Linkathon 10/24, part 1

You may also like...

77 Responses

  1. Lutheran says:


    Where do you come up with all the Reformed spokespeople? I feel so out of it — I’ve never heard of any of them. Nice work.

  2. Surprising how little interest I have in this crowd… that is the majority crowd these articles cover.

  3. Josh Hamrick says:

    #9 is well worth the time. I think he is dead on, as I’ve stated before.
    #1-6 – Rachel has done what every Christian author wants to do…created controversial about her new book. Its the Rob Bell method, and she has played it well. I think the idea for the book itself is kinda silly, but so are 96% of all Christian books.

  4. Another Voice says:

    Josh, I am willing to go part of the way on Franklin’s influence in the name of Billy, and if Billy is not in his right mind I think that is a tragedy. However, I know a lot of people in their 90s that are sharp as anything too.

    That article is not exactly accurate in saying that since Nixon days Billy has stayed out of the political spotlight. I read Decision for years, throughout the 90s and early 00s and the idea that he would say to vote for those who protect the unborn is hardly new. The idea that he was basically silent on homosexuality is a total joke – and he has never shied away from being arm and arm with Republicans like George W. Bush, whom he met with before the 2000 election vote (though he knew Bush already), and McCain whom he met with in 2008 during the campaign (though he knew McCain already). To my knowledge he did not meet with Kerry or Obama before their elections (though he has met with Obama two years ago as President).

    Even if Billy Graham did not revert back to his Nixonian days, if he was younger, is there any doubt at all who he would be supporting in this election?

    That’s my take as a guy who has followed politics and Graham for quite awhile. FWIW

  5. Josh Hamrick says:

    Billy Graham has prayed with every president since Nixon. Obama did stop by for a photo-op on his first campaign, but I don’t see why that would matter.

    I can’t imagine Billy Graham throwing his support behind either of these candidates, just as he never urged this much support for the Bush’s, who were apparently close friends.

    Billy Graham is not well. There is a reason that he isn’t filmed saying any of these things. Franklin is in control of all of this, so even if his dad is making these statements, he should know better than publicize them. This is not the first time this has happened since Billy fell ill. We”ll see more and more of this until the day Billy dies.

  6. Another Voice says:

    Two thoughts on Gonzaga’s article

    1) It is amazing how influential homosexuality is these days as some sort of litmus test – even from guys who still claim “the Bible is revelation from God”

    2) It is amazing how many people claim love for Jesus while condemning, judging, and basically despising His bride.

  7. Kevin H says:

    Not a lot of activity here yet, but certainly another great Linkathon. Thanks Brian D!

    Although I don’t know a ton about him, I know I certainly would have my differences with Pete Enns. However, I do appreciate his tone and approach in #7.

    As for the Fred Clark article at #9, he seems to have a lot of reasonable speculation. However, it is still speculation and it’s hard to know for sure how much of Billy Graham’s recent apparent political activism is really his own choice and how much of it is Franklin’s doing.

  8. Another Voice says:

    Josh, Obama did not meet Graham until 2010. Graham actually goes further back than Nixon with the Presidents, but it was with Nixon that he really got overly involved, and to which he regretted.

    My problem with that article seems to be equating the Civil Rights issues of the 60s with gay marriage today.

    “Now, all of a sudden, we are being asked to believe that what Billy Graham really regrets was that he wasn’t more actively opposed to civil rights, and that he wasn’t more directly involved as a power-player in partisan power-politics.”

    Meeting with Romney does not equate to his old Nixonian days, and the civil rights comment is just flat out wrong.

    YOU could have written a better article. Your points are solid, and as I said above, I think it is wrong the way Franklin is doing things. Billy does not need to have a press conference or something, but there should be more public presentation before speaking in his name.

  9. Kevin H says:

    Wanted to add a lnik. Here’s a thoughtful article arguing that in order to have a successful democracy, we need to act civilly with each other when it comes to politics. Certainly appropriate to our country and to us as Christians, especially in this current election season.

  10. Josh Hamrick says:

    Listen, I work a mile away from BG headquarters. From all that anyone is saying, Billy Graham would not be capable of holding a press-conference. The Press-releases with old photos of Billy need to stop. He is a sick old man who should be remembered as he lived his life. Not, what his son did while he was on his death bed.

