Rev. Jeff Meyers has posted a sort of "cliff notes" version of the longer paper he recently released in response to the PCA Study Committee on the Federal Vision (FV). This version is only two pages long and can be accessed here:

http://www.prpc-stl.org/auto_images/118055792912Reasons.pdf

In keeping with the times Covenant Radio now has a new blog that will post articles, news announcements, reviews, and other news realted items. Consider this the print version of Covenant Radio. The goal of Covenant Radio has always been to present issues that face the Church to people for thoughtdul reflection. Hopefully this new blog will help accomplish that in another way.

So, climb aboard and register at the new blog site. Get involved in the discussions if you are interested in that sort of thing. To register, simply click the "register" link at the Covenant Radio Blog site that is located in the sidebar near the bottom of the page.

A recent discussion over the Federal Vision issue has prompted me to write this article about internet accountability. I will deal with the various words, statments and the like that have flooded the internet. Certainly there are other things that could be applied here such as what web sites we visit, the content of these web sites, etc. but the goal of this article is to pinpoint a particular problem among internet users and web site/blog owners.

Neutral Zone?

It seems to me that the internet has become somewhat of a "neutral zone" of sorts as it pertains to our use of words and tone in the articles, posts, and comments that are made about other people or issues in the Church. Certainly I am not outside the accused in this area as I have had times where I said some stupid things and did so in a way that is less than honoring to God. However, it seems to me that the admonition of the apostle Paul in Ephesians 4.29 still applies to internet conversations. The text reads:

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. (ESV)

Sometimes the things that are writen on blogs, web sites and comments are things that, in retrospect, ought not be written or could be re-written to offer a level of grace and charity to those it is directed towards. Sure, I am aware that the apostle Paul often used strong language in his dealings with various people in the Church but let's remember that he used that language under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit and he was, after all, an apostle who spoke authoritatively in these matters. We are not apostles and we are not under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We are prone to all sorts of bias and opinion and we need to be careful when we write articles and make comments about various issues in the Church. Take for instance the FV discussions that are currently storming the internet. I have witnessed, far too often, men who profess faith in Christ misrepresent other men who also profess faith in Christ. I have seen people say some of the nastiest things they can in order to make their opponent look bad. I have witnessed a total lack of self-control in various forms in comment sections of web sites and blogs as well as in articles and discussion boards. There seems to be a cannabilistic tendency among God's people that lends itself to this kind of behavior.

Fighting Fairly

Without question there are issues worth fighting for. However, that is not the point of this article nor does that fact change how we are to respond to others (whether we think they are Christians or not). The fact of the matter is that many of whom we say these nasty things about we have never met and really do not know at all. If we want to deal with the writings of other men on the internet we need to deal with the substance of the issue and not the men themselves. I have witnessed far too often professing Christians calling other professing Christians "false teachers" and "heretics" and all sorts of things that simply do not encourage honest discussion. There is not one single person out there, regardless of their degree or education, that has the Bible all figured out. Not one! Part of our lot in life is to walk this road together and reason together over matters of theology and practice. God has given us the Church to help and guide us in determining what is true and right and consistent with the Scriptures. The leaders of the Church are under the greatest kind of accountability since they are the shepherds appointed by God to guide His people in these matters. It is the responsibility of the Church to determine what is heretical and what is not. This is not a matter that is given to every member of Christ's bride. When I read, over and over, the number of accusations from members in the Church that "so and so" is a "heretic" and "false teacher" I wince inside because I fear that this simply does not promote any kind of honest discussion and debate. All it does is draw battle lines around various camps.

We all need to guard our words and we all need to be careful what we say and how we say it. We are accountable for every word that comes from our mouths and is hammered out on the keyboards of our computers. It really does not matter if we are talking about the latest controversy on the Federal Vision or whatever the subject. What matters is that God's Word has told us how we are to behave towards one another and, as far as I can tell, there are no qualifiers to this directive. One moderator of an email list I am on often offers the following counsel to people engaged in email debates: read, think and pray before you respond. I wonder, if we all followed that counsel how much junk would be eliminated from the internet and how many comments would be revised to reflect a more charitable attitude? I think it would truly change many of the things we write and say. Now don't get me wrong, I love spirited debates and I am all for a passionate reply to various issues (frankly, there is not enough passion in the Church about the truths of the Bible) however this does not mean we are allowed to fly off the handle and make wild accusations of others or label them with various titles and such in the name of truth. Our speech and our writings need to be seasoned and tempered in such a way that we make the point without smearing those in the body of Christ. Honestly, this is what is occuring on many blogs, web sites and in the comment sections of these sites. Just this week I fell into that same trap and allowed my own emotions to shipwreck my heart and actions. Friends, these things ought not be marked within the family of God.

