Monday, April 20, 2009


I recently found myself on the blog of one Dr. James McGrath and found a topic worth discussing - whether the Bible is worth even paying any attention to if it is errant.
We had a discussion of decent length here, but he dropped out of it prematurely for whatever reason, without answering most of my questions, which is a shame.
Said questions included:
(link) How do we judge which parts are right and which are wrong?
(link) You seem to offer "wrestl(ing) with what is right and wrong" and "love for others and the Golden Rule" as the standard of comparison for knowing good and evil. But perhaps "love one another" is part of the UNinspired, errant text of the Bible? How would you know? How does "wrestle with it" give any guidance? I'm asking whether I'm right to do this or that - I'm looking for something external to myself. Does God speak with authority on right and wrong, or not?

link)So, it looks like your answer to the question "How do I know which parts are good and which are bad?" is "wrestle with it, go with what is loving", more or less? How does this escape my charge of the elevation of yourself as authority over the Bible that I expressed in my previous comment?

link) if I pick and choose what to believe and follow, I am de facto a higher authority than the Bible. Why even bother reading it?

link) Again I ask what moral standard we should use to judge what God has said. Please supply it.

link) The Bible says do this or that, you say no. It's as simple as that. I'm just wondering why you bother listening to the rest of it, or better yet, why you would cite it for any moral authority for some other question. Why not just cite yourself, since you know better?
Why follow Luke 14:33, and why cite it? Are you saying I *should* follow it? Why?

You get the idea. I invite anyone to read just how well Dr. McGrath interacted with these questions. Turns out he is a typical liberal, substituting hand-waving and politically-correct bloviating for actual arguments. Not that I expected anything different.
Anyway, I was dismayed to learn from his blog that he is a Sunday School teacher, and a friend pointed out to me which church he attends, a Baptist church whose statement of faith was quite short but also orthodox. In my experience, a short statement of faith is not ideal, but I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
Bottom line - Dr. McGrath denies the authority of Scripture, as should be clear from the above-cited thread. He denies the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ, for poorly thought-out reasons. Worst of all, he denies the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
I shouldn't have to point out 1 Corinthians 15:14-19, but I will:

...if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

There is no code here, no obscurity. Why would Dr. McGrath continue to hold to the label "Christian" AND deny the resurrection, given what Paul says here? It's because he is committed to the authority of himself to pick and choose as he likes. He has no great need to be consistent with himself, and that's why he wouldn't answer my questions.

I emailed some of my concerns to the pastor of the church Dr. McGrath attends, requesting that he recognise that McGrath is a heretic who doesn't belong as a member of any church that claims to hold to the Bible as its final authority, let alone as a Sunday School teacher. I was and remain concerned for the class he teaches and the church as a whole. One day later, the pastor emailed me a courteous and pitiful reply, informing me that he was taking all this under "serious consideration" and he was "sure that you understand the strength of the Baptist faith in its diversity of beliefs and practices" and promising to discuss this with Dr. McGrath. Sigh. Of course, glaringly absent was any "Oh my gosh! We'll DEFINITELY be asking him to repent, for his own good, removing him from his post immediately for his own good and the good of the class, and we'll be exercising church discipline on him in the hopes that he will repent of his sin and unbelief."

Yesterday Dr. McGrath posted a complaint about my actions. A brief look at one quote from the post:
Such concerns often lead doubts to be denied publicly, perhaps even denied to ourselves. In such circumstances, being a Christian often becomes a matter of appearance, of pretending to be more certain than one really is, or simply refusing to ask certain kinds of questions.
We're talking about a guy with a Ph.D in religion-related fields who is teaching Sunday School to a group of people in an allegedly-evangelical church. And he has "doubts". Boo-hoo; no doubt he wants us all to bear with him as he works them out, to come to an "honest" and "authentic" (to use the liberal buzzwords) faith. But he wants to be a teacher to others while he does so.
A few passages come to mind:
Romans 2: 17But if you bear the name "Jew" (or "professor of religion and Sunday School teacher in a Baptist church) and rely upon the Law and boast in God, 18and know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law, 19and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, 21you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal? 22You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? 24For "THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU," just as it is written.

