I took a break from the internet from a few days (and should, in theory still be on said break), and when I surfed the liberal blogs this evening they were awash with invective regarding John Stott. Clearly I missed something because I have no idea what brought that on. What did I miss?
David Brooks got sick of hearing many liberals saying things that assumed Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson represent evangelicals in any way, which is a ridiculous notion for many reasons. So he picked Stott as a better candidate and then said Stott is less of an extremist in his views but much calmer and more polite in his mannerisms. The editorial is here.
I hadn't heard of this until now myself, and Google took more searching than I expected to be able to figure out what was going on. Perhaps it's worth a post.
it was a widely distributed article, it was even in yesterday's palo alto daily news, which reposts many NYT op-eds
Just curious, what were they fuming against?
Heh heh, sorry, I went straight this this entry and didn't see the top one.
Thanks for looking things up for me.