fundamentalism by blunt instrument
As an observer of the wild world of Christendom such as it is in North America, it is all too easy to be outraged. Many things done and said in the name of Christ are outright travesties. It is easy to be outraged about them.
As a blogger, outrage is a constant temptation.
I read the blog of an Alberta church-planting pastor whom I have never met. He comes from a quite different background from me and is just a bit younger. But I find his articles quite interesting. His latest is called The Reformed Renewal in which he analyses the backgrounds of various Calvinistic leaders in the Baptist world.
I think you will find his analysis interesting. He is talking primarily about backgrounds, not necessarily current position. However, I can’t help but think there is still something of the background in each man’s current position. Notice especially what he says about Piper and MacArthur.
Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I wrote the most recent post in a new blog editing tool I discovered, Windows Live Writer from Microsoft. The tool is free (but in beta) and allows you to edit your posts in a WYSIWIG window, but adds many tools and features not available in Blogger’s editing window. For example, I can insert tables like this:
|
Label |
Label |
| Point One | Point One A |
| Point Two | Point Two A |
I can insert a map. Here is a map of our church’s location:
We are at the corner of Brock and Matson above. The map comes as a road map, or in aerial view as below.
In the aerial view, our church building is the black-roofed building just above the green playing fields, with a few gary oaks behind. The oaks are mostly gone now, we have 14 townhouses as our ‘back-door’ neighbours now.
I can also easily insert pictures, hyperlinks, and videos, all without leaving a fairly intelligent WYSIWIG editor. There is an option to insert tags, one which I don’t understand. The tags are somehow related to Technorati, or Flickr, or deli.icio.us and others. These are things I have vaguely heard of but I don’t really know what they mean.
I can format text in quite a few different ways, like this:
or
or
or
or
or
I can add colour to text, strikethrough, and other formatting settings.
So far I am quite pleased with this editor. It makes posting so much easier.
I can save these posts as drafts, to work on later, or I can publish directly from this editor to my blog without entering its editing features.
Try it, you might like it…
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I am back to a semi-normal schedule in my ministry. The duplex renovation is virtually complete – I am just fiddling with a few final touch-ups. We have it on the market and hope to have a sale soon. We are in a protracted negotiation with a buyer, hopefully this one will make it go. I have also finished my Thru the NT series, so I am not tied to the weekly production of a study guide.
As a result, I hope to be getting back to writing about things that interest me. I have a whole list of them stored in my PIM. My plan is to write a little each day as I am able.
My inconsistent posting in the last months is symptomatic, however, of something I observe in the entire blogging experience. If you check the blogs I have listed in the sidebar, you will note that many of them suffer from the same malaise. Blogging, like any writing, requires discipline and effort to persist in it. There is a first rush of enthusiasm that may or may not carry a writer through six months of effort or so.
After the first rush is over, the real test begins. 1. Do I have enough drive to write to keep on writing on a regular basis? 2. Do I have anything more to say after I have gotten my ideas off my chest? 3. Do I write for the sake of writing, or do I write for the satisfaction of having readers?
The answers to each of these questions may vary, but the tests are real. I have all my life longed to be a writer, but until blogging came along, no real satisfactory medium presented itself. Blogging allows writing in short bursts on a variety of topics. I may never have any idea sufficient to produce a book (many don’t, including those who actually get published). But I am interested in a wide variety of things and like to experiment with my expression of those things.
Lately, in the blogosphere that I read, it seems that most of my friends are too busy with other things to spare the time for blogging. It also may be that they have hit the ‘blogging wall’ and it remains to be seen whether they will move past it. Some, of course, simply write when they feel inclined, not as a matter of daily passion. That is part of the beauty of the medium, to me. Nevertheless — they are leaving me starved for opinions (their opinions, not mine! I have plenty of opinions on everything, just ask!) I hope that more will be forthcoming from their ‘pens’ soon.