Matthew 15: 13He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

Maybe in HIS church, they don't ask questions. Maybe he could do that as a guest, not a member, and for sure not a teacher. In my church, we ask all kinds of questions, and answer all kinds as well. We host atheist organisations for atheist-theist debates, we bring in ID-evolution debates, we go out on campus for anti-baby-murder educational exhibits. Perhaps McGrath would like us better if we just asked his kinds of questions, and answered them only the way he would like us to. Yeah, that's my guess too.

Also from him:
A conservative blog recently described me as "dangerous"
Just for the record, I can't take credit for that, but I certainly agree. Sadly, he is most dangerous to the lemmings who should be sheep under a kindly and godly shepherd but whose ears are being tickled by this false teacher.

Moving on, what cracks me up the most is the other blogposts tracking back to that post, like #1, #2, and #3.
I love it - I'm some nobody blogger from flyover country, and I'm the "Thought Police"!
Let's take a look at this frothing from the mouth of #2.
-I'm a "cowardly offender who believes himself to be the thought police, and justified in reporting McGrath’s wicked views to his poor unsuspecting Parson."
I am a concerned observer, concerned for the pastor's church. The ideal situation is for the pastor to realise what's going on and discipline McGrath, and that McGrath would repent and be saved. I want the best for them all.

- "Shut up."
Mmm, nah.

-"it’s none of your business what McGrath blogs. Ever heard of freedom of speech? Or (as James pointed out) has it ever occurred to you that his Pastor already reads James’s blog?"
Of course it's my business - it's a public blog. And do you see me asking Blogger to shut his blog down? Or siccing the ACLU on him? Of course not. Rather, I'm concerned that the name of Christ and His church may be pure and unequivocally defined. I want this church to be holier than it is, the same as I want for my own church. And I couldn't believe that his pastor reads his blog, but maybe he just skimmed it sometimes, maybe he needed a wake-up call, maybe he didn't read it recently. I didn't know. Why would Dr. McGrath object (for the record, he never did so) to my contacting his pastor? All his thoughts are out there for the world to see.

-"to ‘report’ him to his Pastor is just the most droll sort of childishness I’ve ever heard of... what did you hope to accomplish?"
See above.

-"Shame on this transgressor. He or she should consider him or herself anathematized."
So now I'm a transgressor. Looks like I'm too intolerant for this author, but it's OK to be intolerant of me. McGrath denies the resurrection of Christ, I tattled on him to the pastor, and I'm the one guilty of an excommunicable offense. Not only did this lib forget his own talking points when convenient, he needs a little priority adjustment.

Finally, #1 accuses me of wrongfully sending an anonymous hit-piece. Not so, I post under the same handle as is my email address. There could be no doubt who I was. What would have been cowardly would be to create a false email address - or something - and send the message that way.

Liberal tolerance at its finest.


Anonymous said...


I am going to assume that you are both 1) Educated people and 2) Not 5 year olds.

isnt it a little lame to be flaming eachother on the internet?

Blake said...

Jim West is a blow hard. He hangs out with the "minimalist" in biblical archaeology and bows down to "NT WRONG" so that he can be respected as something other than a Baptist pastor. He denies the main events of biblical history, but then turns around and uses scripture to condemn moral positions that he finds distasteful to his personal palate. He is the master of the ad hominem argument, and the contentless post. It is best to ignore him and pray for the Church that he pastors.


Anonymous said...

I dont get why people are so upset.
if people dont like his views dont read his blog, dont go to his class, dont go to his church.


Matt said...

The link to #2 to should be updated to this:

Apparently, West has updated his blog since you posted this, adding this bit of charitable Christian vituperation:

UPDATE: McGrath’s dimwitted interlocutor attempted to post a comment (of course with a link to his own mindless ramblings) but I’ve declined to approve it. I have no time for the coward, hiding, as he does, behing anonymity. I’ll not engage the person since it would be an utter waste of time. And I have better things to do. Like watch American Idol. Or anything really.
So much for the supposed self-proclaimed liberal values of open discussion and free thought...