Think About It

So, think about it the next time you sit down to pen a response to someone you do not agree with. Consider that God is watching and that you are accountable for your words. Since I am a presbyterian I believe the responsibility falls to the elders of the Church to guard its members from this sort of error. The elders are responsible for the spiritual oversight of its membership and this means that they are also accountable when they witness and are made aware of one of its members acting in a manner that is inconsistent with their profession.

I am a little slow on the trigger with the news report on happenings with the PCA Study Committee Report on the Federal Vision but thanks to Reformed News for the following report:

News: PCA Federal Vision / NPP Committee Report Modified

The Presbyterian Church in America's Federal Vision / NPP study committee report appeared on the news magazine By Faith Online on about the 7th of May (printout of original). This week, the PCA posted another draft, newly formatted, to the General Assembly website (pdf). The two drafts are nearly identical, content-wise, but the committee made at least one content change that some bloggers online have noticed.

In one section, the original report reads:
Furthermore, some FV writers have also denied that the covenant can be viewed from two different aspects. John Barach observed that "the Bible doesn't know about a distinction between being internally in the covenant, really in the covenant, and being only externally in the covenant." Likewise, Steve Wilkins argued that "all in covenant are given all that is true of Christ." Doug Wilson has implied that all baptized covenant members are participants in Christ in the same "strong sense," writing that "the person who did not persevere was not given less of Christ."

In response to this section of the report, Douglas Wilson notes that the writing referenced by the committee for this "implication" actually affirms the opposite. Likewise, the response of Jeffrey Meyers notes this error.

The revised report reads this way:
Furthermore, some FV writers have also denied that the covenant can be viewed from two different aspects. John Barach observed that "the Bible doesn't know about a distinction between being internally in the covenant, really in the covenant, and being only externally the covenant." Likewise, Steve Wilkins argued that "all in covenant are given all that is true of Christ."

The sentence regarding Wilson's views has been removed in the version of the report that will be distributed to GA commisioners in the General Assembly in Memphis this June. The questions some are asking online include: what motivated the change? which report is the official one? will further changes be made prior to the GA meeting?

In an attempt to understand the factors motivating the committee to change the report, RN contacted the committee on May 17th to inquire about the content change. Committee Chair, Paul Fowler provided no explanation and noted in an email, acquired by RN, to his fellow committee members, "Any suggestions on how to respond? Since we agreed not to respond to such sites, I am not sure what to do?" In the end, Fowler responded "We simply will not get involved in the blogs."

Previously, on May 16th, Fowler responded favorably to our request for a response from the committee concerning Meyers' paper, writing, "We will respond when we have opportunity to evaluate it."

We will continue to develop this story and keep you informed if Fowler or the committee releases further clarification.

Links of interest pertaining to this issue:

Green Baggins
30 Reasons...
Barlow Farms
Blog and MaBlog
A Brief Open Letter to Moderate TEs and REs in the PCA
Mid-America Reformed Seminary Report (pdf)

I came across this wonderful article written by a pastor of an RPCNA church in Indiana. Its primary emphasis is on what our covenant youth are posting on the internet but it could easily apply to all of God's people. I have included it here in its entirety (with a printer friendly version at the end) and have included my own comments at the end of this article:

To the youth of the Sycamore Reformed Presbyterian Church and their Christian friends:

My pastoral heart is grieving over you.

Why?

Every so often I survey your blogs and scan your Facebook pages. Why? You are in the flock I am charged by Christ to keep, one who has to "watch out for your souls, as those who must give an account" (Hebrews 13:17). I am not snooping in your private letters or peeking in your journals. I am looking at the witness you have chosen to advertise about yourself to the world through the internet. It is your testimony to a watching world. And to be honest, after spending some time doing so this morning, I feel sick to my stomach.

Why?

