 4:13.
  • Sealing with the Spirit – Promise of a later fulfillment; A little bit of heaven on earth, guarantee. 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph 1:13; 4:30.
  • Conditions for the Filling of the Holy Spirit
1.“Quench Not The Spirit” 1 Thess. 5:19
A.Quench means to suppress or stifle.
B.When you extinguish a candle you are quenching it.
C.To say no to the Spirit, to be unwilling to do what he says.
D.We should be surrendered to the Spirit.
i.Submission to the plain teaching of Scripture.
ii.Obedience the guidance of the Spirit.
iii.Faith in the providential acts of God
2.“Grieve Not the Spirit” Eph. 4:30
A.The passage implies that while we are sealed until eternity with the Spirit, we can grieve him.
B.Spirit is grieved by sin, not the sin nature.
C.Remedy is to confess sin. 1 John 1:5-2:2
3.“Walk by the Spirit” Gal. 5:6
A.Not a one time experience but a daily experience.
B.As a band or soldiers march in unison, they follow the person to their right. This means they have to be continually attentive to the person they are walking with. If we are walking in the mall or somewhere else we have to continually adjust our pace and stride with whom we are walking. As we go through our day, we need to constantly be attentive to the Spirit.
C.See Romans 8:1-11.
D.Mind set on the things of the Spirit.

Saturday, January 07, 2006

JOLLYBLOGGER: Pat Robertson esplainifies himself, or does he?

A quote of a quote from the Jolly Blogger...

JOLLYBLOGGER: Pat Robertson esplainifies himself, or does he?: "“In the book of Joel, the prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has ‘enmity against those who divide My land.’ God considers this land to be His. When you read the Bible, He said this is my land. For any Prime Minister of Israel who decides he will carve it up and give it away, God said, “No, this is Mine.”"




I am trying to look up the passage Pat Robertson is talking about. I just do not see where this quote is coming from in the book of Joel. As I search, I see passages that have wording sort of like this but nothing exactly like this. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong versions.

What I do see is Joel 3:2 in the NIV:

"I will gather all the nations and take them to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. I will enter into judgment with them there because of My people, My inheritance Israel. The nations have scattered the Israelites in foreign countries and divided up My land. "

I would find this a difficult passage to apply to anyone who supported Palistinian control of Gaza or peace with Palistine. While generally I am supportive of Israel as an ally of the U.S., and I do see the nation of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy, I would see Palistinian Christians as my brothers in Christ. Who do I back? Well, it is not a simple loyalty test, but let me examine each issue that needs to be discussed. In a sense I welcome Pat Robertson talking about this because many Christians have a single deminsioned veiw of the Middle East. That is that there is going to be final battle there called the battle of Armegeddon. In the mean time, people are living there and trying to pass on a state that is safe for their children. Yes, I mean both Palistinian and Israeli.

Words of the Year 2005 - A Year Filled Knowledge From The Heart

The American Dialect Society has posted their list of Words of the Year 2005. CNN had this story posted but the list of words posted on directly on the American Dialect Society website is more interesting. It would seem to me some of the words were chosen for ideological reasons rather than for pure linguistic reasons. Having said that, I would find it difficult to not make ideology a part of how you see the world to include the world of language. Humor is a powerful weapon and making fun of Bush is a powerful political weapon. The top word for 2005 truthiness seems to be a cut on Bush. I actually think the word of the year is a poor one because outside satirical comedy, where is it used. Perhaps it will catch on into common usage. I understand that Shakespeare forged many words that have come into common use.

I'm not sure why the ideas of Intelligent Designed are 'pushed' when they could be just 'supported' or perhaps 'persuasively expounded'.

The Reformation movement made extensive use of satirical comedy. My guess is that satirical comedy was one of the few ways a person could engage a subject during that time and get away with addressing certain issues. Christians should make use of humor again to shape ideas, minds and hearts. Oh by the way, subjective experience is not really way to justify public policy, it is an integral part of how we live life, make decisions, and become motivated to search for truth. Perhaps Bush should make movies and write plays that support his subjective opinions. (That is what most of Hollywood movies do with their ideology.) Or even better, Bush could make his own word list satirically criticizing his opponent's subjective ideology.