Rhology said...

Gotta love liberals.
And thanks, I fixed the link.

Dr Funkenstein said...

I've never understood why, if people dont believe in things like the bodily resurrection of Jesus, they'd bother being a Christian at all? Surely believing that (amongst other things) is pretty much the major point of being a Christian? It's like guys who believe in things like evolution or that there was no large/worldwide flood yet hold to the truth of the bible since, given that Jesus himself references back to Adam, the creation and the writings of Noah and so on, if you start to admit you think a load of it is just made up or that Jesus was actually a bit clueless about historical events it doesn't really leave much in the way of truths or facts to proclaim.

I'm of the opinion that guys like you (Rhology) that hold beliefs like YEC and so on are far more consistent with what the bible actually says than liberal positions are (and it's surprising how wound up people can get by pointing out this fact!).

Rhology said...

Awesome - look at this.
just one observation on mr rhology- here's his alexa rating:

3 month avg 19,482,666

666... now that says rather a lot!

NAL said...

Biblical errancy/inerrancy is an oxymoron. It's not the Bible that's errant/inerrant, it an interpretation of the Bible that's errant/inerrant. The very act of reading requires several levels of interpretaion.

Craig said...

If scripture contains errors, we have a bigger problem. Does God know about the errors? If not then He is not omniscient. If He did, but lacked the ability to prevent them then He is not omnipotent. If he is able, but chooses not to correct the errors, then He is not a good god.

Dr Funkenstein said...

If scripture contains errors, we have a bigger problem. Does God know about the errors? If not then He is not omniscient. If He did, but lacked the ability to prevent them then He is not omnipotent. If he is able, but chooses not to correct the errors, then He is not a good god.Most likely the reason for so many errors, historical and scientific inaccuracies and inconsistencies is that because the writings that make up the bible (whichever version) aren't the result of any supernatural being manipulating the authors' thoughts, but were simply made up by people who didn't know any better - similar to what I said above, this (the non-existence of God) is the most plausible explanation of why the bible would appear no different to any other error strewn supernatural-based text that exists in these regards, so if a person accepts there are errors and so on, why not just admit the obvious?

As you say, there's no obvious reason a God would make his guiding text filled with mistakes

hebrewandgreekreader said...

Its clear that a liberal Christian and a conservative Christian will disagree. But while James has remained relatively tame, you unlovingly make unjustified negative claims about your brother.

For example, James doesn't simply deny penal substitution. He explains how that theory (theory being the operative word here) is not biblical with reference to the OT. You've misrepresented his view.

hebrewandgreekreader said...

By the way, did you tell James that you would be writing his pastor concerning him? Did you try and resolve the issue with James offline before you jumped to contacting the pastor?

Rhology said...


Please quote me being unloving.
Please make an argument that he is my brother in Christ.
Please make an argument that my claims are unjustified. Which ones? Why?

Dr McGrath's arguments about penal sub are terrible and display a very poor understanding both of the doctrine itself and the objections to it. That's what I mean by "deny".

Why would I try to "resolve" the issue offline? We don't have an issue, not at all. He's not my friend, nor my brother in Christ. I know next to nothing about him.
I said nothing about his livelihood, merely about the church of Jesus Christ, where he doesn't belong as a teacher but rather as a penitent sinner (which he refuses to be).
And yes, I did talk to him at length before contacting the pastor. I recommend you take a look to see who dropped out of the dialogue, leaving many substantive questions on the table, first.


hebrewandgreekreader said...

This whole post is unloving. You denying the possibility that he is your brother in Christ is unloving (As a Calvinist, you should know that its not your call anyway).

His views on penal sub are not terrible. They are simply in disagreement with yours. One need not agree with you (on this or any issue) to be a genuine believer.

One would resolve the issue offline (before taking it to someone's pastor) because that's the polite thing to do.

It is clear you know next to nothing about James. If you ever met him, you'd know one of the kingdom's nicest people. How can you say such condemning things of someone you admit to know nothing about just because they disagree with you? It's impolite.

Rhology said...

So, no arguments, nor any answers, except a distressingly general one.