Certainly I saw bright spots of youthful enthusiasm for the church, encouraging interaction with others, and devotion to the Lord expressed. Yet I also see that our culture is awash in the sewage of a God-hating media, and many of you are at least giving the appearance of floating along and enjoying the ride.

Why would I say that? It was Jesus who said that what comes out of your mouth comes out of your heart (Matthew 15:18). I'm just taking Facebook at face value. Blogging stands for "web logging," so is it wrong of me to assume what you are writing there is accurately chronicling what you think and what you have done? According to Jesus, then, this is what is on your heart:
Look at how many R-rated movies you or your friends have listed as favorites. Do you really mean to use your internet space to promote publicly these films with their shameful scenes and blasphemous expletives? If even the world blushes a bit in rating a movie as sexual or violent, how can you not be ashamed to say to all your friends, "This is one of my favorites"? You appear to be engrossed with promoting what comes out of Hollywood. That's the witness you want to have?
Consider the lyrics and lifestyles of the music groups. What if I used my blog to record the antics and lyrics of these groups, then typed your name next to them as one who gives public endorsement? Do not try to excuse yourself by saying, "Just because I list a rock group does not mean I endorse all they do." You and I both know that when we see the guy walk by wearing a T-shirt with Linkin Park or Smashing Pumpkins on it, he is not just promoting the one or two half-decent songs ("decent" here not describing the quality of the music but its lyrical content) on their latest CD. He is advertising the group. And so are you when you list a group under "Favorite Music" on Facebook.
You show little regard for Jesus' promise, "I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they will give an accounting for it in the day of judgment" (Matthew 12:36). Before you say you really believe our Lord's word here, go back and read some of your "Wall-to-Wall" exchanges the way your parents, teachers or elders would. I saw comments belittling people you think no one else can figure out, complaining about school, quoting movies and songs regularly but rarely the Bible, making suggestive comments, showing times when you were supposed to be in school or at work, etc. "Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise," yet your mouths runneth over for all to see. If this seems a bit harsh, you recorded it! And it is written in His book also.
Don't get me wrong. You youth at Sycamore RPC are wonderful young people. I love you and want you to grow in wisdom and righteousness. I want you to shine forth with Christ, not the culture!

Now I can hear the protests to the above, only because I have heard them before:

"Mr. York, you are taking this, like, way too serious. This is just for fun. I have quiet times each day and I do love the Lord."

I do not doubt your love for Christ. I'm just calling you to a truer experience of it. And since when is the Christian life, in all its realms, not to be taken seriously (see Matthew 10:38-39)? Fun that denies Christ and His ways is not lawful fun.

"Mr. York, you are saying then that we should not watch any movie that has any immodesty, cursing, or violence? Only G-rated movies will do, huh? Is that not being legalistic?

That, my friend, is called the "straw man argument." Building my position back on a false foundation in order to ridicule it so as to make my points above appear invalid. First, note that my main point is that by posting these things on the internet you are witnessing in their favor. It is one thing to have heard a group; it is another to call it one of your favorites. Next, my concerns are aimed at the time, energy, and heart of your generation being devoted to the media culture. Also, the acceptable amount of "immodesty, cursing, or violence" any given movie may have depends on so many variables (age of viewer, purpose for viewing, way the director presents it, personal sensitivities, etc) that wisdom is needed in deciding on whether to watch a film or not. Finally, the previous sentence is still no excuse for the pervasive nudity, crudity and lewd-ity in many of the movies I saw listed. To outlaw all would indeed be legalistic; but to allow all is licentiousness.

"Mr. York, I have heard that your family - even you! - has watched some of the movies you seem to be so upset about. With all due respect, you being a pastor and all, does that not make you a bit hypocritical?"

I'll be the first to admit I have watched movies I later regretted viewing. When convicted of this, I told the others with me, sought forgiveness, and will not allow that movie to be watched again in my home. I do not agree with all the listings of my family members on the internet, and where I have the ability to change it I do. And I'll gladly make you a deal. Whatever movie you are concerned about that I have watched, please tell me. I'll remove it from my list but anticipate that you will also remove it from yours (Matthew 7:4-5).

At one time in his ministry Jonathan Edwards, pastor in Northampton, MA, during the Great Awakening, printed a public list of youth in the church who were reading inappropriate books. Though it made him highly unpopular and was one of the factors leading to his dismissal, these youth were disciplined for their wrongful behavior. Instead of protesting or making things difficult for the congregation, my dear young friends, listen. "Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be miserable and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy to gloom" (James 4:8-9). For if this lowly undershepherd is grieving, is not the True Shepherd of your soul? And if He is grieving, should you not be?