Do you know of any words from liberal ideology that should have been included?

Less subjective and more objective is Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year 2005. Based on online lookups, the Merriam-Webster Top 10 Words of the Year for 2005 were:

Thursday, January 05, 2006

MS Word or Blogging Software

I was listening to a debate about whether Google could actually be competing with Microsoft. Several geeks were saying that there was no way that Google is even coming close to putting Microsoft out of business. I don't think that is the point. I think the point is that there is now something that is sort of like a contender for the lead software company. But this line of thinking got me thinking about MS Word and whether there is more people writing on blogging software or on MS Word. My guess is that many people write more on blogging software (typepad, blogger, etc...) than on MS Word. I think I may being writing more via a blog than via MS Word. What about you?

Monday, January 02, 2006

USATODAY.com - Survey tracks 2005's most annoying phrases

USATODAY.com - Survey tracks 2005's most annoying phrases: "THE ANNOYING LIST

Words Lake Superior State has banished 'for mis-use, over-use and general uselessness':
Surreal
Hunker down
Person of interest
Community of learners
Up-or-down vote
Breaking news
Designer breed
FEMA
First-time caller
Pass the savings on to you!
97% fat-free
An accident that didn't have to happen
Junk science
Git-r-done
Dawg
Talking points
Holiday tree"




I thought this interesting, a list of annoying phrases from 2005. I'm not sure I'm as annoyed with the phrase "person of interest" as the folks at Lake Superior State are. I see it as sort of jargon for saying that police can not say an individual is a suspect, but they need to talk to that person anyway. Breaking news is sort of journalism jargon too. Perhaps that falls into Lake Superior State's category of over-used. And when every story is breaking news, then you have to distinguish it with "late breaking news" or some other distinguishing phrase. I thought putting FEMA on the list deviated from the criteria of a useless word instead says the agency itself was useless. Humor benifit yes. But on the other hand, if an agency changes leadership and works hard, when do they get to live down the reputation tarnish? Lastly I saw their "up or down vote" as more of a political statement rather than one that was linguistic. Or maybe I don't watch enough news. It seems funny to me that most of this comes from journalism rather than from everday speech. Which says something about how the list was compiled.

Please leave a comment tell us what word or phrase would you say is mis-used, over-used, or generally useless?

USATODAY.com - Survey tracks 2005's most annoying phrases

USATODAY.com - Survey tracks 2005's most annoying phrases: "THE ANNOYING LIST

Words Lake Superior State has banished 'for mis-use, over-use and general uselessness':
Surreal
Hunker down
Person of interest
Community of learners
Up-or-down vote
Breaking news
Designer breed
FEMA
First-time caller
Pass the savings on to you!
97% fat-free
An accident that didn't have to happen
Junk science
Git-r-done
Dawg
Talking points
Holiday tree"




I thought this interesting, a list of annoying phrases from 2005. I'm not sure I'm as annoyed with the phrase "person of interest" as the folks at Lake Superior State are. I see it as sort of jargon for saying that police can not say an individual is a suspect, but they need to talk to that person anyway. Breaking news is sort of journalism jargon too. Perhaps that falls into Lake Superior State's category of over-used. And when every story is breaking news, then you have to distinguish it with "late breaking news" or some other distinguishing phrase. I thought putting FEMA on the list deviated from the criteria of a useless word instead says the agency itself was useless. Humor benifit yes. But on the other hand, if an agency changes leadership and works hard, when do they get to live down the reputation tarnish? Lastly I saw their "up or down vote" as more of a political statement rather than one that was linguistic. Or maybe I don't watch enough news. It seems funny to me that most of this comes from journalism rather than from everday speech. Which says something about how the list was compiled.

Please leave a comment tell us what word or phrase would you say is mis-used, over-used, or generally useless?

Sunday, January 01, 2006

The Holy Spirit: A Comprehensive Study of the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit by John F. Walvoord.