No, YOUR whole comment is unloving.
(See how easy that is?)

Anytime you'd like to actually make an argument, I'd be much obliged.

hebrewandgreekreader said...


"Turns out he is a typical liberal, substituting hand-waving and politically-correct bloviating for actual arguments." - If you've never met him, this is unfounded and rude.

"...requesting that he recognise that McGrath is a heretic who doesn't belong as a member of any church that claims to hold to the Bible as its final authority, let alone as a Sunday School teacher." - Again you've never met him and never sat in one of those classes.

"Boo-hoo; no doubt he wants us all to bear with him as he works them out, to come to an "honest" and "authentic" (to use the liberal buzzwords) faith." - This dismisses the liberal Christian view. It does not critically engage it. And again, just sounds rude.

"Sadly, he is most dangerous to the lemmings who should be sheep under a kindly and godly shepherd but whose ears are being tickled by this false teacher." - Not only have you once again said something rude about your brother (which 1 John doesn't like), but also his students, who are not lemmings. You should apologize to this class of people you've never met.

I'm glad your post ends with your wanting the best for them all, but following remarks like the ones I've noted, its hard to believe.

It seems your greater problem is not with James, but the pastor who has him teach and those who sit in his class.

J.K. Doyle said...

Please correct your post concerning my site (#1). As I have clarified to you in a conversation on my blog, this was a reference to my own situation specifically and not yours.

NAL said...


You seriously think someone should consider that an idiomatic expression is a "factual inaccuracy"?

How do you determine that the creation account of Genesis is not idiomatic?

steph said...

"Rhology": Jesus spoke Aramaic. Repentence in the teaching of Jesus and John before him is grounded in the Semitic concept of 'teshubah'. The verb is about returning - Jesus and John called people to return to God. Perhaps you should take their advice.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Rhoblogy: "Hello Dr. McGrath,

I don't see any rebuttal so far to my contention that you have set yourself up as an authority over the Bible, and that therefore there is really no good reason for you to read or take into acct any of it at all. I do think interaction with that point would really benefit our discussion here."

James McGrath: "Lately I've found myself thinking that Jesus' humanitarian emphasis in his saying about the sabbath law could be applied to the whole Law and indeed the whole Bible: "The Bible was made for human beings, not human beings for the Bible. Therefore a human being is lord of the Bible."


This is prima facie evidence straight from the proverbial horse's mouth confirming Rhoblogy's contention that James McGrath sets himself up as an authority over the Bible.

In the form of a syllogism:

Premise 1: James F. McGrath is a human being.

Premise 2: "A human being is lord of the Bible." (McGrath)

Conclusion: James F. McGrath is lord of the Bible.

NAL said...

Every Christian whoever praised God has expressed a favorable judgement of God. Upon their own authority they judge God.

If McGrath sets himself up as an authority over the Bible, then every Christian sets himself up as an authority over God.

Rhology said...


I answered you in the next newer post.


How do you determine that the creation account of Genesis is not idiomatic?From the context and type of literature that it is. Jesus' reference to it as historical acct. Etc.

Upon their own authority they judge God. Wrong - they merely confess and agree that God is Who He said He is - the definition of good.

From what precisely should I repent?

scott gray said...

hey, rhology--

a project, if you're interested.

i teach sunday school to 13 and 14 year olds in a theological tradition that does not include the principle of scriptural inerrancy.

would you be interested in writing up a 'white paper' about it? 600-800 words, in 13 and 14 year old user friendly language? something we can discuss in sunday school about the principles you believe in. if you're interested in the methodology we'd be using to discuss your ideas, ask me.

some things that the kids would (i think) find interesting:

how do you define 'error' in literature? especially scripture? how is this different than 'error' in newspaper articles? or history books, (like these kids would use in school)? how about error in science texts? math texts? fictional short stories?

is 'error' defined differently in different contexts outside of scripture and literature (science, sociology, ethics, beliefs)? how does that relate to scriptural 'error' (or inerrancy)?

if you're interested, it's a chance to present your position to teenagers who don't have any experience with the principle you're presenting. but no more than 600-800 words, please!!



Rhology said...