I was deeply convicted by this article and it really caused me to think about my own Christian life as it pertains to this area. What kind of impression am I leaving when I post articles, commentss, engage in chat sessions, write emails, etc with others on the internet? It caused me to think about my own teenagers web sites and blogs and what they are spending their time reading and writing about. This pastor is right, it is a heart issue and one that cannot and should not be overlooked by parents. We should not be foolish to think that our children's souls are made of titanium. We should also be aware that just because we are adults we are not free from this struggle either.

Furthermore, this article hit on other issues pertaining to thought life and what we spend our time filling our heads and mind with. Is it really legalism to evaluate movies and music that contain lyrics that are not God honoring in any way? Why is it we are so good at rationalizing this area? Sure, the pat answer is that we are sinners and all that but this does not mean we should be willfully watching or listening to some of the junk out there. Have you ever simply read the lyrics (without the music) of some of the music you listen to or that your children are listening to? I think if we all did that from time to time we would be horrified at some of the things that are being stated in these lyrics. Some of it is plain aweful and antithetical to what we profess and it is entering your mind and the mind's opf your children.

We must be consistent and faithful as God's people and this applies to what we fill our heads and minds with as well as what we allow our eyes to look at and view. No, it is not legalism to ask those questions and it is not legalism to evaluate much of the entertainment that comes our way these days. I have been guilty of not doing so in the past and, as a result, I have watched things and listened to things that I really should have steered clear of. We have all done that and we all need to be reminded that we are God's people and we are called to live for Him and serve Him with our whole heart, soul, mind and strength. So, how are you doing in this area? How are your children doing? Do you even know? Do I? Perhaps today would be a good day to sit down with your children and have this conversation. Share the article above with them and talk about this issue. Do it today!

In light of the recent discussion on the PCA Study Committee Report Jon Barlow has done a little research into the makeup of that committee. You can get more information here:

http://www.barlowfarms.com/index.html?cm_id=1867782

Good stuff!

Rev. Jeffrey Meyers has released a response to the Report of the PCA Study Committee on the Federal Vision. This document can be downloaded here:

30 Reasons Why it Would be Unwise for the PCA General Assembly to Adopt the Federal Vision Study Report and Its Recommendations [PDF document]

QUCK SUMMARY:

Here is an abbreviated list of reasons why it would be unwise for the PCA General Assembly to adopt the Federal Vision Study Report and its recommendations.

• The committee was not balanced in its composition and therefore did not fairly represent the diversity of theological views in the PCA. It would be very unwise for our Assembly to adopt a badly skewed Report that was produced by a committee that did not properly represent all points of view in the PCA assembly.

• Many commissioners will not receive the Report until the day before it is considered in the Assembly. It is not being sent with the Commissioners Handbook to delegates. It will be given to men when they arrive at GA as part of supplemental materials. How can it be wise to call for a vote on a detailed document like this when many commissioners will not have had time to read it, let alone digest and evaluate it carefully?

• The Report entails a much stricter understanding of confessional subscription than the PCA currently practices

• The Report effectively substitutes the Westminster Standards for the Bible as the supreme judge of all controversies of religion. The Federal Vision (hereafter FV) men have appealed to the Bible, but the committee repeats, "Westminster, Westminster, Westminster." This disregards our common commitment to sola scriptura and violates Westminster Confession 1.10.

• The Report's declarations presuppose that only one set of narrow theological terms and explanations can be compatible with the Reformed theological system of doctrine set forth in the Westminster Standards.

• The PCA men named in this document were not consulted before definitive explanations of their views were published and condemned. They will have no opportunity to defend themselves or their views before this is voted on and possibly adopted.

• By adopting the Report the PCA would be codifying an official view of the teaching of Wright, Leithart, Wilkins, Wilson, Lusk, etc. even the Report's characterization of their views is sloppy and inaccurate as I will demonstrate later in this response.

• If the Report were adopted, then its language would seem to imply that PCA men would not be allowed to teach or preach on anything contained in the Bible that is not codified in the Westminster Standards.