    I thought the meeting with Obama had happened, but google shows you are right. Obama and Billy planned on getting together in 2008, but Billy had to cancel. I remembered the news reports with Obama showing up in Asheville at the Grove Park Inn, and I guess I didn’t remember correctly.

    I, of course, agree with your take on homosexuality / civil rights.

  11. Josh Hamrick says:

    On the Gonzaga article #16.

    Wow. Pure Crap. I’m sorry for the guy, that he had this crisis of faith, but the reasons? Who would want a judgmental jerk like that as a pastor, anyway? I particularly like this one:

    “It continued as I had time to reflect on the role of unassailable ignorance, group-think, self-deception, and double-speak within Christianity.”

    Get over yourself Gnozaga. You are no better than the rest of us.

  12. Oh No says:

    Franklin is making a mockery out of Billy’s legacy! Fred Clark is spot on!!!! Franklin is wanting to create an amusement park in North Carolina. Money cow, money cow, money cow! Remember, Franklin is the same man who helped throw Pete out so Skip could regain his kingdom. He is his dad’s mouth piece. What a shame! Our should I say sham.

  13. Josh Hamrick says:

    @13 – Yeah, that’s gross. Don’t think that will be catching on.

  14. Xenia says:

    Regarding Mrs. Evans….

    I think I could set up a blog where I begin to subtly criticize Eastern Orthodoxy in a way that causes resentful, discontented women to rally ’round and as I gained a following, I could become bolder and bolder in my criticisms.

    I could join forces with other blog owners critical of the role of women in Orthodoxy and we could form a coalition of sorts and I would thereby gain even more fans. When I felt the number of supporters (and detractors) had reached a critical mass I could launch a silly experiment which I could call “A Year of Living Like and Orthodox Christian.” I would be sure to cherry pick all the obscure feats of asceticism ever practiced at monasteries over the past 2000 years and would ignore examples of pious, non-monastic Christian women.

    This book would gently (but not really so gentle after all) mock my faith but in such a jolly, cheerful way that no one would feel too bad about reading it even though the faith is being denigrated. Then, blog owners would begin debating the merits of my book and of course, my faithful blog fans would buy copies (and extra copies for Christmas presents!) and I would be rich and famous. But at what cost to my soul?

    I will stick to blogging about chickens and tomatoes.

  15. Xenia says:

    I have sworn off political discussions, by the way, maybe now and forever unto the ages of ages, amen. I pray for the current president and his wife and if the other guy wins, I’ll pray for his salvation. That’s the best I can do. I am at such a low degree of holiness that I cannot discuss this subject dispassionately.

  16. Em says:

    BTW – Xenia has a wonderful blog site … i seldom to never cruise the internet blog sites, but would pick Xenia over Rachel Evans every time (sorry BrianD and others) … and, for the record, i love fundamentalists and evangelicals and i hate lumping labels used on people – manipulative sociology is one of the world’s ills … IMHO

    this is not a good day for me to post comments – my head is spinning with umbrages

  17. Xenia says:

    Em, thanks! But I haven’t written anything since the Massacre of July.

    I guess I can now tell the terrible tale. I’ll do it this afternoon.

  18. Em says:

    ” I am at such a low degree of holiness that I cannot discuss this subject dispassionately.” uh oh …
    that’s where i seem to be on a lot of subjects – we try to cram under the umbrella of our Faith so much that is the work of the kingdoms of this world and its sorrowful results, i.e., #s 9, 10, 16 and others i haven’t yet read today

  19. As to the Richardsons in Pilgrim’s #15 about Harvest and James MacDonald – my goodness, you left the church back in 2006 – get over it.

  20. WenatcheeTheHatchet says:

    The Sargent article looks like a reprint of an article appeared in two different online publications in the wake of the Andrew story.

  21. Another Voice says:

    Rob, for well over a decade I have read the abortion activists argue for what that article is discussing – namely that if a woman was surprised at birth by a medical condition that would have led her to abort if known earlier, she should still have that right. If Slate is talking about it now, it just means it is getting even more mainstream discussion – and I am not surprised.

    Just google or youtube Barbara Boxer’s debate with Rick Santorum over partial birth abortion from over 13 years ago, and see the tortured efforts she makes to refuse personhood (and life protection) for babies in the womb.

