How Many Apply Here?

I don't read a lot of Internet Monk's stuff, but his post on 10 Reasons I Don't Read Your Blog seems pretty spot on to me (HT: Vitamin Z).

I Said Race . . .

Not play tag. But tagged I have been by Craver. The tag questions are:

1. Are you happy/ satisfied with your blog, with its content and look? Yes, I am. But then I'm not one easily dissatisfied with a background or a color. As long as things are legible and not ostentatious, I'm okay with it.
   
2. Does your family know about your blog? My brothers and sisters and at least one nephew knows about the blog. I don't think any of them read it.
   
3. Do you feel embarrassed to let your friends know about your blog or you just consider it as a private thing? Embarrassed probably isn't the right word. I sometimes think it is slightly arrogant to think I have something to say worth putting into public forum. But I do post, so it is a false humility that I seem to be trying to maintain.
   
4. Did blogs cause positive changes in your thoughts? Writing, probably not so much. Clarifying and ordering my thoughts would be more accurate. Reading blogs? Definitely. I could almost copy Craver's answer here. Until I started reading a lot of blogs, and in particularly the comments in blogs, I didn't realize how hurtful (maybe not the best word, but the best I have at the moment), arrogant, and condescending some statements could sound, even if they were not intended that way. The written word is a difficult tool to wield gracefully, and the blog (and blog comment even more so) are such small pieces on which to work. To do so well is a rare gift.
   
5. Do you only open the blogs of those who comment on your blog or you love to go and discover more by yourself? Most of the blogs I read (or scan, more often, using Google Reader) have never commented on my blog (this one or the other one). I'm not a stat junkie (I deal with that all day; I don't want to deal with it when I get home) so I've never even checked who, if anyone, visits. I'm quite irregular in my posting, so I doubt many are in the habit of reading this blog.
   
6. What does visitors counter mean to you? Do you care about putting it in your blog? I touched on this in question five, but no, I don't care. I remember a story (Alistair Begg, I think) told of being in Scotland taking headstone rubbings in an old church graveyard. The minister came out and said that he had a youth study to lead in a little while. Would Alistair take a break so as not to be a distraction? He did, but came back a little early to listen to the message. The minister was teaching, but there was no one there to hear. While the story seems humorous, the point was that the word must go out, whether there is anyone to listen or not.
   
7. Did you try to imagine your fellow bloggers and give them real pictures? I don't have a vivid imagination and have learned not to trust my images. For example, I had listened to White Horse Inn for a long time before I saw a picture of Kim Riddlebarger. I had a mental image of a darker haired version of Michael Horton. Wrong. Not to fault Kim. He has more hair than I do. But I have a hard time putting the voice with the face now. As far as using a picture of myself, let me quote another Hoosier (John Mellencamp), "I never wanted to have my picture taken; Now tell me, who'd want to look into these eyes?" If anyone's curious, we (my brother's and I) described me to my new sister-in-law who is legally blind (adult illness) as Uncle Fester with a (now mostly grey) gotee.
   
8. Do you think there is a real benefit for blogging? Yes, but there are real dangers as well. The Bible is serious when it warns us that those who teach will suffer stricter condemnation. Blogging has a tendency to encourage everyone to "teach" whether that is what we call it or not.
   
9. Do you think that bloggers’ society is isolated from real world or interacts with events? It all depends on the blog and blogger. Some blogs are dedicated to interaction and maybe go to far in that direction. Others are totally cut off from the real world. I think most are somewhere in between, but balance is hard to find and maintain. Too much interaction and you can easily become a "guardian of the public good" (at least in your own mind). Speaking to what's on people's minds without becoming a demigog is difficult.
   
10. Does criticism annoy you or do you feel it’s a normal thing? Pobody's nerfect, but it is natural to be defensive when criticized. I just try to understand the other view and not get too wrapped up in a war of words. I've been there, done that, and nobody's opinion changed. Dr. S. Lewis Johnson once (at least) said, "You can win the argument and still be wrong." I know I'm wrong about many things. I just don't know which things.
    
11. Do you fear some political blogs and avoid them? I have been part of the great mass that believed in politics. When I was in high school and college I was a serious Libertarian. After I became I Christian, I became a serious conservative (not the same as a serious Republican - I'm not sure such an animal exists - but frequently confused). Today, I just don't think politics or science hold the answers that we as Americans have assumed for so long that they would.
    
12. Did you get shocked by the arrest of some bloggers? Since I didn't know about it, apparently not. Is this the case (speaking of the Libertarian Party)? Given the description of what's going on there, I'm not surprised by this. I would be surprised if the case stands.
    
13. Did you think about what will happen to your blog after you die? No. I don't see any great change over where my blog is now.
    