• The Report falsely accuses Federal Vision men of denying and/or compromising unconditional election simply because they do not always use the words "elect" and "election" in the decretal sense of these terms. The Report gives no weight to their explicit, public affirmations of unconditional election.

• The committee is asking the Assembly to declare its own declarations to be a faithful exposition of the Standards and thereby classify other expositions of these theological issues as out of accord with Westminster. The effect of passing the Report will be not simply be to condemn FV theology but also to effectively standardize a narrow tradition within Reformed Presbyterian confessional theology. The Report would require that all PCA presbyters, not just the FV men, line up on a very narrow theological line.

• The Report makes extra-confessional formulations part of the "vitals of the system of doctrine" contained in the Westminster Standards. Adoption of the Report would effectively saddle the entire Assembly with extra-confessional formulations regarding "merit," Christ's "active obedience," and more.

• The Report makes sweeping claims about the Westminster Standards that are implausible and then does not adequately support them. There are too many errors in the Report for the Assembly to adopt it.

• The Report inexcusably misrepresents FV men's positions on crucial issues.

• The Report effectively orders the presbyteries to come to a "guilty" verdict on ministers in good standing. All of the PCA men named in the Report have already been examined by their presbyteries. Some have even undergone extensive questioning. Passing the Report would overrule local presbytery decisions and this without the men being given the rights accorded to the accused in our judicial system.

• Adopting the Report would effectively squelch the on-going conversation and debate between Reformed brothers over the biblical and theological issues raised by the FV men. Why do we need a verdict from "on high" when the committee has not allowed the ministers in question a fair hearing?

PCA General Assembly: From what I understand The Study Committee report will be considered for adoption between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 13 at the PCA's 34th General assembly in Memphis. (source: Reformed News) Personally, I think every delegate to GA this year ought to read the "30 Reasons..." paper before going to Memphis.

Covenant Radio Note: In the next few weeks Covenant Radio will be hosting a roundtable discussion in reposne to the Report of the PCA Study Committee. This roundtable will include Jeff Meyers, Mark Horne and one or two other men. Look for more information on the Covenant Radio website.

By now many have heard about the recent release of the PCA Study Committee's paper on the Federal Vision(FV). You can get a PDF version of it here. Anyhow, someone commented on another blog (and also here on The Parchment) and made some interesting observations. Here is his comment in its entirety:

As an elder in the PCA for the past 24 years, and one who has attended many presbytery meetings and General Assemblies, I can firmly say that I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the study committee was set up with the particular membership to bring about a desired conclusion. Historically, when a study committee has been set up, both proponents and opponents formed part of the committee. See the study committees on Creation, Women in the Military, Paedocommunion, to name a few. Look at results of study committees and note that there were both majority and minority reports. What does that tell you? Not everybody was in agreement. They knew that would be the case going into their study but the desire was to see two sides work together to try and reach a consensus through honest theological interaction, not just with writings and blog shoutings but with real people who could put forth cogent answerable thoughts and questions. This was not done here. One has to ask why? When I mentioned to one of the members of the church where I serve as a ruling elder that a committee had been formed by the PCA to “study” Federal Vision and NPP etc. and that they had finished their work, his first question to me seem reasonable. He asked who made up the committee and if there were those who were “for” and “against” so as to adequately study and discuss the matters at hand. When I told him that only opponents were on the committee (and I might add some of those proponents had already made their opinions quite well known in published writings and internet dialog) his gut response was “then the study committee was a sham. How can you have divergent theological views being espoused in a denomination, set up a study committee to actually study and dialog and only have one side represented?” My question indeed. I must admit that I am a presuppositionalist, but this kind of presupposition concerning my mother church I did not want to hold. At least a little window dressing to include a “token” FV proponent might have given more credibility to the committee. Certainly this committee’s report will do nothing to dissuade FV proponents that this is more a matter of a “witchhunt” with a forgone conclusion then a serious attempt to deal with the issues. Four presbyteries have already dealt with FV proponents and while they agree that they have disagreements with some of the FV musings, all have clearly made it known that the men under question are within the bounds of orthodoxy and Westminster. In all sincerity, why not have proponents on the committee? There are certainly men who are articulate, members in good standing in their respective presbyteries who could have adequately represented the position. The notable absence of such men was a great disservice to both the committee and the assembly at large. Are we viewed as men with such a lack of ability to follow theological arguments that we must be spoon fed the “appropriate” line and no more? This type of action demonstrates a great lack of trust and confidence the elders’ ability to actually do the work of “Bereans”. It is also a lack of faith in the Holy Spirit’s ability to rightly persuade men. We have been treated like children whose “parents” must do the thinking for them.

