Key word searches

So while I await the mental energy to continue my series on redemption, lets me be a good model internet citizen and look at what people are asking on search engines that bring them to my blog

sentences defining revelation

Not sure what they are looking for, so I'll address Revelation the book and the definition of revelation
Book of revelation:
There is not pre-tribulation rapture (or mid, or post really)
The beast and false prophet and Satan get beat
God wins
Everything is great
The end!

Definition of revelation - Knowledge we obtain that we are incapable of obtaining on our own because we are too incredibly dense to get it ourselves on our own (or too totally depraved and blinded as my Reformed friends will)

augustine most influential western theologian

Yes. And I cry every night and ask God to forgive Augustine for his errors and the problems he created....

calvinism weak

Amen brother! Or sister if it is one of the female persuasion, and if it was a girl, I would like to get your number because you clearly fit the standard for Biblical dating (see A Biblical Guide to Dating for more great wisdom)

And hey, this goes good with the Augustine search

how many laws did the Israelites have to follow under Moses

Depends. First off, is all of Genesis-Deuteronomy genuine material dating from the time of Exodus, or did some other sources and traditions not based upon the Exodus get into the picture? If all of it is genuine, it is 613 at least. If it isn't genuine it gets more complicated. Then we must ask did Moses even truly exist? And if not, the answer is simple, zero. But if so then we have to ask, did ever single law that Moses give get recorded? If so, then it is at most 613. However, if not, it could be even thousands on them, which falls just a couple millions short of my very conservative fundamentalist friends... And they would hate 90% of what I just wrote (before y'all call me a child of the Beelzebub, do not worry, I think it is all genuine)

southern baptist belief eternal security

Hey, talking about very conservative fundamentalists..... Not really, the whole of them are good guys (hoping not to receive a tongue lashing from anyone).

But in simple terms, yes they do believe it, and they all fall away and are going into the fiery pits of hell for coming to believe that*.... How is that for irony



* - After three bashings, I think it is proper me to stop... for now....

wright

Wright is wrong, no matter what you hear, especially from that Chris Tilling fellow, whose name sounds somewhat like Tillich, which obviously shows you can not listen to a word he says

what is the major theological purpose of the passage of Adam and Eve

That whole thing about sin and death.... pffff.... it is just a facade. The real purpose of it is to say that it is all the woman's fault and that they were made to serve men.....

[Hey, "calvinism weak" girl (if there is indeed one), can I still get your number even though I made a horrible chauvinist comment? I promise you I am a good guy (I mean we do both share the correct doctrine, which must mean I am good guy).]

2012 Christian theology

Fortunately, I prophesied that someone would be curious about this question, hence my previous post about how the world will end in 2012, so their questions were answered. But just as a bonus since I have some many other predictions for 2012:
I am sensing.... I am feeling.... that someone will be hurting... they will be struggling with their purpose. They will be asking if it is God's will to send money to a certain ministry.... "Weddle is the next Wesley, only better" ministries... And if you call in a donation, you will receive a free white prayer cloth with green ooze and specks (which is a sign of the green that you will be blessed with) to pray with you the next time you pray about donating to "Weddle is the next Wesley, only better" ministries.

purpose of christian theology

To confuse the heck out of you

what is having theology

It is sort of like a disease. Really, its more like diarrhea. A lot comes out, but nothing solid usually. And it generally stinks. Plus some other comparisons, which I'll leave the reader to figure out ;)

comparison of theology of paul and rudolf bultmann for

Paul is a great, great mind, and rudolf bultmann was Joel Osteen before Osteen was, but only a pitiful totally depraved man in comparison to Osteen (see A word of clarification for more on how you could potentially compare Osteen and bultmann, even though it would sully Osteen's good name)

christian youth group teachings acceptance chuck norris

Yes. Accept Chuck Norris teachings, younglings, or face the roundhouse kick of Chuck (only exceeded by the wrath of God) you will

(Yeah. The Yoda thing is stupid, but it is the only way I could figure out how to include the youth group thing)

chuck norris methodist

Yes, because he is perfect, and all perfect people are entirely sanctified, and all entirely sanctified people are Wesleyan, and all Wesleyan people are United Methodist*

* Whatever your logic classes say, this was perfectly sound argumentation

total depravity scriptures

Why ask? You are probably too totally depraved to understand them (as opposed to being only somewhat totally depraved)

who and what is a theologian?

