Friday, September 19, 2014

Open letter on Doug Green

I'd like to briefly comment on this open letter:
The fact that former members of the WTS administration like Barker and Logan signed it might be impressive to some readers. 

But I think it's a reminder that they were in charge when the WTS OT dept. was liberalizing, and they did nothing to counter that trend. They were complicit in the very situation which the current administration is attempting to redress. They were part of the problem rather than the solution.

BTW, I can't helping thinking that Logan's lament about the current direction of WTS is related to his liberal politics and his homosexual son. Consider what he said on Facebook a while back. Consider his obsequious exchange with his dictatorial son (who apparently came out of the closet at some point in the past).

There's a logical connection between theology and ideology. People who are theologically conservative are usually politically conservative. People who are politically liberal are usually theologically liberal. 

Logan also seems to lack the necessary firmness of character to redress the straying OT dept. at WTS


I think this is worth considering, especially the parts about all the damage that heterosexuals have done to the institution of marriage. And if you really want to know where THAT damage began, take a look at John Milton's, THE DOCTRINE AND DISCIPLINE OF DIVORCE, written in 1643 (at the very time the Westminster Assembly was meeting).

  • Boz Tchividjian likes this.
  • Talbot Logan To reduce the legal issue to "access to basic rights" I think it not an accurate nor fair summation. There are currently in excess of 1000 Federal benefits that are denied to same sex couples including Social Security survivor benefits, the right to inherit from a spouse, mandated family medical leave, partner immigration protection, tax on health benefits etc. Federal benefits are even more important for military personnel and government employees whose same-sex spouses are not accorded the same benefits. That is why this is an important issue.
  • Talbot Logan There is not a call to ask any religious institution to change their views or their definitions of their tenets. But unfortunately, the government has already redefined marriage by offering specific protections under the law and it is that "meaning" that needs to change. And as a gay may, I deny the author's denial that "changing the meaning of the word will improve the acceptance of gays in society". Many social injustices have been corrected by taking words and phrases that have been exclusionary and even hateful and redefining and/or eliminating. I deny that the author, since he is not a gay man, can even understand that what I don't want is access to basic social “rights.” I want to be treated with the same dignity and respect and protection as every American. That I believe is a God-given and inalienable right and supports the greatest commandment of "love thy neighbor as thyself". Far from "basic".
  • Sam Logan Very good clarifications, my son. THANK YOU! I agree with you that what our government has done is "unfortunate." I agree that this needs to change and I support that change in every way that I can. I agree that, no matter what they think about gay marriage, evangelical Christians (starting with your father) need to be much more aggressive and creative in "loving ALL of our neighbors" as ourselves. We/I have done a terrible job at that, not just with respect to gays but also with respect to the poor, to those of different races, AND to those of different religions (including Muslims, who probably are more discriminated against in our society than any other single group). And, as you will have note in my comments about this piece, I think its strongest point is what it says about how the greatest damage to the institution of marriage has been done by heterosexuals. So THANK YOU for your corrections and clarifications!


  1. Two interesting things about this. First, Logan is on the WRF board and serves as its international director. Second, many of the names on the list are the same names as those who supported Enns. No surprise there. Note especially the former board members, each of whom left the board in 2008. I wonder what happened around that time. Doesn't instill confidence in their powers of discernment.

  2. It sounds like Sam Logan may be taking his parenting advice from the House of Eli - i.e. how Eli raised Hophni and Phinehas.

  3. This makes me think of the whole Stellman episode. A political liberal who for a time used 2K theology as a shield from criticism. But who needs to resort to that sort of machination when Rome warmly welcomes Marxism and socialism...indeed it is an incubator, like a nice warm bacterial culture for both toxic strains of theological as well as political liberalism.