    (I write that knowing there is at least one partisan on this board who openly mocks Santorum at every turn, will probably do so now (thus missing the point) – but the man was the strongest advocate for the unborn in the womb I personally ever saw in the Senate, and I appreciate his efforts against the likes of the Barbara Boxers of this world – no matter his positions on any other issue)

    Folks. We are a nation that FORBID medical care to babies that survived a botched abortion, requiring the nurses to sit by and watch them slowly die. I don’t care if it was RARE – a lot of atrocities are RARE. The point is that this was our law – the fruit of Roe v Wade and even this law, later passed by unanimous consent once Bush became President, was blocked when Bill Clinton was President.

  22. Another Voice says:

    The relevance of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act is that before the law, it did not matter that a baby, with a heartbeat, was entirely separated from the mother – what mattered is the choice to have an abortion. That baby had no rights, because it was meant to be aborted.

    It is a very small step to see the connection to a woman not wanting to have a baby with major medical issues, that declares “I would have aborted if I had known this would happen”

    All the more so when the medical tab is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars expected, and all the more so as we see rationing of medical care in the years to come by an alliance of insurance companies and our government.

  23. I cannot get my mind around the fact that BGEA cleaned its website for partisan political reasons. Something has turned the world upside down. Mormonism is a whole other religion than Christianity and because it uses christianese it deserves the moniker ‘cult.’ It clearly intends to deceive as a means of converting.

  24. Reuben says:

    On Rachel Held Evans…

    I have read many an article. I have followed her blog. I watched the youtube updates. I understand the premise of the book, but I have not read it. I don’t plan to, because, well, it’s a girl book, and cooking kosher food, or making your own clothes, simply is not my thing to sit and read about.

    However, I understand where she is coming from. She was instrumental in helping me move past a strong doctrinal position I held for most of my life, and have since thrown it out. Complimentarianism.

    I do not believe that man and wife is a hierarchy. One of the most profound statements of Scripture is that a man ought to love his wife as Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself up for Her.

    Had I understood this years ago, I would have saved my wife years of pain and frustration. As it stood back then, my wife was to submit to my will, and follow me blindly into anything.

    CC has always been big on “Biblical Womanhood” in the sense that the woman needs to get well behind the man.

    Rachel’s motivation in writing this book was to explore the futility of actually accomplishing such Biblical Womanhood by defining it, and attempting to put it into practice. She wanted to point out the fact that these women’s conferences, and doctrines preached, targeted at teaching them to get behind their man, are based on cultural traditions long since gone.

    I have known Rachel to be doubtful of Biblical literalism, and questioning things that I probably would not. However, I respect her as a leading voice in a common perspective among evangelical women.

    Like Rick Warren, who has a church of a few zillion, people will create her notoriety, based on nothing factual, simply that she drew a lot of controversial attention. Like Rick Warren, she wrote a book, and it will be picked to pieces, extrapolating things that were not there, or never intended.

    Minutes after her book was read by some profoundly fundigelical soul of the female persuasion over at the Piper church of perfection in doctrine, proceeded to write an article that all but said Rachel hates the Bible. Just like what happened to Rick Warren. Rachel had a response on her blog in a matter of hours, basically explaining to a whole mess of new attention, who had never read her blog before, that she loves the Bible.

    I don’t jump to conclusions like that anymore. At least I try to avoid doing that.

    I love different perspectives. They keep me from becoming “inbred”. I will have to explain that, as someone will take offense. If all I ever hear is one perspective, I become brilliant in that perspective, but stupid in others. I am not challenged if all I ever read or associate with is likeminded people.

  25. I have ordained women for many years and believe in full egalitarianism for ministry so Rachael just needs to hang with those who love her.

  26. Another Voice says:

    I understand the term chauvinism – and recognize a lot of bad teaching in the Church that would fit that label.

    I confess to a confusion over the complimentarianism and egalitarianism labels. I also confess confusion in this regard when I observe the rest of the world, outside the Christian community.

    Maybe I need to read some R.H.E.

  27. Egalitarians allow women to serve fully as pastors and teachers…
    Complementarian teach that woman are equal to men but cannot serve the same functions as men in matters concerning spiritual leadership and positional leadership in the church. They say men and women complement one another.