14. What do you like to hear? What’s the song you might like to put a link to, in your blog? I have a list on the right. I must admit that I generally turn off songs that play at other people's blogs. I might even like it, but most of the time the quality of the sound isn't that great. However, if I did put a song on my blog, it would probably be something like this (warning - youtube link; video quality is not great, but he audio is good). I already linked to this, and some Steve Taylor songs.
    

Gospel Passion

Recently a group of pastors and theologians met as part of The Gospel Coalition. From my vantage point (not being at the conference) it appears that the driving person behind this group is Dr. Donald (D. A.) Carson. Dr. Carson opened the conference with the message "What Is the Gospel?" from 1 Corinthians 15 (audio or video is available at the website). Dr. Carson states at the start of his message that the Bible

understands the gospel to be the embracing category that holds much of the whole Bible together and takes Christians from lostness, condemnation, alienation from God all the way through conversion, and discipleship, to the consummation, to resurrection bodies and the new heaven and the new earth."

Shortly after that Dr. Carson says:

Perhaps more common yet today is the tendency to assume the gospel, whatever that is, while devoting creative energy and passion to other issues - marriage, happiness, prosperity, evangelism, the poor, wrestling with Islam, bioethics, pressures of secularization, dangers on the left, dangers on the right - the list is endless. But this overlooks the fact that our hearers inevitably are drawn toward that about which we are most passionate. Every teacher knows that. My students are unlikely to learn all that I teach them. I've resigned myself to that for a long time. They are most likely to learn what I am excited about. If the gospel is merely assumed, while relatively peripherial issues ignite our passion, we will train a new generation to downplay the gospel and focus on the periphery. It is easy to sound prophetic from the margins. What is urgently needed is to be prophetic from the center. What is to be feared, in the famous words of T.S. Eliot, is that the center does not hold. Moreover if in fact we do focus on the gospel and understand it aright we shall soon see how this gospel, rightly understood, directs us how to think about and what to do about a vast array of other kinds of issues.

What then, about this blog? What do I focus on and what am I passionate about? I struggle at times to be passionate about the gospel (per Dr. Carson's definition above) and not just jumping into the latest intramural battles that seem so popular in the conservative church today.

What I want, using Dr. Carson's words, is to not get caught up in the periphery, but to speak from the center of our faith. If successful, then there will be nothing new here on this blog. This will be a relay station for a message that has been transmitted for millennia. I'm not the best relay station and I may not have the best range, but I want the signal to be clear. I want to encourage believers, bear witness to the lost, and defend the gospel when necessary.

I acknowledge that I have not always done so in the past, getting caught up in debates over matters about which we should not be expending much effort (matters of conscience). That is to say that I have been passionate about the periphery.

If your faith like my faith is in Jesus who died, was buried, and was raised on the third day, in Jesus who told His disciples that Scriptures speak of Him, then I encourage you by God's grace to reflect on those Scriptures and in doing so to make as much of Jesus as can. Then let us bear witness to Him with as an irenic spirit as possible in a ministry of reconciliaton.

Cyberspace and Blogs

(HT: Vitamin Z)

Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" is one of the better (the best?) cultural critiques I've read (don't take my word for it - check out the review on Discerning Reader). This video is worth listening to the whole thing (it's an interview, the video portion isn't really needed), even if you don't agree with everything he says. I like the concluding question he says we need to ask, "Am I using this technology or is it using me?"

If 10 minutes is longer than you want to spend, then let the video load and watch from about 6:00 minutes remaining to 3:40 minutes remaining (however, by doing this you'll miss some thought provoking ideas).



I also like a related comment made by Os Guinness in a recent interview conducted on the White Horse Inn.

But it comes down in the rain or it comes from your mother's milk in this country. . . You take something as irrational currently as the blogs. Now the blogs are partly a useful counter check on the public media. But if you ever want an explosion, an orgy of irrationality and emotionality, look at the blogs. This is our world. A world of television, image, makeovers, blogs, impression management, and so on. We are living in a world that undermines truth at almost - every time you turn around.

If you do not know who Os Guinness is, or have never read any of his books, I highly recommend The Call. Others are equally good, like Prophetic Untimeliness or A Time for Truth.

Both of these come back to my love/hate relationship with technology. It provided the opportunity to hear the interviews with these two men, but it also demands so much time and attention. In Neil Postman's words, it is a Faustian bargain.

So Far As Possible

In dealing with Romans 12:18, the final question I want to address is what do we do when it is not possible to live peaceably with someone? I think there are different answers depending on what kind of disagreement is in view. Perhaps the most frightening, but easiest to deal with in the theoretical, is the person who is violent. In this case, the state, if it is fulfilling the purpose for which God created it, should step into the situation (see Romans 13). Unfortunately for Paul, it was often agents of the state who were being inappropriately violent. In this case, we submit to the persecution and praise God anyway.