Someone who thinks they know something about something they can not see but in fact they know nothing

total depravity wrong

Are you a female? If so, whats your number?

what to do when you are a bad person

Repent and trust in God through Christ for your salvation

(hey, I can be serious at times)

psalms 106:30-31 where phinehas works credited to him as righteousness

No, because clearly Psalms is Old Testament, therefore it doesn't apply, you Judaizer, you!

is owen weddle the coolest and hottest person ever

Yes he is. Cooler than Chris Tilling, Ben Myers, Jim West, Karl Barth, rudolph bultmann, N.T. Wright. More attractive than them might I add. Oh, as an added bonus, he is the most humble person too.




Disclaimer: Owen Weddle reserves the right to be facetious, sarcastic, arrogant, humorless, or speak of himself in the third person without any sense of sincerity behind it in anything his says. Owen Weddle is not liable for any comments that offend as they do not necessarily express the views or opinions of Owen Weddle and as Owen Weddle's tongue is rubbing a whole in his cheek. In addition, Owen Weddle reserves the right to leave any typographical or grammatical errors he sees because he doesn't care to correct his many countless mistakes and is too lazy to proof read what he writes for consumption on blogs.

The psychology of redemption, sinfulness, and righteousness (part 1)

In combining my two interests and focuses in my education (psychology in college and theology as part of my focus in my masters of divinity), I naturally enjoy and ruminate how to combine the experience that we as Christians feel in our life and what it corresponds to in the psychological world. Of especial importance to me is the nature of sinfulness and righteousness and how a person goes from one end to the other (when its from sinfulness to righteousness, we speak of it as redemption). So this will be the focus of this post and others, which I will slowly add over time (due to the amount of work I have to dedicate to my seminary studies and preaching). In order to discuss the nature of redemption, sinfulness, and righteousness, I will first attempt to discuss the factors in human behavior (at least those factors that are adequate enough for this discussion). So here is a graphic to start off the discussion with:

(Excuse the crudely drawn graphic. I am not a graphics expert).

This graphic separates the two dichotomies that I feel are responsible for determining our actions. The will versus habits both have direct affects upon our actions and they can work with each other or against each other. On the other hand, emotions versus knowledge indirectly affects our actions by either influencing our habits or our choices. Now lets look at each part and its relationship to the others purely from a psychological view (I'll integrate it into a theological understanding as I progress).

Will/Habits
In one on my psychology classes (social psychology), we learned about two types of thinking: automated thinking and controlled thinking. The names are self-explanatory. One happens without use making much choice, and the other happens with conscious effort on our own part. There is a similar division in the ideas of behaviorism and cognitivism. Behaviorism is primarily focused upon the actions and most actions are simply a result of learning (this is especially true of the early behaviorists like Skinner and Watson), whereas on the other hand cognitivism has a greater focus on the thoughts of the person. What I am trying to get at here is in psychology there is division between what happens in human behavior that is nearly automatic (habits) and what happens that is a result of conscious thinking (choice or the will).

Now, it would be improper to say that habits are purely automatic whereas choice is purely conscious thought. In fact, the two concepts probably actually fall on a spectrum than two mutually exclusive categories. For instance, we all generally have a habit of eating (though to varying degrees), but yet we also make conscious choices as to what to eat. So both habits and choice comes into play, as is the case with most things we do. But there are some things that involved more thinking that others. For instance, when I wanting to go somewhere I do not deliberately think about each step I take but that is essentially automated. However, if I am walking in a place that has many physical obstacles, I become very conscious about each step I take in order to not stumble and fall.

However, the problem with the will, or controlled thinking, is that it requires knowing something needs to be thought about and then it takes a lot of energy to think (most everybody has experienced some form of mental drain). Controlled thinking is terribly difficult to keep up for a long time because eventually the brain will want to relegate back to automatic control, which is the norm for our behavior. So its next to impossible, if not impossible, to make conscious choices about every significant choice we are about to make. So if we wish to change a certain part of our lives, we have to develop the habit so it becomes more automatic on our part. A prime example of this are people who want to lose weight. They may make the choice to work out and eat healthy, and they are successful initially. However, the following days they may often forget about it and their old habits kick in (this is not to mention our desires/emotions conflicting with it, but that will be discussed a bit later). So it is sometimes hard to do what one chosen in the past (key phrase there) constantly without developing the habits (and considering habits are mostly formed by repeated actions, it can be difficult to change habits).