    Of course I enjoy the complementary aspects as well…thank you very much.

  28. Paul A. Lytton says:

    Rob M @ #13, “Interesting Link. New plan”?

    God, save us from ourselves.

    These are very close to the days of Noah, must we wait until there is only one Noah left?

    Jesus, return soon; PLEASE.

  29. Reuben says:

    The debate spans well beyond that. Part of the problem is what “Complimentarianism” taught the young women of Mars Hill. The roll of the woman is to make babies, cook food, look pretty, tend to the man’s sexual needs, and serve at all costs the reputation of her man. It gets worse than that, depending on the celebrity teacher you listen to, but Mark Driscoll is by far the loudest voice.

  30. Another Voice says:

    Dread – I hear you – but it seems a lot of the debate out there is not just focused on whether a woman can pastor.

    We have a woman on our Board – and she is a great asset. However, we do not have any women pastors, nor will we.

    So what label do I get? 🙂

  31. Another Voice says:

    What Reuben writes is more of what I hear described as complimentarianism by those critical of the term. I would describe those views as more properly, chauvinism.

  32. Reuben says:

    Mark Driscoll is chauvinistic, edging on misogynistic in every regard, but spiritualizes it with the term “Complimentarianism” as a means to historically/biblically justify his position, which, in my view, still does not work.

  33. Another Voice says:

    Agreed Reuben. That’s the thing about terms. Talk to someone about the ‘resurrection’ and it is essenitial to know what THEY mean by the term.

    Like I said above, based on the definitions of others, I’m not sure any label fits my view.

  34. brian says:

    I get confused Franklin Graham is doing exactly what an upper middle management with in the company should do and power play past the boss when the boss is sick. That takes guts and selfish / less dedication and it is effective. Granted it is shallow and rather pathetic in a way, which is totally irrelevant in the extreme.

    Mark Driscoll is wrong about alot of things, it always bothered me concerning how his book spoke about private things about him and his wife. I think it was wrong to put your wife in that type of situation. Of course Im a spiritual whore and would not understand a man of such renowned.

  35. BrianD says:

    MLD, some people take years to get over bad church experiences. And it’s not wrong to point out when something is off base.

  36. All I know is that when the ELCA laid the groundwork to ordain women – the first thing they did was start to deny scripture – Not scripture about the role of women, but others, to give them a different view. Once they convinced themselves that those other scriptures had “flexibility” then they came along with the role of women verses and said “well, we can be flexible on those also.”

    20 years later, they used the exact same technique to ordain homosexuals. This stuff doesn’t just happen – it takes work on the part of those who… well, I am just too nice to say.

  37. BrianD says:

    As best I can tell, Rachel wrote her book for her own reasons having nothing to do with taking it to the truly Reformed, who are acting as if she was.

    She poses a threat to them that, say, a Joyce Meyer does not. Therefore, they’re putting on a full on assault.

  38. BrianD,
    You are more sympathetic than I. They were in the Harvest system less than 10 yrs and have been moaning and groaning for 6.

    18 months of having continuous nightmares?? Give me a break – they need to grow up and move on.

  39. BrianD says:

    Dread, 2:44, Im sure she’s doing that.

    What you’re dealing with is a group of Christians seeking to redefine evangelicalism and true orthodoxy according to their specific theological grid. Anyone who poses a threat to them must be stopped, not ignored.

  40. BrianD says:

    MLD, I agree on the need to move on at some point, in some fashion. But you are right, I am sympathetic.

  41. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    “Egalitarians allow women to serve fully as pastors and teachers”

    The only important thing is does the Bible support this position?

    I believe the answer is No regardless if Rachel Held Evans or anyone lese has a problem with it

  42. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    The truth of the Bible will always stand the test of time no matter how many people want to jump on the latest Christian trends. Rachel Evans can try to chnage what the Bibile really means but true brethren will hear HIS voice. I don’t care that the Culture has changed God doesn’t and The Bible clearly does not allow a Woman to teach over a Man.

  43. PP Vet says:

    Problem is that as we all know the Bible appears to speak out of both sides of its mouth on the issue of the role of women. Women are referenced as being in leadership positions, etc. It is simply not a winnable debate for either side!

