The question Jim Berg asked himself in 1999 is the same question he claims to have continually asked himself in 2018:
Do I consider the material I am examining essential for my daughters' pursuit of God and godliness, or is it merely peripheral? Is this idea or that thought indispensable for their walk in the Spirit, or is it only incidental? And most important, will it stir within them a thirst for God, a hunger for His Word, and a desire to represent Him well as salt in the earth?
Read it closely. Is God something to be pursued? Is being LIKE God something to be pursued? Is God just a trophy at the end of a race?
Does salt “represent” something outside itself? Is that what salt does?
Do you salt your baked potato so it better represents the sheer ontology of potatoness? Do you throw salt on the sidewalk in January so that the sidewalk can represent cement better?
Absolutely not. Salt preserves. Salt improves the sheer pleasure of something. Ironically enough, nothing has changed in Changed 2.0. It’s the same wrong-headed heresy that it was the first go-round.
You don’t listen, Jim. You never have. You ask these spiritual-ish questions but you don’t want any answers.
Sounds like Romans 1.