Those who are merely being antagonistic should just be avoided. I see this as the equivalent of Jesus telling the disciples that if they were not received in a town, to shake the dust off their feet. I do not think this should be done hastily, but if after repeated attempts to be civil have failed, the best option is to avoid the situation as much as possible. This assumes, of course, the other party is an unbeliever. As believers, we are called to reconcile our differences, if necessary seeking other believers as mediators.

The New Testament is also clear that those who seek to undermine the authority of the Scriptures, or to distort the gospel, cannot be left to promulgate their teaching in the church. Paul, in Galatians and the Pastorals especially, makes it clear that false teaching of this type requires swift and decisive action.

But what about those who hold the Scriptures in high regard, and are sound on the gospel, but hold to some doctrine that we feel is contrary to Scripture. Should those who hold to infant baptism have discourse with one who believes in believer's baptism? Should one who holds to a day-age view of creation be shunned by those who believe in literal 24 hour days? Individual lines are always difficult to draw. What may be a major doctrinal point for you may not be for me.

In my opinion, those who hold to certain essentials should be treated as brothers. In non-essentials, we should be able to openly disagree without dividing. Being at peace with someone should not exclude us from having spirited (Spirited?) discussions about doctrine. In fact, it should encourage it. Our unity in essentials should free us to discuss our differences in substantial matters that are not essentials. I have benefited from interacting with and reading those with whom I have some fairly significant differences.

I am a fallen creature, and as such I know that my doctrine is not now perfect. Therefore I have to be open to the possibility of change. At the same time, I have centuries of discussion on critical doctrines where other redeemed men have been united on key doctrines that they have found in the Bible. I cannot in good conscience set those aside because of a contemporary mood that finds them distasteful.

Therefore, so far as I am able, I will live peaceably with all. But I will also heed the call to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Addendum (Monday, May 7 at ~ 8:30 EST): Reading through this again, I want to emphasize that the ending is not intended too mitigate the beginning of the series. There are only a few doctrines for which I see us being called to contend earnestly. While I don't see these doctrines as being limited to either the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed, they are definitely good starting points. I would quickly add the inspiration and authority of Scripture. I would not include, for example, the mode and timing of Baptism, which I see as important and worth discussion, but discussion that first and foremost acknowledges the bond of Christ. This does not mean that I would expect an expressly paedobaptistic congregation to accept me into leadership (I would, in fact, expect the opposite). But I would expect that we could fellowship and grow together in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I also believe in that situation I have an obligation to not make baptism a subject of discussion. (As a sidenote, it is generally much easier for a Baptist to be accepted into a congregation of paedobaptists than vice versa.)

This is all to say that I think too many of us are too willing to divide over doctrines over which we should not be dividing. While some of them may lead us to be parts of different congregations, they should not prevent us from having close friendships with one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. If it sounds like I've been listening to the Together for the Gospel guys again, I have.

When I Grow Up

I want to be a librarian. Think about it. All those books and a nice quiet atmosphere. A long time ago I read a list of the best jobs. At the top was actuary (quiet and better pay, I suppose) but second was librarian. I'm sure there are the periodic confrontations, but mostly it would seem like a quiet job.

But that's not the career path I chose. So I'm an engineer. Not a bad job, but more stressful, I think, than being a librarian would be. Which is to say I generally want the rest of my life to be quiet and uneventful. I'm starting to see that's not likely to be the case. It is said there is an ancient Chinese curse - "May you live in interesting times." Our times are interesting, I will say that.

I bring this up to say that one reason I haven't been blogging, or reading blogs, much these days is because they are (gross generalization coming) contentious. There are exceptions. Voice of Vision, The Dow, Dluxe's World, Craver VII, Between Two Worlds and others I readily acknowledge as exceptions. But many of the places I (used to) frequent seem to thrive on debate.

I'm not against debate. There are those who are called to the front line and all of us are there on occasion. I just don't want to be there all the time. So I'm going to try to remove that "tone" from my posts. This is not a call for others to do the same. If you read this and are happy with your blog, by all means carry on. Sometimes the debate blogs get the lion's share of the attention, so not everyone feels like I do. It's probably more of a temperament thing anyway.

I thought about deleting some of my more contentious old posts, but that's more work than I want to spend on this. Besides, they provide a measuring stick for whether I've really changed or not. Part of this attitude change may relate to being out (again) of the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention), but probably not. I'm not sure if it's a life verse (if you have a life verse, feel free to let me know) but it's a verse that I have come back to quite often since I found it years (okay, I can probably measure this in decades now) ago:

Romans 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. (ESV)

When I grow up, I want to be a peacemaker.