shadows and substance

Remember this?

The old intro to the Twilight Zone talks about moving into a ‘land of shadow and substance’. It seems to me a perfect metaphor for the current state of affairs on the fundamentalist scene.

On the one hand, you have fellows making strong separatist statements, but at the same time these same fellows confuse us with appearances at non-fundamentalist venues and vague justifications of the same.

What are we to make of all this? Which is the shadow? Which the substance?

What will the new reality be? Hard to say… you have just entered the Twilight Zone.



  1. These kinds of inconsistencies abound. Don, could you elaborate on what’s different between Mohler at the Billy Graham Crusade and Priest at this SBC function?

  2. Hi Kent

    There are certainly differences between the two events. The thing that mystifies me is that Priest is quite willing to hold Mohler and Southern up to public rebuke via SI, yet sees no inconsistency or problem (apparently) with involving himself to some extent in the ministry of Southern via the Andrew Fuller conference. It would seem to me that if such public rebuke is warranted that it would be inconsistent to then blithely go on in partnership with a ministry you strongly rebuke.

    But maybe that’s just me.

    It also seems weird to me that Southern would tolerate someone like Priest in partnership with them when he is so openly critical of them. But maybe that’s an evangelical for you…

    Anyway, when I first saw the SI thread, the sounds of the Twilight Zone theme started running in my head. Maybe I’m the one who is in the alternate dimension though. A lot of people think so.

    Don Johnson
    Jer 33.3

  3. Dan Greenfield says:

    Don, why don’t you just ask Dr. Priest? Maybe you would get some answers to your questions. As he is the one who made the post on SI and agreed to speak at the event, he’s probably got an answer for you.

  4. Hi Dan

    Yes, I could ask him. Or, alternatively, he could simply explain for himself. It is unlikely that he is unaware of my questions, since Dave D has commented on my earlier post. He is welcome to explain himself here if he likes. Or he could offer his explanation of himself on his thread at SI. Whatever.

    The whole thread at SI seems increasingly bizarre to me. I am not sure what the purpose was in posting the letters, especially since Dr Priest has no compunctions (apparently) about being in partnership with Southern to some extent…

    More brilliant minds than mine surely have answers, but I am still lost in another dimension.

    Don Johnson
    Jer 33.3