Knowledge/Emotion
In our society today and many societies in the past, a high premium was placed upon reason and knowledge. In our scientific world today, we value knowledge and more knowledge. But on the other hand, there has also come to be an appreciation for the emotions of each individual by our society (perhaps much greater than previous societies). But formerly, these two were sometimes seen as mutually exclusive and opposing each other, but this is not really the case. They can work against each other, but that isn't always the case.

However, if they do work against each other, it is primarily the emotions "conquering" our knowledge and only occasionally does knowledge "conquer" our emotions (and even then, it really emotion based upon knowledge). The idea of the purely rational man is an unattainable myth (except maybe those who brains are damaged in the emotional centers). For instance, we may know that if we eat a piece of cake it will go against a choice to lose weight, but on the other hand our desire for emotional pleasure will often times overcome what our knowledge and reason says not to do. That is because we are primarily emotional beings, and in fact our knowledge and reason only influences us when such thoughts are associated with other emotions and desires that can overcome the first emotion or desire (so one might could display knowledge in the graphic above as affecting the will through emotions). To continue the example of weight loss, the desire to lose weight might "overcome" the desire to experience pleasure from eating the piece of cake, but the desire to lose weight uses the knowledge that the cake will affect our weight loss goal in order to choose not to eat.

However, going back to choice and how emotions (and knowledge through emotions) affect choice, one must avoid the danger of saying choice is purely, abstractly speaking, a qualitative analysis of our desires and the strongest one always wins out. This presumes that there is no part of the will that isn't affected by emotions (in other words, there is no part of the will that transcends emotions), but that everything is mechanically determined. On the other hand though, one must avoid the other pitfall (though a bit rarer) that emotions do not affect our choices.

Now I haven't touch on how emotions affect habits (or vice versa) or how the will affects emotions, but I will detail each interaction and direct separately in the next post.

Poetic analysis of Psalm 3

For my introduction to Old Testament class, we are going over literature forms and how to analyze them. One of my assignments was to analyze Psalm 3. In case any might be interested in what I am doing right now and could offer critiques, here is my analysis:

Form

Psalm 3 is a psalm of disorientation stage two and more specifically a Psalm of Trust. It is written in a time of danger for David and he expresses that God has protected him so far and will continue to till He delivers David from his enemies.

The elements that confirm this observation are the portrayal of the distress (3:1, 2) and the declaration of confidence (3:3, 7-8). Also, there is no questioning of God or attacking of God as there is in a psalm disorientation of stage one, confirming that this psalm is a psalm of disorientation stage two.

Rhetoric

Imagery

The Psalmist uses many different imagery techniques in this psalm. First in 3:3a, the Psalmist uses a metaphor by calling Yahweh a shield that protects him, which is a frequent metaphor used psalms where the person is in danger of being attacked (cf. Psalm 7:10; 18:2, 30, 35; 28:7). The shield is a defensive item used when being attacked by adversaries, so Yahweh is the one who protects the Psalmist from his adversaries' attacks.

Following that in 3:3b, the Psalmist goes on to use a metonymy where he portrays Yahweh as lifting up his head. The lifting of the head represents the emotional change from helplessness and despair leading to depression into confidence and hope. He would undoubtedly by saddened by the persecution of his enemies. However, in trusting in the promise of Yahweh to protect him, his demeanor drastically.

In 3:6 the multiple enemies that were continuously attacking him made the Psalmist feel like there was was no way of escape (without trusting in the Lord). Therefore, the author represents his persecutors as having surrounded him with a great number of people. However, the author no longer feels this emotional truth the hyperbole portrays as the Psalmist states he has no fear of his enemies who attack as if they surround him.

In 3:7a the Psalmist personifies Yahweh as rising, or to be more specific it is an anthropomorphism of God. The Psalmist uses the same Hebrew word there for rise (qumah) as in 3:1 (qamim). So, the psalmist speaks of Yahweh doing the same thing that his adversaries were doing in order to represent Yahweh countering the adversaries because just as the enemies were rising up against the Psalmist in order that there would be no deliverance from God (3:1-2), so God will rise up and save him (3:7ab). After speaking of Yahweh's response in 3:7ab, the Psalmist goes on to discuss the fate that Yahweh will bring upon their enemies by striking their cheek and breaking their teeth. These are metonymies that describe the physical action that happens in battle to represent their defeat (if not death).