    The only solution is to view the New Testament as having only one inviolable law: the law of love, expressed in edifying behavior.

  44. Another Voice says:

    I disagree with PP Vet. I do not believe the Bible contradicts itself (or teaches two mutually exclusive things) on any issue.

    Being the teaching pastor is not the only leadership or “gift-exercising” ministry in the local church.

    Have to run….

  45. Reuben says:

    9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,
    10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
    11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
    12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
    14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
    15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

    So we see here that not only can a woman not teach a man, but they are saved by giving birth, dressing boring, no jewelry, having straight hair, and shutting up.

    In which case, even Mark Driscoll fails on a few points…


    Paul was addressing a specific church to resolve a specific problem, in a specific historical context.

    So, in a sense, PP Vet is correct. I don’t think the scriptures contradict themselves, they express specifics to specifics, and we try to place ourselves in that context, and extrapolate a meaning. there is a wee bit of danger in doing that. The letter was written to Timothy. Not SolRod.

    I am rapidly changing in this regard, so I am not arguing a position I am even 100% on. However, there is a broader argument at hand here, that of historical context. Those traditions changed even in Biblical times. The scriptures do not contradict, they merely report. The assumption is that we understand the historical context to at least some degree before we start locking our wives up in a shed once a month.

  46. Xenia says:

    So we see here that not only can a woman not teach a man, but they are saved by giving birth, dressing boring, no jewelry, having straight hair, and shutting up.<<<

    Sure, why not? These are all part of putting off the things of the world and denying oneself and if salvation is a journey, these things can be a part of it.

    Salvation by childbirth, my take:

    In biblical times, many women died from childbirth. My own great grandmother died in childbirth. Every time a woman realized she was pregnant she was filled with joy and dread: could this be the one that kills her? Death is mankind's enemy anyway. But the Lord came and defeated death so even if the woman died in childbirth (as very very many of them did) they would be saved because if they trusted the Savior, they had eternal life.

  47. Xenia says:

    Orthodox churches have a room in them that women are not even permitted to enter. In fact, men have to vacuum. (The altar area.)

    On the other hand, the greatest Christian that has ever lived, the Theotokos, is a woman.

    There’s something for everybody.

  48. Xenia says:

    To clarify my # 48, married women of child-bearing age had more reason to fear death than anyone else in the culture, except possibly a soldier during time of war. No contraceptives so she was pregnant maybe a dozen times if she lived long enough and each pregnancy was a potential killer.

  49. Lutheran churches also have a room that women aren’t allowed to enter – the men’s restroom. 🙂

  50. I think the biggest enemy to the scriptures is when someone says “this can’t be right.”

  51. Paul A. Lytton says:

    MLD, Re your #38: – ..” This stuff doesn’t just happen – it takes work on the part of those who… well, I am just too nice to say.”

    I wish you would have gone ahead and said it. By not doing so, you suckered me into thinking of my own embarassing conclusion.

    Thankx 🙁

  52. Reuben says:

    MLD, with all due respect, I am not saying “this can’t be right”. I am saying you are quite possibly reading it wrong, or you are picking and choosing what to accept from it whilst holding to a literalist position. Does your wife wear makeup, jewelry, nice clothes, and speak in church? Did she ever braid her hair? If so, I could easily say the same of you, that you claim, “this can’t be right”

    At least Xenia affirms it as valid today. She may even live by it. I can respect that. I am saying that Paul wrote Timothy, regarding his church, and Paul told Timothy to shut the women up. Do you say so as well? If so, great. If not, then we have to define what you mean by “this can’t be right”.

    I don’t reject any portion of scripture. I reject dogmatic interpretations of it.

  53. Reuben,
    I didn’t reference any verse. I agree with you that Paul was addressing his comments to a particular church.

    But I think that scripture itself speaks loudly to the fact that women were not pastors of churches. We do not see a single woman being “called” to pastor a church.

    Now, if you see women in the New Testament teaching, you must assume that it is descriptive of what was happening (perhaps no men willing to belly up to the bar) but you never see women in the pastorate as prescriptive.

  54. Reuben says:

    I don’t buy that argument. There are a lot of things we don’t see in scripture. There are a lot of things we do. Like picking up serpents. Drinking poison. Preaching to foreigners in an unknown tongue. That argument does not work for me. Thats all.