The image “http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:sJaUf81QdhUJ:images.bestwebbuys.com/muze/books/16/0310340616.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

I recently read John Walvoord's book on The Holy Spirit. While I read it as required reading for a seminary class I'm taking, I found it very edifying and dealt with some topics that I really was not expecting. It would be my guess that the author wrote the book in response to Pentecostal teaching on the Holy Spirit, but it is more than a reaction. The book si a solid theological work explaining the Holy Spirit. When Walvoord is sometimes reacting to Pentecostal teaching on the Holy Spirit, instead of explaining how he came to his view, he occasionally gives in to the temptation of merely saying it is well established from a study of Scripture that his view is what is taught. While most of his fellow Dispensationalists would need little more than that, perhaps a few Charismatics and Pentecostals like to read his arguments against their teaching. Despite this weakness, the books strength is that he does not have an ax to grind against Pentecostal teaching and spends most of his time actually on the teaching of Scripture.

COMMON GRACE
Walvoord has a section on common grace and the Holy Spirit. In it he explains how the Holy Spirit is at work in the world preventing sin from being worse than it is. It is important to Dispensational thinking that during the Great Tribulation, the Holy Spirit will no longer stop sin in the same way that He does now. Being more covenantal in my theology, I still found it helpful to understand how the Holy Spirit is at work and benefits those who are not believes by restraining evil.

ONE BAPTISM; MANY FILLINGS
I read a book on the Holy Spirit by Billy Graham years ago. One of the main things I remember from that book was all Christians receive the Holy Spirit at conversion but as they walk with Christ, there are many times they may be filled with the Spirit. Walvoord does an excellent job discussing the differences between the Spirit's work in regeneration of the believer, the baptism of the Spirit, the indwelling of the Spirit, the sealing of the Spirit and the filling of the Spirit. According to some Pentecostal teaching, these can be different experiences which of course means more trips to the alter to take their Christian experience to the next level. His section on conditions for filling of the Holy Spirit held to a simple but helpful outline.

1.Quench not the Spirit – 1 Thess 5:19
2.Grieve not the Spirit – Ephesians 4:30
3.Walk by the Spirit – Galatians 5:16


The phrase “quench the Spirit” Walvoord says means to be unyielded to Him, to not be willing to do His revealed will. By “grieve the Spirit” the meaning is sin. And “walking by the Spirit” means continual experience of acting with the power and presence of the Holy Spirit.

HISTORY
Walvoord has in chapter 26 a history of the doctrines associated with the Holy Spirit. This provided a way to understand what the church has taught through the ages. While I did not particularly enjoy the section on modern liberal teaching and neo-orthodox teaching, it was good for me to read their views. The edition of the book I have is quite old, printed in 1973. I looked on Google Book Search to ensure I had all the sections, and it appears that I do. What seemed to be missing in the history section was Pentecostal doctrinal development. He did deal with this in his development of other topics, but still, it would be fitting to discuss the major thinkers and schools of thought in Pentecostal circles.

CONCLUSION
I highly recommend this book to other, I found it edifying and informative. In an age where the understanding of the Holy Spirit has caused much division, this is a work worth your time to read. This book does not solve all problems, but it does focus on many more issues than the Charismatic, Pentecostal, and Vineyard Movement controversies. I am of the opinion that it is often more helpful to discuss other topics than the point of controversy in order to get context for the subject in a more global perspective. This book definitely does that.

Citizen Magazine - Cover Story - Pajama Warriors

Two friends of mine, the Jollyblogger and Reasoned Audacity were cited in Citizen Magazine. Kudos!




Citizen Magazine - Cover Story - Pajama Warriors: "Charmaine Yoest, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, actually picked her church in the Washington, D.C., area on the strength of a pastor’s blog—David Wayne, aka Jolly Blogger (http://jollyblogger.typepad.com)—with whom she found she had much philosophical agreement. Yoest herself drives some significant cyber-traffic at Reasoned Audacity (www.yoest.com)—“Daily commentary on public policy and culture.”"