Finally, in 3:8b the author speaks of (or requests) God's blessings to be upon His people, with the blessing of salvation being implied. Here, the author uses the people as a whole (perhaps to represent Yahweh's faithfulness promised earlier in the Old Testament) to apply to himself as a indiviudal who is in need of salvation from his enemies (synechdoche). By applying the promise of the whole to himself, he portrays an image of certainty and trust of deliverance from his enemies by Yahweh.

Structure

In Psalm 3, the primary structure the author uses are couplets, but the author also uses one tricolon and maybe one or two quatrains.

3:1-2 Tricolon

The second line intensifies the first line, where there are many enemies and they are then spoken of as attacking the Psalmist. Furthermore, in the final line of 3:2 the Psalmist portrays the state his enemies perceive the Psalmist to be in, further intensifying the first two lines by implying the Psalmist was in a grace situation. The conflict that is to be solved is immediately presented and so it sets the tone for the rest of the psalm.

3:3 Couplet (maybe a Quatrain with 3:4)

The lines in this couplet complement each other. Whereas the first line speaks of the protection that Yahweh will offer, the second line speaks of the renewed confidence the Psalmist has. One might go on to say that the second line is subordinate to the first line by saying that as a result of the protection from Yahweh, the Psalmist has a renewed confidence and hope. This couplet gives the answer to the conflict 3:1 presented and shows the trust Psalmist has in Yahweh.

3:4 Couplet (maybe a Quatrain with 3:3)

The Psalmist here is perhaps explaining the reason for his trust in Yahweh in 3:3 (so one might could say 3:3-4 is actually one quatrain instead of two couplets). The answer in the second line is a continuation of the cry to Yahweh in the first line. The Psalmist is portraying the goodness and faithfulness of Yahweh in answering his cry. In addition, by the cry and response being in immediate succession the Psalmist might also be implying that Yahweh answered immediately without delay.

3:5 Couplet

In this two lines, the Psalmist speaks of going to sleep in a time of persecution. The normal psychological response to being attacked is to avoid sleep as much as possibility as it becomes a time of vulnerability to be attacked. However, the second line is a continuation in saying that he woke up, which is ascribed to Yahweh. This continuation gives the idea of safety even in the most vulnerable times.

3:7ab Couplet (maybe a Quatrain with 3:7cd)

In these two lines, the Psalmist makes two requests of Yahweh which the second request being a continuation of the first. First, Yahweh is asked to rise, which is to follow to do the same action which the Psalmist's adversaries had taken (3:1). Then Yahweh is asked to saved him, which is to oppose the action of his adversaries who were attacking him and said there was no salvation/deliverance for the Psalmist. The continuation of the second line from the first taken portrays an equal response to how the adversaries are portrayed in this psalm.

3:7cd Couplet (maybe a Quatrain with 3:7ab)

These two lines may be considered subordinate to 3:7ab and so 3:7 as a whole might be considered one quatrain instead of two couplets. Regardless, the author expresses confidence in Yahweh to attack his enemies in response. The second lines is essentially a restatement of the first which goes on emphasize the response of Yahweh to the Psalmist's enemies and the certainty of Yahweh's response. Also, in the first line the enemies are the Psalmist's, whereas in the second line the Psalmist speaks of the wicked which implies being against God. In equating the two lines, the Psalmist might also be speaking his adversaries being also enemies of God, which would show a greater sense of certainty that God will respond.

3:8 Couplet

The second line here is a intensification of the first line, which goes to show the certainty the Psalmist has in Yahweh and His faithfulness. The first line speaks of the salvation belonging to Yahweh, which means that Yahweh has the ability to save. However, ability without being used would mean nothing for the Psalmist and wouldn't mean that Yahweh is faithful, so in the second line the Psalmist speaks of Yahweh blessing His people (implying bestowing salvation to His people, of which the Psalmist was one). So the second line shows that God is not only able, but willing to save. An alternate interpretation might be that the second line is a request of the Psalmist to Yahweh to ask for God to bless His people. Regardless, there is a sense of trust in God that is portrayed by the second line.

