Phallic evangelism? How low can we go?

I recently saw an article on Worldview Weekend about a group that calls themselves XXXchurch. They claim to be going around trying to get people to stop looking at pornography. The trouble is that their emblem is a phallic symbol called "Wally the Wiener." This symbol adorns their web pages. They even have a 25-foot tall inflatable Wally that they use at conventions, fairs, and so on. They are aware that Worldview Weekend criticizes them, and they seem to pooh-pooh the criticism.

Now I am not an unqualified fan of Worldview Weekend. I am not sure that I agree with them on their evaluation of the emerging church, for example. But this time, I am with them wholeheartedly. It is ridiculous and inconsistent to use a pornographic image to tell people not to look at pornography. That might be an admirable goal, but I agree with the Worldview Weekend writer that it is getting the cart before the horse. We need to bring people to Christ first. Then the Holy Spirit will convict them of their need to honor Christ by holy living.

Even Integrity, Inc. with their so-called "gay saint" Aelred (whose memory they dishonor) did not stoop to this level.

Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us!!!

Free at Last

Finally, I am as caught up as I can be with the Scottish Society work. I have the deposits made, the new membership data entered, and the recent address changes merged into the membership reccords. I still need to find the membership cards and do a few final clarifications, but I have done as much as I can without more information.

Maybe now I'll have time to start straightening the house, sorting through some piles, and finding other things that I need to live a more normal life. I recently found my Celtic Daily Prayer book, only to have lost it again.

Pay for sins versus take our place?

This morning while visiting a church, I heard something interesting in a Sunday School class that bears on struggles I am currently having over the concept of the atonement. The teacher said that he believed that Christ paid for the sin of everyone, but only took the place of those who believe on him. When I questioned him on what he meant, he said that he meant that the atonement is effecatious only for those who believe. I do not think that he really understood what he had said, or at least how it had come across to me.

If I take what he said literally, there is a difference between Christ paying for sins and Christ taking one's place. That could speak to the nature of the atonement: Christus Victor or penal substitution.