Java required you to create a whole object with a single method called a functor if you wanted to treat a function like a first class object. Combine that with the fact that many OO languages want you to create a whole file for each class, and it gets really klunky fast. If your programming language requires you to use functors, you're not getting all the benefits of a modern programming environment. See if you can get some of your money back.
For those who appreciate it (and are probably missing out on less-esoteric parts of life), I publish the link and the quotation. The rest of you, carry on.
In response to Anyabwile's question, “How would you counsel other associate pastors who might be laboring alongside a man/men who are not reform minded?” Carter wisely responds
The first thing to understand is that God already gave the church Martin Luther. If He wants another one, He’ll raise him up. Don’t spend your time presuming you are him.
An excellent lesson for all of us. Do read the whole interview, please.
A few years ago we made friends with some very secular folks. They were into spirituality, but disliked anything that was defined. They were also living with each other. Then they decided to marry—and included us on their joyful celebration. A month later we saw them and asked how it was going. They said they were puzzled. Ever since getting married things were different—they had more arguments, their relationship had changed. They could not understand since marriage, in their thinking, was only the acceptable way of society and only a piece of paper. They married to conform. But they were running into the reality that the two had been made one by God. They could not escape.
Whatever we worship we will serve, for worship and service are always inextricably bound together. We are "covenantal" beings. We enter into covenant service with whatever most captures our imagination and heart. It ensnares us. So every human personality, community, thought-form, and culture will be based on some ultimate concern or some ultimate allegiance—either to God or to some God-substitute.
UPDATE:
An even better quotation from the article, which has churned in my mind for a few days:I ordinarily begin speaking about sin to a young, urban, non-Christian like this:
Sin isn’t only doing bad things, it is more fundamentally making good things into ultimate things. Sin is building your life and meaning on anything, even a very good thing, more than on God. Whatever we build our life on will drive us and enslave us. Sin is primarily idolatry.
Why is this a good path to take?
First, this definition of sin includes a group of people that postmodern people are acutely aware of. Postmodern people rightly believe that much harm has been done by self-righteous religious people. If we say “sin is breaking God’s law” without a great deal of further explanation, it appears that the Pharisaical people they have known are ‘in’ and most other people are ‘out.’ Pharisees, of course, are quite fastidious in their keeping of the moral law, and therefore (to the hearer) they seem to be the very essence of what a Christian should be. An emphasis on idolatry avoids this problem. As Luther points out, Pharisees, while not bowing to literal idols, were looking to themselves and their moral goodness for their justification, and therefore they were actually breaking the first commandment. Their morality was self-justifying motivation and therefore spiritually pathological. At the bottom of all their law-keeping they were actually breaking the most fundamental law of all. When we give definitions and descriptions of sin to postmodern people, we must do so in a way that not only challenges prostitutes to change but also Pharisees.