Thrust

The psalm starts off with the distress the Psalmist faces from his adversaries (3:1-2). However, the Psalmist immediately goes to speak of God's protection of him with the result of the Psalmist having a renewed confidence and hope (3:3). This confidence is placed in the fact that he cried out to Yahweh and Yahweh responded (3:4). So the Psalmist has enough confidence to sleep, when he would be vulnerable, and then wake up because of Yahweh's protection (3:5), therefore he does not fear the many people are who attacking him constantly as if they surround him (3:6). Then he goes on to ask for Yahweh to rise and save him by attacking their mutual enemies (3:7). Finally, the psalm is summed up with the ability to save being the ability of Yahweh and having confidence (either by statement or request) that Yahweh will bless the Psalmist with bless him with deliverance from his enemies.

Also, the end of the poem gives the final response or solution to the problem or distress given in the beginning of the poem, so the author progresses from distress to confidence. Intermittently, the author synthesizes statements of confidence of safety and then requests to God for deliver, as if he is presently praying while trusting Yahweh to respond.

Context

Psalm 3 is one of many psalms in the psalter that express confidence in God to deliver people from those who persecute them. These psalms remind people that when one is being attacked by others, either physically or in other manners, that they should turn to God and trust that He will deliver them from the attacks of their enemies.

The five most influential people upon my theology

Just for an easy post that isn't totally random, I'll give the five people who have had the greatest impact on my theology so far. My list doesn't necessarily include just theologians, but others whose thoughts I have integrated into my worldview that has as a result affected my theology. Also, it isn't necessarily those who I agree with the most, but those who influenced me the most through my interaction with them.

My top 5:

1) John Wesley - Could you expect anything less from me? Admittedly, his theology isn't the most developed, nor do I agree with him on every point, but I find much of his theology to be a proper framework to build from (I did find the details of his theology are often amiss). Especially important to me is what I would call his preliminary understanding of a Christian psychology, and not as much his soteriology (though I still find it very useful to begin from).

2) Karl Barth - Yeah, I poke fun at the obsession that some to have with him but after Wesley he has most influenced my way of thinking. His influence on me isn't in the large amount of his teachings that I have gleaned only from his Dogmatics in Outline, but the one teaching he is the most well known for: the Christ is the revelation of God. This one idea, though I don't take it to where Barth does, is the one idea that has influenced my idea about Christ, His purpose, and God more than anyone else.

3) Jacob Arminius - I haven't particularly read much from the guy, but any person that is a Protestant and does not believe in predestination likely has his roots in Arminius's dissension against the Reformed teachings. This is especially true for any person who believes a person can fall from grace, like I can.

4) Soren Kierkegaard - His concept of the leap of faith has greatly influenced me. His affect on me is really more in the area of epistemology (though that is not what he is known for) and psychology, but since those are so influential in my theology, he has to be towards the top of my list.

5) William James - The American psychology was not particularly religious, but he wrote a book on religious experiences. The one concept that most influenced me was the idea that religious emotions are not distinctly different from other emotions, but that they are merely emotions experienced in the context of religion. May not seem like a profound concept, but in Protestant theology and the concept of Total Depravity (which I held to at one time), there is a tendency to separate religious emotions and convictions as altogether distinctly different from non-religious emotions and convictions. While it might seem like a minor point also, it has profound affect on the way one sees humanity and its relation to God.


Some influence but not on the top 5 (not in any particular order):

Rudolf Bultmann - While I don't go to his extreme, as a result of him, I see a distinction between subjective and objective elements of religion

NT Wright - He introduced me to a covenant outlook and influenced how I saw covenants, though I disagree with his idea of covenant faithfulness being talked about in the letter to the Romans. Covenant is a good framework to understand the Bible, though I find it lacking it as a pivotal and a very explicit part of the New Testament.

Carl Jung - The concept of archetypes (and not his teachings per se) allowed me to speculate that humanity has an "ideal man" archetype that we can not fulfill without the revelation of Christ to show us how to be the "ideal man"

Thomas Kuhn - The idea of "paradigm shifts" made me a self-skeptic and also got me thinking into the idea of how do we know (epistemology).

John Calvin - Technically, one should include Theodore Beza also, because by encountering TULIP and studying the topic, I have come to reject it thoroughly. Without that, I may be a more of a moderate in the Calvinism/Arminianism area.

The Orthodox Church - I struggle to pin point an exact theologian in this church, but the idea that the effects of the sin of Adam was not a inbred sinfulness or a inherited guilt, but an environment of death influenced my concept of original sin and the sinfulness of humanity.