  55. “Like picking up serpents. Drinking poison. Preaching to foreigners in an unknown tongue”

    You may do those things – I don’t because I see no biblical mandate to do so..

  56. Xenia says:

    What to apply literally and what not to apply literally…

    This is where a robust Tradition is very useful.

  57. Reuben says:

    Mark 16:18

    Are you not a disciple?

    Now I am just poking at you.

  58. Reuben says:

    Back to whiskey and baseball.

  59. Xenia says:

    Well the Giants have three home runs so far, all hit by the same man!

  60. Em says:

    i’m glad posted her thoughts on this Driscoll tangent … been thinking the same things all afternoon (sans Orthodoxy) …

    Driscoll’s approach is, on the other hand, an artificial and distorted attempt to both roll with the times and force mold the Biblical male and female roles to accommodate it … another example of exploitation of leadership redounding to harm of all

    we wail and lament the results of sin more vigorously than we protest it in the first place and that thought would require a whole book to explain …

  61. Em says:

    i’m glad XENIA posted her thoughts … sorry ’bout that

  62. Reuben says:

    Wait, Xenia is watching baseball?

  63. Xenia says:

    Not exactly. I keep hearing shouts of hysterical joy coming from my husband who is watching TV in the other room.

  64. says:

    Someone was shot and murdered at Creflo Dollar’s church:

  65. PP Vet says:

    Since AV challenged my statement that the Bible appears to contradict itself, I need to make my position on this issue starkly clear:

    The Bible contradicts itself. The Bible does not contradict itself.

  66. FWIW – for some conscientiously confused the Bible appears to contradict itself – it contains conundrums and situational practicums that patient, respectful persistence leads to logical and enlightening gains in spiritual altitude and coping skills – or so it seems from here

    God keep all close, comforted and confident tonight

  67. brian says:

    My stand point from the cheap seats, of course the Bible contradicts itself because it was written by people, though I think it was / is inspired by God it is written by people and it does contradict itself. I never quite got why that is such a big deal, in my view it does not diminish the value, inspiration or truth of the Bible, in fact in supports it. We are broken people so the bible shows us our brokenness. If that makes any sense.

  68. Another Voice says:

    One difficulty in applying the law of noncontradiction is ambiguity in the propositions. For instance, if time is not explicitly specified as part of the propositions A and B, then A may be B at one time, and not at another. A and B may in some cases be made to sound mutually exclusive linguistically even though A may be partly B and partly not B at the same time. However, it is impossible to predicate of the same thing, at the same time, and in the same sense, the absence and the presence of the same fixed quality.
    The above is from wiki…works for me.

    The Bible does not violate the law of noncontradiction. If it did I would be hitting on cocktail waitresses while drinking at a blackjack table at this very moment.

    I say that because I would not accept a thing you or anyone else said was true about Jesus, if the only book I can read about Him accurately actually could not be trusted.

  69. AV … for the record I would have to tag you a complementarian

    Solomon… as per the Bible and women pastors… I am not sure the Bible would have us free the slaves either…. But those of us who ordain women into ministry believe the Holy Spirit has done this… peace to you….

  70. Josh Hamrick says:

    Yeah, complimentarian can mean anything from “Women can do anything except lead pastor” to “we hate women”.

  71. i’m going to throw down a gauntlet of sorts … if you do not have the information contained in the link at #14, if you are not aware of what William Jennings Bryan was actually defending at the “Monkey Trial,” then you have a gaping hole in any claim you make to knowing history and how the evolution debate has been orchestrated by egos (
    on both sides perhaps – the devil’s playground: men’s egos )

  72. p.s. the ‘men’ in my #73 is not gender specific, rather ‘mankind’ in general, which is also not gender specific

  73. The funny thing about the Scopes trial is that most people today assume that Scopes won and that Bryan was proved to be some religious fanatic – a case of revisionist history.

    Scopes lost.

  74. Josh Hamrick says:

    The idea that Bryan was arguing against eugenics, but not evolution, seems to bit a bit revisionist, As does the idea that Scopes was just a stand in for this set-up trial.

    None of Bryan’s biographers have remembered it that way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Phoenix Preacher

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading