Quaking at Transform East

Last week I attended Transform East, a gathering of emergent types organized by Steve Knight and his buddies.  It took place in Washington DC at Wesley Methodist seminary.

My primary purpose for going was to (as I described it to my newfound friends from the conference), "put flesh on pixels."  I had met a number of the people who would be attending through Facebook, Twitter, and as fellow SynchroBloggers over the years.  So, this was an opportunity to finally meet many of them face to face.

I spent time with people I knew like @imageoffish (Callid Keefe-Perry), and Brian McLaren, and with people I was only just meeting such as the Outlaw Preachers, Rick the Zen Buddhist monk awesome Christian dude, and Rev. Vince.

As far as the presentations from the conference, I want to focus on one single moment following a single message.  I think it holds some insight, and reveals a tension within the emergent movement which will only expand if the movement seeks to continue growing in influence.

I have periodically given voice to this tension over the last 5 years.  Whether through occasional posts, or in discussion with people like Tony Jones.  It is the tension of predominantly post reformed evangelical emergents, with their charismatic, Pentecostal, and in this case mystical Quaker brethren who also identify with the heartbeat of the movement.

On Friday evening, Peter Rollins was the speaker.  He was giving a shortened rendition - without the chapter breaks - of his Insurrection Pub Tour.  I had heard this before, because Pete brought his Pub tour to Boston, and I had set up the sound, and ran it for that evening.

I sat outside the doors at the back, in the foyer of the chapel.  I could hear the entirety of the lecture.  Pete's theme was based upon the phrase that "to believe is human, to doubt is divine."  Of course, this is a common thread in Pete's writing and thinking.  He purposely turns things upside down, and creates a dynamic tension and struggle in our faith.  He is filled with paradox, and gutsy philosophical dark battles of the soul.

The evening ended with a song by Padraig O Tuama, an Irish poet/musician who traveled with Pete on the Pub Tour.  It is a haunting chorus, which highlights redemption through struggle, failure and loss.  Rev. Vince performed the song with Amy Moffit.  Between his growling delivery and mad piano skills, and her gorgeous voice it was a an incredibly beautiful ending.  I stepped forward to the back door and stood next to Brian McLaren who had been standing in the back during the message.

The last two verses are the most poignant.  Partly due to the fact that the next to the last verse uses the F-bomb:  "I f***ed it up so many times, I f***ed it up so many times, I f***ed it up so many times, Hallelujah."  I suppose someone would have to hang out with Pete and listen to his Hegelian tension theology to come up with that line.

Then the last verse ended with a line describing going to Babylon and finding a home in exile.

When the song ended there was a brief moment in which the audience did not know how to respond, and everyone sat in silence.  As a Pentecostal, I recognized this as a moment pregnant with a nearly palpable sense of God's Spirit.

Then Pete rose and mentioned that the song was rooted in thoughts from Jeremiah. 

Then everyone clapped.

Steve Knight who was the host for the event stood up to do some "housekeeping."  You know, the boring stuff that every conference requires to transition from event to event.

That's when "it" happened.  My buddy Callid, who is a Quaker with a heavily mystical leaning stood up, interrupting Steve and said something.  Callid was in the front of the room, and I could not hear him, so I had to step forward to Brian and ask him if he heard what Callid said.

Brian replied, "He said something about the kingdom of God having arrived in the room, and that we should stop to acknowledge it."

I laughed softly, and said to Brian, "Well, isn't that gloriously Quaker."

Steve had a bit of an 'I'm not sure what to do here' look on his face, and then we continued in silence for a few more moments.  He then mentioned that it was difficult to move on, and the evening ended with the "housekeeping."

Callid left as the housekeeping was going on, as many people do during conference announcements.

The following day there were was some discussion about the experience.  Some people struggled with what occurred.  Others were glad Callid spoke up, because they felt a holy tension in that moment.  Callid was spoken to by a number of people, including some of the leadership of the conference who had a concern that his interruption might be misunderstood by some of the people at the event.

To view the moment you can go to the transform network page and watch the video here.  The song is played at about 1:23:00 in the event and you can watch to through the end.

My Thoughts:

I have been saying for some time that there is an uncomfortable alliance with the emergent discussion and those who identify with it who are coming from a Pentecostal or Charismatic persuasion.  Tony Jones has been studying what emergent has to say to the Pentecostal church, and vice versa recently, and it is something I have questioned him about a few times over the last few years, but the answers have always been stated in terms of being open to discussion.  This moment at Transform East highlights to unsatisfactory nature of relegating the tensions to a discussion.

Pentecostal, Charismatic, and mystical Quaker experience are just that - experience.  Talking about that experience is insufficient as an agent of transformation.  The experience must be experienced.   It is bound by a mystical union of the church with God's Spirit, and the moment by moment acknowledgements of God's Spirit speaking and acting among us.  The experience is anarchic, and messy, because God arrives at times most unexpected.  These mystical traditions have learned to stop for those moments, and reflect and respond accordingly.

Many of the people who are a part of the emergent discussion do not have experience in these more mystical traditions.  Instead emergent has adopted more easily controlled mysticism, and so they light candles, and place icons around the room.  These things do not necessarily acknowledge an interruption in the order of service from a God Who could often care less about what we were supposed to do next.

After about 5 years of networking with various emergent types, and discussing this exact issue with those from my own Pentecostal tradition who identify with the emergent discussion, I am not sure that we are any closer now to bridging this tension, or even having a sense of how to do it than we were 5 years ago.

5 years ago my Pent-emergent friends were feeling like they did not fit well into the movement.  That light tension remains there still, and this was evidence by the fact that there were people in leadership who did not know what to do with Callid's interruption, and were uncomfortable with it.

Callid said about the experience, "When these things happen, I really don't know what to do with them."

He did the right thing, he acknowledged the moment - that is how I, a pastor from a Pentecostal tradition or over 20 years feel.

I pointed out that none of us know what to do with God's interrupting activities.  I am also convinced that we do not need to know what to do in these moments, we nearly need to know what to do, when we do not know what to do.  If that doesn't make sense to you, then you are still on the other side of understanding the heart of mystical church life found in Pentecostal and Quaker traditions.

There is a plan for creating Transform West in the near future.  I would hope the leadership would lean on the shoulders of some of the Pentecostals, Charismatics, and Quakers who might understand how to ford this river into the uncharted territories of worshiping together with the mystical expressions as part of the experience.  Until that happens those of us from the mystical traditions will probably  remain mildly uncomfortable and feeling slightly outside the circle.

My prayer is that the Quaking may continue in gatherings such as this.  Callid asked one of the leaders how many Pentecostals they thought were present at the event.  The answer was, "maybe 10."  They both acknowledged that something was wrong with that number being so low.  When Pentecostals, Charismatics, and Quakers feel accepted as a group complete with their religious experience those numbers will change.

At least that is what I think.  What do you think?

Emergent in Boston: John Franke at The Gathering and Gordon-Conwell

Theologian, Professor at Biblical Seminary, and Author John Franke came to The Gathering Tuesday night April 6th.  This was the first of three days of Emergent activity in the Boston area.

The event was organized by Jesse Browning, Matt Miller and "The Church which Meets in Beverly."  I did not count the people who came, but it was a little over 15 people I think.  Some of us from The Gathering, others from The Church which Meets in Beverly.  Adonis Vidu, a professor at Gordon-Conwell joined us as well.  Adonis teaches a class on the Emergent Movement, and John lectured there as well.

Before the evening began, we stood around talking about topics such as the people who think that John is a heretic and deserves to be taken outside and stoned (with rocks that is).

Then we gathered on the couches in our little library corner, and John taught for about 45 minutes.  He wandered around a few points, and then followed up with a discussion time.  He discussed the following things (my words not his, because I did not take notes, and my brain is little):  1)  Christians should be learning to serve together in God's mission with people from other Christian traditions - there should be a plurality of witness,  2)  The Mission of God is what we are to be about (and this is "Mission" as a singular word - not "missions." God is about one mission and what we do should be a part of that one mission), and 3) Our enlightenment informed perception of truth and the Gospel is problematic in contemporary society.

At one point during the teaching, John compared enlightenment thinking, and modernity to "The One Ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them."  This was one of the last points before the discussion time began.  I could not help but laugh - I loved the illustration, but also shared my uncomfortableness with the fact that the illustration was similar to saying that enlightenment/modernity thinking was Satanic.  Hmmmmmmmmmm... not comfortable with that myself.  John admitted he may rethink the use of that illustration.  But, his point was well made that an individual who believes they hold uncorrectable, absolute truth stands in a position attempting to intellectually rule over others - great point.

Once the discussion opened up Megan DeFranza presented a challenging point.  She suggested that perhaps modernity versus post-modernity were not as critical delineations as more important categories as humility and pride.  Jesse jumped in and questioned what the bottom line actions, and motivations of our missional engagement ought to be.

Caroline topped off the evening with a wonderful little testimony/sharing moment.  She talked about not fully understanding the whole conversation, but identifying with the direction of it, and feeling as though it offered her a solid footing for her transition out of the days of a Fundamental Baptist background in which she "could not wear pants."  That might have been my favorite part of the session.

There was about 45 minutes of discussion, and following the event, most of us hung out at Gulu-Gulu Cafe for a couple more hours.  Once again as the last meeting at Gulu-Gulu I was joined by Jesse and The Unidentified Baptist dude.  As well Matt the Pirate, Michael Giobbe, and Caroline.

This afternoon, I also went to see John speak at Adonis Vidu's class at Gordon-Conwell on the Emergent discussion.  This is a photo of Dr. Vidu giving the introduction.

During this discussion John shared his holiest moment in the Boston area:  Going to a game at Fenway Park.  Then he wandered into a discussion, which I am assuming comes from his book Manifold Witness: the plurality of truth.

He discussed his view of plurality as something God is leading us toward, and part of the plan of redemption.  He framed his understanding of truth in Barthian terms, and discussed the difference between Truth and truth.  Some of the gang from Tuesday night were there as again:  Megan, Jesse, and Ben the Tattooed Mystic (as The Prof. Carlos Z. calls him).

There was some good Q and A afterward including a question about Scott McKnight distancing himself from Brian McLaren recently.  John described his position on the issue:  He does not agree with some of the premises of Brian's most recent book, but even more so does not agree with Scott's choice to disengage from mission with Brian.  For some reading on the McLaren/McKnight debate check out John Armstrong' Blog.

After the class at Gordon-Conwell students lined up to talk with john and get his autograph.  Students at Gordon-Conwell getting his autograph - now that's interesting. :-)

Brian McLaren, Simple Time and an Interactive Creation

“Many Christians seem to believe that God’s relationship with the universe is deterministic, that God has already filmed the future in his mind, and what we’re seeing unfold in history is the showing of a movie that’s already ‘in the can’ so to speak. I don’t believe that. I believe God’s relationship with creation—including us—is interactive. God gives us warnings, which are an invitation to change our ways. God gives us promises, which are an invitation to persevere when the going gets tough.” -Brian McLaren

I found this quote on my RSS feed to Emergent Village

I met Brian this last November, and have had a chance to speak with him on a few instances recently, - a ride in the car, eating breakfast together with others at a conference, and hobnobbing around Harvard Divinity and Gordon College students. I decidedly enjoyed being around him, but here I truly like his thinking!

I am surely showing my heretical bias. This flies in the face of the likes of Calvin, and Augustine, but who the heck really cares besides a few of you who have theological cramps. (smile, smile - avoiding emoticon use here for the sake of being hyper-cool)

A little reading up on the God and Time theories of William Lane Craig will give you a sense of where I am coming from. A little sense. Craig is still a devoted reformed theologian, and I am not coming from that perspective, but he outlines what I believe is an element of theology, which gives the kind of guidelines necessary for Brian to make his comments above.

Now I do not know if Brian believes in Simple or A Time, which states that the present is all that exists - the past and the future can not be accessed, because they are not real things. The past is gone, and the future does not exist because it has not yet come into being. Sorry if this messes up your time travel theory, and your belief that God dwells in both the past and the future as He dwells in the present.

I believe that an undetermined future in which God actively relates to us in the present necessitates Simple Time as it is so nicely outlined by William Lane Craig. I felt this way long before I read Craig's stuff, but he's got the pedigree and brains to really say it, so I'll let him speak more deeply on that subject for now. My point is I was really glad to see this quote - Go Brian!

Persecution of "Child Witches" in Kinshasa

This blog post is over a year old now, but it is worth a look. A couple days ago Brian McLaren was in town, and suggested I read the book "Planet of Slums." In it, Mike Davis writes of the rising superstitious and dangerous fears in the Kinshasa slums against children who are presumed to be Witches. Charismatic Churches are theorized to be partially (maybe mostly) to blame. I would not be surprised to find this blame to hit the mark. Who will rise up to stop this insanity?!

Check out the blog post at No More Big Wheels.

First Night and Morning at Off the Map

Wow, Jim Henderson runs a cool event! Good jazz, indie hard rock, and short interviews with Brian McLaren, Richard Twiss, Rose Swetman, Tod Hunter and others. I was interviewed last as "and now for something quite a bit different, this guy is from Salem - yeah that's right THE SALEM, Massachusetts, and he makes friends with Witches."

Today John Smulo and I will be teaching a workshop at 3:30 here at the conference, and then tonight I will be at another venue with Spencer Burke and Tod Hunter.

People I met so far:

Richard Twiss - wow, what an intelligent, funny character. I want the native Americans to come to Salem this next Halloween.

Sherman adn Sidell Bradley - This is an amazingly talented black couple from Cinicinnati. We had a wonderful discussion about their ministry, and the divide between black and white America. I have a lot to learn from them. He is one smart, and passionate fellow, as is Sidell also - and dang! she can really sing.

Spencer Burke - Met him for a few moments, and will do the Friday evening with him - cool beans.

Brian McLaren - I had breakfast on Friday morning with Brian, and got a ride to the conference with him. I was so pleasantly surprised at his interpersonal skills. he cares about people, and what they believe. He is a great listener, and wonderful in dialogue. Oh yes! that is what a minister of the Gospel should be like.

Hanging a little with Jim Henderson - rode with Jim to and from the conference on Thursday evening. I just love hanging with Jim. My favorite moment: Jim said, "Preachers with great oratory skills often are not good with personal relationships. I think this might be because they spend their time learning to speak to large groups, and don't learn to deal with individuals..." (pause followed by the next thought) "maybe I'm being too generous, and they are really just asses." I said, "Yeah that's what I was thinking."

Talking at the hotel bar with Christina from Pittsburgh - She was with her business friends who were at a meeting dealing with power company business. We talked about Salem, Halloween, Witches, and then the Kingdom of God. I would not be surprised to see her visit The Gathering next Halloween. She was really interested in what we were doing.

The Truth War - The General of Generalization?

Response to The Truth War Part 1
Response to The Truth War Part 2

Generalization is a nasty, hasty habit for many of us. We all become captured in the over-simplification of making hasty generalizations at times. This is a classic fallacy in argumentation. For example: During my time as a Christian I have discovered that Christian leaders who believe reformed theology are overly dogmatic and judgmental toward those who do not hold their positions, because the ones I have met. or read have been that way. Of course, this is not true. It is not even true that all reformed theologians I have met are overly dogmatic. But even if it were true, it is an over-generalization to say that all reformed thinkers are overly dogmatic, and judgmental. That is a hasty generalization, and jumping to conclusions.

Hasty generalization is the formation of an opinion from an insufficiently small test sample group of a larger body. Insufficient evidence used as a basis for conclusions leads to hasty generalization, and logical fallacy.

Enter stage right The Truth War.

From a mere handful of leaders, from a narrow range of denominations, and miniscule number of writings, a series of accusations about the apostate nature of the Emergent Church is presented.

Rob & Kirsten Bell, Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, and reformed theologian John Armstrong are among those listed and quoted in the book. A small smattering of their quotes are given.

John Armstrong most particularly is of interest. On three counts information provided about him is illogical. Armstrong's friend P. Andrew Sandlin has provided a solid defense against the accusations here in an excellent article. The accusations against Armstrong are provided as an example of the Emergent Church's slide into empty relativism. They are false on these counts: 1) John Armstong is a reformed theologian. He once taught side by side with John MacArthur, and still holds to the reformed traditions and theology with minor variations on his previously held beliefs. He does not typically fit the Emergent Church category. 2) As shown by P. Andrew Sandlin's article, MacArthur chooses statements from Armstrong from only two sources among his many writings - one blog, and one article. 3) His responses to citations from John Armstrong are inaccurate.

Two of three points illustrate hasty generalization perfectly. First, John Armstrong is quoted from a miniscule sampling of his greater works, and his beliefs are inaccurately assessed. Assumptions about John Armstrong are made with insufficient evidence. Secondly, these quotes from this single source become an example of postmodern relativism infiltrating the church at large. MacArthur also lists quotes from such authors as Brian McLaren, and Rob & Kirsten Bell, Donald Miller, and Stanley Grenz. The small sampling of quotes frm each are presented as authoritative comments from what is a complex and diverse movement. They are generalizations about the larger group from a small sampling of ill read quotes. Generalizations are made about John Armstrong, which in turn are used as a sampling of generalizations about the larger group called Emergent.

The premise of the book is based off hasty generalization. John MacArthur shows no complete understanding about the nature of the Emergent Conversation, and similarly no clear comprehension about the basic critiques which postmodernism holds toward its predecessor modernism.

Whether as a tool for creating the larger scope of the book, or in details of the book MacArthur shows himself to be a master generalizer. After quoting Donald Miller's Blue Like Jazz with story about "Mark the cussing pastor," MacArthur goes on to say, "Obscenity is one of the major trademarks of the Emerging style. Most authors in the movement make extravagant use of filthy language, sexual innuendo, and uncritical references to the most lowbrow elements of postmodern culture...."

I don't know which books he's been reading, but my guess is that either they weren't Emergent books, or that he's become the General of Generalization. Logical fallacies are presented as sound doctrine in this book.

The Truth War - John MacArthur and the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle

It's late. I can't really sleep now, even though I've spent the day at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, and my son was getting a kidney transplant. So after having sent out messages, and thanks for prayer, and updates, I thought I might respond to the book I read yesterday, since that is a goal over the next week anyway.

I read The Truth War in a day. It is easy reading. I do not recommend it to any undiscerning reader, and wouldn't have bought it except that I felt compelled to respond to it.

I did not come to this book unbiased. I am from a Pentecostal background, and have seen the writings of MacArthur, and heard his diatribes on my own variation of Christianity slammed by faulty logic before. Since I identify with the Emergent Movement to some degree currently - jokingly calling myself a PentEmergent, but really thinking of myself as some combination of Pentecostal, Anabaptist, and Emergent, I thought it would be best to respond in some way to his critiques of a movement I am beginning to find some identification with.

I will respond in a short series of posts, and try to keep each post a simple refutation of one of the many fallacies I have observed in his (what I view as) pontifications.

In MacArthur's attacks on Charismatic Christianity 20 years ago, I observed a solid Biblical teacher (excellent on some issues, and dreadful on other issues), commit a series of ad hominem attacks on Pentecostal Christianity. This is a fairly easy thing to do, since Pentecostals include a spectrum of wild to mild, and charlatan to honest characters. With some frequency in print, and on air he used examples of the most extreme, and sensational characters, and their behavior to make broad sweeping statements about the entirety of the movement. These attacks on individual behavior were even used as proof of the doctrinal error in teachings concerning the current usage of the gifts of the Spirit, and the doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. In Logic this is a fallacious argument called Argumentum Ad Hominem. The bad behavior of an individual, or even a group of individuals does not prove that a doctrinal position they hold is automatically false.

Having seen this otherwise decent Bible teacher utilize poor logic in the past against those with whom he disagreed, I assumed the same might be true in his attack on the Emergent Conversation. I was unfortunately more correct on this point than I had imagined, and will therefore take a short series of posts to cover these thoughts.

So, here's my first observation:

John MacArthur's lack of understanding, and shallowness of knowledge on the Emergent Conversation causes him to create a potentially false dichotomy. This is called the fallacy of the excluded middle.

"Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation):
assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more. For example, assuming Atheism is the only alternative to Fundamentalism, or being a traitor is the only alternative to being a loud patriot."

For more examples of faulty logic see this list of Fallacious Arguments.

Even a reading of some basic material such as Scott McKnight's article in Christianity Today, (I posted on this sometime back here) would have shown MacArthur that the Eemrgent Conversation was far more divergent in thought than he assumes in his book. He might have understood that it included liberals and conservatives from most denominations of Christianity. That people were joining it for reasons doctrinal, and for reasons primarily evangelistic or missional. I fall into the latter category, and so the statements of apostasy and heresy are gross generalizations concerning someone like myself.

Here are a few examples of MacArthur's inability to see that the Emergent Church is more complex than he understands, and is not simply a truth evading, fad chasing, corrupt movement - as he tends to demonize it:

"As always, a war is being waged against the truth. We are on one side or the other. There is no middle ground." Introduction page xxiii By itself this is a fine statement. Placed in context of assaulting an entire movement without clarification of the complexity of the group this is a fallacy of the excluded middle.

"We will examine why defending the faith inevitably requires warfare, rather than the gullibly sanguine stance many Christians seem to favor today." Introduction page xxv Here we are given the opportunity to be a part of one of two responses, without consideration that there might be a third option. Otherwise we join John, or we are gullible.

...by suggesting that contemporary Christianity needs to reimagine, update, or simply jettison some supposedly obsolete doctrine...They are actually working toward the wholesale demolition of the entire structure." page 80 The context of this paragraph hints that something as innocuous as updating a service is on par with challenging fundamental doctrines, and is an assualt on the basics of the faith. This theme is repeated a number of times in the book.

MacArthur's faulty logic makes itself fully known early in the book with his own observation on the "excluded middle." On page 14 he says, "The reason behind postmodernism's contempt for propositional truth is not difficult to understand. A proposition is an idea framed as a logical statement that affirms or denies something, and it is expressed in such a way that it must be either true or false. There is no third option between true and false. (This is the "excluded middle" in logic.)" At this point MacArthur idenitifies the pattern of attack he will continue throughout the book. His insistance that the Emergent Conversation, and the Seeker Sensitive Churches (which he erroneously lumps together throughout the book - perhaps not purposely, but certainly by inference, and repetitious connection) are regularly on the wrong side of "The Truth War" establishes his use of the excluded middle as a logical argument. With his ignorance at best, or at worst his outright pretention that a more complex community of commited believers does not exist in the Emergent Church, he repeatedly makes the mistake of using the fallacy of the excluded middle, and even trumpets his pleasure in using it as a solid logical argument. With his use of the argument of the excluded middle MacArthur proudly displays his faulty logic as though it were sound intellectual supremacy, and allows this fallacy to rule the basic premises of his book.

I am amazed that an otherwise solid theologian can make such a basic error in logic, but this certainly is not the first time for John Boy.

Brian McLaren, Arminius and What I'm Reading, and Why

I have not posted anything about my reading since beginning my blog, but I thought I'd go ahead and do so. I know boring, boring, boring, but then again people who read blogs are readers, and a glimpse into the reading records of another person is a glimpse into the workings of their mind.

So here is what I am reading at this moment, and why.

I am reading Brian McLaren's book "The Secret Message of Jesus." I am reading it, because I thought that since I am putting a book proposal together, I should keep up with the popular writings in the Emergent Church. That was the only reason I bought the book. Dang, that's real redemptive ain't it? I have read through to the end of the 8th chapter. It's been slow going - not because the book is a difficult read, but because I just couldn't get into it. I got to chapter 7, and 8. I read those last night, and got out the underlining pen. When I get out the underlining pen that's huge. I usually reserve the underlining for writers like Chesterton.

Brian McLaren presents some thoughts in chapter 7 and 8 which speak to my question to Tony Jones the other day about how Pentecostals and Emergent folk could fit together. Not that the answer is practically solved, but the theological considerations are in place through these chapters - well, I think they are. More reading to go. Maybe I'll say more later.

I am also slowly plucking my way through the writings of Arminius. Why? Because everyone reading theology reads Calvin. After reading Calvin, they feel that they have a lot to say about the Calvinist/Arminian debate, but I've never heard that they read Arminius. So I am at the 4th Oration of the first Volume of the Works of Arminius. I am reading them online at ccel.org - which if you do not know about, you do now, and you should go there to read classics for free at least once a month - so methinks.

I generally dislike reading passages of scripture strung together to create something like a Systematic Theology, but this is the first time I have ever been impressed by a theologian's ability to connect sciptures together in a readable and dynamic fashion. Whatever you think about Arminian doctrine as it is presented today, this guy is worth a read if you enjoy the dryness of theology.

I only read one thing I would disagree with, that would have to do with my view of the voice of God speaking to humanity today. I am more of a mystic than Arminius I suppose.

Okay, that's it for now. What are you reading? and why do you think I should I read it? or avoid reading it?