In the meantime, if you have any thought of being a writer, all the books I have ever read on the subject say this: write. Whether you write a blog or not, write something. Keep a daily journal. Set aside a half hour each day to work on something – just write. If it’s any good, you can always go back and rewrite later. Otherwise, you can accumulate an archaeological store for someone to ponder over when they uncover your bits and bytes in some distant archaeological effort.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Shelton Smith, the editor of the Sword of the Lord, wrote an editorial regarding the blogosphere here. I don’t know how many people blogged about it, but I first became aware of it here, at paleoevangelical, a post linked by Greg Linscott at Current Christian. Later Bob Bixby unleashed on it over at Pensee’s. Paleo Ben, as I like to call him, linked to Bob’s post by commenting again on paleoevangelical here.
I finally got around to actually reading Smith’s article after all these links and commentary. I have to wonder what all the anxiety is about. Shelton Smith didn’t say that Christians should never have a blog or comment on a blog. What he said is that Christians should be responsible when they blog. What is wrong with that? By ranting and raving about Shelton Smith and his call for responsibility, I suspect that the rant is about something else. I wonder if those complaining (especially Bob and Ben) read the same article I did. They certainly got a different impression.
It seems that Bob’s offense with Smith’s words has nothing to do with what Smith actually said. It has to do with fundamentalist politics in general and in particular with Smith and the SotL’s practice of editing sermons they publish, especially Spurgeon’s sermons. They have a tendency to edit out the more Calvinistic bits. Well… I suppose that is true. What does it have to do with the content of Smith’s editorial? What, specifically, is ‘anti-blog’ about it? The editorial seems to accept that blogs are here to stay (they are until the next fad). It merely suggests that those of us who blog should be careful about what we say and make absolutely certain about the assertions we make.
I know first hand how easy it is to post something that one regrets later. I have done it more than once. The on-line world is self-corrective, they say. Yes it is. But one error can seriously damage an individual and his future ministry. (At least I haven’t gone so far as to damage my ministry — that I know of, anyway!) Surely Smith’s call for caution is well worth heeding. And it is well worth reading as well. Go over and have a look. Compare it to the reaction. Don’t you agree that those reacting are over-reacting?
Is the Sword the absolutely best periodical in fundamentalism? Maybe not. But the reactions to the editorial were weird. They had nothing to do with what was said and everything to do with an axe that keeps getting ground at certain blogs. Methinks those protesting protest too much and become an example of what Smith was editorializing about. From a knee jerk antagonistic reaction to Smith and the SotL, the invective becomes a rant against the whole of fundamentalism, caricaturizing it in a way consistent with the blogs involved, but not consistent with the reality I have experienced.
These are bro. Smith’s recommendations for the blogosphere. They are well worth heeding:
1. I’m all for free speech! Our First Amendment freedoms have come at great cost, and they are precious!
But Christians (of all people) should use their freedoms responsibly. Opinions, rumors, etc., should be checked, rechecked and fully certified before being repeated or published. …
2. Scandals (even Christian ones) should be exposed! If and when there are issues of scandal, the scoundrels should expect to get some bad press. But the blogosphere so often has no journalistic credibility whatsoever. It often is “my thoughts” and “your thoughts” which are given with no other purpose than to smear good people. …
3. Gossip is not a Christian activity! Even if you do it with a computer, it is not right! The fact that you have your own blog does not give you scriptural license to peddle gossip. …
4. Christian integrity demands accountability of all of us. Don’t open your mouth unless you’ve done your homework and know for sure whereof you speak.
5. It is neither faithful nor fruitful, neither pious nor prudent to tell everything you know—even if it is true! Some things serve no public good by being spoken. …
6. Some things are issues of sufficient public interest and for the public good that they must be reported. But even then, it should be done in a responsible manner. Facts must be checked and rechecked. Primary sources must be consulted. Be accountable for your actions. Sign your name to whatever you say or write.
7. Christians ought to be Christian! As I review the Christian blogosphere, I see a lot that doesn’t look certifiably Christian to me.
All Christian bloggers would do well to abide by these recommendations. In particular, the question we should ask is this, “Is it necessary?” Perhaps it would reduce our output, especially posts such as this one that holds others up to criticism. The temptation is to simply let fly. Better to wait. Think it through, and ask God’s guidance.
Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
The latest audio from the GBCvic
Comments