Some fellows are providing links as a “religion news” type of service. I don’t mind that so much. The links to men who are no friends of fundamentalism as if they are mighty men of God is disappointing.

As for my outlines, I have fallen off lately on publishing them. I am also creating a study guide for our people at the same time and trying to finish a renovation job on a duplex I own. (One more day on the reno and two more study guides to go!) This has put a good deal of pressure on the sermon outline business. A few of them have been composed in the wee hours and have preached much better than they read. I hope to go back and get them in better shape in May or June, and do plan to get caught up on the whole set by then.

A few years ago, back when I was using a ‘floppy only’ computer, I had my sermon disappear before my eyes because I didn’t print it at a critical point. It was late at night so I decided to pull out an old sermon and preach it again. As I looked at my old handwritten notes, I realized then that I needed to make better notes or my old ones would be no good, so now I try to write as detailed an outline as possible.

I am glad to hear that they have been a blessing to you. I expect you will find that there will be some things where we don’t see eye to eye, but we wouldn’t be Baptists if that weren’t true, eh?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Another thing bloggers should be accountable for is who they link to, or quote. Either they don’t care that they are endorsing heretics or those with watered-down theology, or they really have no clue what effect their endorsement could have. Sure, they may like a questionable blog that they read carefully with discernment, but their linking causes others to think that blog is good – therefore resulting in the spread of unsound theology. Just a pet peeve of mine.

P.S. I wanted to add, I really appreciate your sermon outlines. I have been reading a bunch of them, and find them worthwhile to study out – sort of like a commentary with applications. Food for thought. Thank you.

My objection to the posts in question is that they write as if Smith’s editorial is off the wall, yet it is nothing of the kind. The blogosphere is indeed mostly useless, with very few exceptions.

A critique that isn’t a critique is a non sequitur. It does not follow.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Two things, as I see it. First, they were both using Smith’s article as an occasion to make other points, not critiquing the article itself. Second, they were objecting to the person who was chiding everyone else when he and his publication are guilty of the very things for which he chides the blogosphere. Where is his journalistic credibility? (He is a lesser successor to greater predecessors, imo.) Where is his accountability? He and the Sword have also violated most of the rest of the points you list. I think they object to being pontificated to by one who does the very things against which he rails.

The points made in the article are good points. But the messenger ruins the message in this case.