Sigmund Freud - Throw out everything but the concept of the unconscious and subconscious. But that idea has influenced how I see the flesh when it is seen in contrast to the Spirit. But let it be said that Freud's idea of unconscious do not directly correlate with the flesh, nor that Freud was the first person to speak of the unconscious and subconscious.


Nowhere near to the top:

Paul Tillich - Interesting writer but his ideas are so obscure that they will never be of any value in my opinion.

Augustine - One might say through John Calvin I was influenced by him, but I never interacted much with his works and was affected by it. Nor did I inherit many teachings from him like Arminius who I did not interact much with. Honestly, while his theology isn't all bad in my opinion, I find many of the major problems in Western theology is due to his influence.

Anselm - Like Augustine. I never interacted much with his works and affected by it. The major problems with Western theology that I can not attribute to Augustine, I attribute to Anselm and his atonement theory of satisfaction theory, from which came penal substitution theory and other atonement theories centered upon legal concepts that I find hamper Western theology.

Norman Geisler - I own his systematic theology books, hence his being on this list though he really isn't a theological heavy weight. He is a standard conservative evangelical: strong in their ethical and moral ideal but weak in theology.

The end of the world is coming....

2012. Thats right. The Mayans and a bunch of other dudes who I can't remember at the time, nor care to seem to indicate that. But all that left me thoroughly unconvinced. But then, I had a revelation (or maybe it was the chicken sandwich I had eaten) on a drive back home in the wee hours of Sunday morning (I was being a bad preacher staying up late and hanging out with frie.... I mean the dregs of the world needing repentance and salvation) when I heard the source of the greatest revelation ever in all the world. The show: Coast to coast. The topic, a medium who talks to the dead. In it, he says the old dead guys were talking about 2012. For some reason, the skeptic in me couldn't come alive (maybe the Spirit slayeth it) and I suddenly saw the truth (obviously, the Spirit did slayeth). Everyone sell all your possessions and go repent of all your wretchedness, the end will come in 5 more years (well.... to be precise... between 1529 and 1895 days..). So the big question I have to ask is, will we still celebrate leap year that year?

Oh. And for your foreigners, Coast to Coast is an American show and we are proud to claim it (just like we are also proud to claim that we actually got to the first knock out round in the World Cup in 2002). But fortunately for you inferior foreigners (except the British, from whom came John Wesley! All hail John Wesley!), it can be had online. But I can't give it to you because revelation are not to be searched for, but they are just to come to you.


And what is the point of all this mess? Nothing, other than the fact that I just wanted to shout out John Wesley's on the web (never mind that shout is audible and the web is visual) and this story was the disastrous result of said purpose. But just one more time for good measure:

All hail John Wesley! You too, NT Wright, and you also Karl Barth, and even you Rudolf Bult..... wait... probably not. I doubt Wesley would much like you.

Wow! Its been over a month since my last post

Needless to say, life has been busy. Started seminary. I have now been inundated with John Wesley's life and theology. And I have only a few words to say: Wesley was a smarter man than Barth, Bultman, Tillich, and all the rest of those guys combined. I always had a respect for the guy but after studying him more, I am convinced if he lived in this day and age, he would make the great modern day theologians look like a scrawny white high school kid playing Michael Jordan in his prime in a game of basketball... or any person facing Chuck Norris.

And you'd think I am joking, but I am not.

We have to take into consideration that Wesley was influence by the thought of his day, and he was especially concerned about the gospel message in practical terms so he may not have made the contributions to be considered a profound thinker. However, I now understand why so many Methodist quote him almost as much as the Bible itself. Not that I agree with doing that, nor do I think Wesley is right in everything. But I appreciate him for his very pastoral emphasis. I can sense in his writings and his sermons combination of the intellectual and the emotional. He wasn't content to just talk about the ideas of God. He demanded them to be real and experienced and applied to our life. In what I have read of some of the modern day theologians, sure they may have more profound intellectual ideas (although I think Wesley in todays age could surpass them if he dedicated himself to that task) but I have seen a great concern for the pastoral. Not that the had a total lack of it, but it was not to the level that I have witnessed in Wesley so far.

So if I ever get back to a routine with blogging (which looks questionable for the near future), I'll start up the trend of the Wesley obsession among bloggers, which is currently enjoyed by Barth (or the last time I checked, as I really haven't read many blogs recently), even though Wesley is object of obsession by many Methodists.... Ok... So I won't go that far, but I just wanted to say that Wesley has affected me more, page for page or total effect, in my thinking than any other theologian or writer has.