That sounds like fun.
What time frame were you thinking?

scott gray said...

classes are over in 4 weeks, so if it's something for us to wrestle with this academic year, it needs to bee soon. but i understand if you need time with this. if i were agreeing to this project, i'd need time with it, too.

i'll have another set of kids next academic year as well, and what i'm asking them to do with your white paper requires a good bit of 'theology building;' most of them don't come to the table with the tools they need to think about these issues. so next year we won't get to your paper until april (right after easter) at the earliest.

glad you're interested.

Rhology said...

I'll see what I can do. Appreciate the offer.

scott gray said...

i'll lurk back on this thread once in a while; leave a note. or you can drop me an email when you're ready; just follow my blogspot link.



steph said...

Didn't you understand? I'm telling you "return to God". Repent is a Greek word. I am talking about the semitic origin. You should turn away from your ridiculous self righteous and rude bickering and turn to God.

Rhology said...

I understood your point, yes, steph.
I am unsure from what I'm supposed to turn. Could you please indicate what comment leads you to think I'm writing from a heart of self-righteousness?

scott gray said...


i get the principle 'the bible is the inspired, inerrent word of god.'

it seems to me that vthere are other principles in your wrangle with mcgrath. what other principles seem to be in play here?


Rhology said...

The main thing that irks me about him (and all liberals) is their taking the name of Christ with virtually none of the substance.
My questions in green text near the top express that.

scott gray said...

do you mean identifying themselves as 'christian' without meeting a particular set of criteria that identifies 'christian?'

Rhology said...

Chew on this:

I do not believe in God. I believe that Muhammad was a deceived fool. I have no desire to pray 5 times a day.
I am also a Muslim.

Kinda like that. :-D

rotsaP loeJ said...

incidentally, Steph, I'd be interested to know in your method for so rigidly delineating between the semitic "return" and the greek "repent", especially considering the apostles, who would have known both, seem to use them interchangeably?

Paul C said...

do you mean identifying themselves as 'christian' without meeting a particular set of criteria that identifies 'christian?'Yes, that's exactly what he means. Unfortunately we've established in a previous discussion that

a) he can't actually provide a coherent set of criteria for who is a Christian (but apparently he has the last word on who is and isn't - look out, he might excommunicate you!), and

b) he can't actually provide a coherent reason for why we should accept his word about who's Christian and who isn't, rather than accepting anybody else who claims to be Christian.

steph said...

There is no Aramaic word meaning 'repent'. And no, the "apostles" don't use repent and return interchangeably. What on earth gives you that idea!

Rhoblogy: your entire blog and snide cynical sarcasm.

WES ELLIS said...

I assume that you're doing most of this for attention but please don't presume you know someone well enough over the internet to press into their personal lives and possibly be divisive to their church. How could you have possibly thought that it was appropriate to e-mail the pastor. What is this? 1st grade?

Oh well, I bet an egotistical biggot like you is just getting a kick out of causing pain to people like me and Dr. McGrath. I bet you even have a bible verse to back yourself up. Maybe you should call my pastor and tell him all our youth are going to hell and that I'm a heretic... since it's your "responsebility" and all to police the blog world.

steph said...

Wes: Don't let them bother you. You haven't got anything to worry about and neither has James. It's quite clear that these fundamentalists are only capable of pithy rhetoric and insults. Jesus would tell them to return to God and stop obsessing about everybody else. And Jesus never told anyone what to think - he encouraged his audience to think for themselves by telling stories and speaking in parables. And he was always honest about what he thought, despite those who opposed him. James reminds me of Jesus...

scott gray said...

rhology and paul c--

what other principles seem at stake, seem to be violated for you?

Rhology said...

WES said:
How could you have possibly thought that it was appropriate to e-mail the pastor. What is this? 1st grade? No, this is the church of Jesus Christ.
Why is it so incredible to you that I might have love and concern for a group of people who profess the name of Christ in another location? What do you think we do when we give money for missions?

I bet an egotistical biggot like you is just getting a kick out of causing pain to people like me and Dr. McGrath.steph said: It's quite clear that these fundamentalists are only capable of pithy rhetoric and insults. The irony is nearly suffocating.