He is absolutely correct in this comment, in my opinion. Even in major cases facing the United States Supreme Court there are majority and minority positions released for the public to digest. Furthermore, ecclesiastically we have had examples of majority and minority reports released on matters such as paedocommunion. Why not in this case?

Few books have touched my heart and my soul more than this splendid work written by the Puritan, Thomas Watson. The Godly Man's Picture is a book written to implore God's people to a life of godliness. This will be my fourth reading trough this little book and I am both deeply saddened at my own sinfulness and also encouraged to pursue godliness each time I read it. I will, from time to time, offer some thoughts and comments here on my web journal as I read through it.

In the opening pages of the book the author sets out to establish his purpose for writing this book. There is an interesting quote worth considering found on the opening page:

Godliness consists in an exact harmony between holy principles and practices

As one who is prone to reading deeper works of theology and filling my head with all sorts of theoretical information I need to be reminded often that the Christian life is more than theology and the pursuit of knowledge. The Christian life, if genuine, is one that lives each hour in a rabid pursuit of godliness -- a life that marries the knowledge with the practice. This simple thought often brings great fear into my own heart. I love knowledge and often purse it with a tenacity that no other pursuit enjoys. Yet, I often wonder if my pursuit of godliness is equally evident. I see a great chasm in my own life in this area. Does my godliness look like that kind of harmony that Watson is talking about? Often, I fear, it does not.

Later he writes:

This is the grand business that should swallow up your time and thoughts. Other speculations and quaint notions are nothing to the soul.

This grand business the author is speaking of is this pursuit of godliness. Yet, how often do we, as God's people, spend so much time pursuing other unimportant things? We spend countless hours doing things that do not last. Sure, we have our lives and the "tyranny of the urgent" often strikes all of us from time to time. However, do we really consider this pursuit as valuable and worthwhile? I wonder that about myself quite often. Furthermore, what types of disciplines can all of us employ in our pursuit of godliness? One thing is for certain, if we do not desire godliness we will certainly never arrive at that destination. One who does not desire godliness must surely examine the foundation of their profession of faith and ask if it is truly legitimate. Many false sons reside in the Church but only those who desire and seek for godliness are truly owned by Christ. Do you desire godliness? Do I?

Think about it.

On May 7, 2007 at 11 AM I will be hosting another Parchment Podcast as I continue the devotional through Psalm 119. This week I will be dealing with verses 17-24 of that chapter. If you are interested in listening to the podcast LIVE you may do so at blogtalkradio by clicking the following link and then clicking the LISTEN LIVE link on that page:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/TheParchment

This is an interactive broadcast that allows you to call in with questions or comments about the podcast. If you desire to call in simply call (718) 664-9766. As always this podcast will be archived for future listening at the Podcast menu item at the top of this page.

If you are planning on listening live please drop me a comment here and let me know. I would be interested in knowing who out there does listen in during the live broadcast.

The poll for the month of May is now available. The question: Do you think the Federal Vision is heresy? Simply log your opinion in the poll section in the sidebar on the main page.

Be brave! If you log your vote state your reasons for why you voted the way you did by leaving a comment under this post.

To help me keep track of my own Bible reading progress I created an Excel spreadsheet. If you are interested in this tool feel free to download it here:

http://www.theparchment.org/downloads/Bible_Reading_Planner.xls (Excel 2003 document)

Instructions are included.

Tomorrow (May 2, 2007) at 1 PM I will be hosting another Parchment Podcast as I continue the devotional through Psalm 119. This week I will be dealing with verses 17-24 of that chapter. If you are interested in listening to the podcast LIVE you may do so at blogtalkradio by clicking the following link and then clicking the LISTEN LIVE link on that page:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/TheParchment

This is an interactive broadcast that allows you to call in with questions or comments about the podcast. If you desire to call in simply call (718) 664-9766. As always this podcast will be archived for future listening at the Podcast menu item at the top of this page.

If you are planning on listening live please drop me a comment here and let me know. I would be interested in knowing who out there does listen in during the live broadcast.