I would say that any other principle at stake would be of less importance than the question of how we can know anything about God. Perhaps McGrath and I disagree about whether God will infallibly preserve His elect from 'losing their salvation'; that's a far smaller deal than what we've been discussing. But if you hang out here long enough, you'll know I like to try to get to the heart of the matter as much as possible.


Paul C said...

Scott - I'm not sure why your question is directed at me? My contention is that the non-Christian must accept at face value the words of anybody claiming to be Christian, since there appear to be almost no obvious indicators of what constitutes a "true" Christian. Does that make sense?

scott gray said...

i guess i'm trying to figure out what you're so mad about.

in my experience, i get angry when i, or someone i care about, or a principle i care about, is wronged. i'm trying to figure out what principles you feel have been wrong to such a degree that you're mad about it. or is it personal-- you feel you've been wronged? or someone you care about?

i don't have a dog in this race, so i don't find myself angry about the principle of inerrancy. or about the defining of 'true' christian. i'm just trying to figure out why you're so mad about this.

the clearer the principles are articulated, the easier it is for me to understand your positions. i don't care about explanations, proofs, or arguments about the truth-content of the principle itself, i'm just trying to figure out your strong connection to particular principles.

Rhology said...

Yes, I love Jesus more than anything else, and He is being wronged here. So yes, that's part of it. I won't deny I have anger toward liberals and their false veneer of Christianity.
I also care a great deal about the truth and defending it against those who disagree for bad reasons. But like I said elsewhere, b/c this is all written, what is actually stridency and passion sometimes passes for anger.

To therefore discount what I say on the topic is to commit the genetic fallacy (not that libs generally care about committing fallacies, in my experience).

Paul C said...

I'm not mad about anything, Scott, so I'll leave it to Rhology to answer.

Anonymous said...

You half brain little man I hope James does not replay to your childish remarks! and you call yourself Christian!!!

scott gray said...

hey, rhology--

a thought or two.

the inerrant argument on all these threads at this point are so full of strawmen, ad hominems, name-calling, etc, etc that the principle of inerrancy is lost in the clamor. it's not a theological discussion, it's a political discussion. it's not about what the hermeneutical landscape looks like, it's about who controls the hermeneutical landscape. that's political, not theological.

it's why i hope you'll write the 600-800 word teen-friendly version of the principle, so that the principle is clearly and compellingly presented. if you have to think of it in courtroom terms, it's more like the presentation and persuasion of an attorney's opening statements, and nothing at all like a syllogistic proof or a forensic proof.

the kids won't care about the syllogisms, or the forensics, or the politics of the hermeneutical landscape. they'll care about the ideas related to the principle itself. they have no clue what 'conservative' or 'liberal' theology is, and i'm going to let them sort out the politics of theology on their own.



Rhology said...


I would hope that anyone who witnesses me throwing out a strawman would call me on it and correct it.
And yes, I've noticed some name-calling, for sure. Like the comment above yours.

I have to disagree that it's a political discussion. I care little for politics. There's a specific meaning for the term "theological liberal" and it's different from a political liberal. In my experience, usually pol libs are also theo libs, but they don't necessarily intersect a great deal.

And the world is big enough that there can be many diff groups of people who group themselves b/c of their shared hermeneutical outlook, I should think. So, who "controls" the landscape? Nobody as far as I can see. Humans are quite sinful and can be very inconsistent, so there are many, many diff ways of reading an important document like the Bible, few of which are legitimate, but they exist nonetheless.

Rest assured I won't be getting into politics in the paper you've requested. I appreciate the concern.

sass. said...

Haha, this isn't at all what I was looking for (Ephesians 5:11 in regards to tattletaling), but this was an interesting enough read to grab my attention. For what it's worth, McGrath's theology is a big thumbs down, and denying the penal substitutionary atonement certainly warrants an email to a pastor about a false teacher in his church. Anyone who quotes anything about not judging clearly doesn't have a good handle on Scripture (like when Paul kicks incest-boy and his mommy[-in-law] out of the church before he even gets there? haha).