Ted Olsen wrote a thought provoking piece on blogging in CT. Here’s the nub:

[M]any bloggers still feel like they have to have their own site to be “contributing to the conversation.” The blogosphere, which was supposed to be a great democratizer, has made us all perennial candidates, demanding that we weight in on every news item, not matter how mundane or oveexposed. (The blog world risks becoming one giant midrash on The New York Times’s front page.)

And he’s right. I have read on other blogs how to make a great blog and I thoroughly disagree with them. The advice really tells how to get a lot of comments on your blog and maybe even a lot of links, but that isn’t want makes a blog great. Olsen explained that to do a blog “right” means to live the blog. He says of good Christian blogs, “it’s not necessarily the quality of their blogs that matter. It’s matching their quality with frequency.”

All of this is true, but once again, does that make it a good blog? Not to me. Forget frequency of posts; a well used, well populated RSS aggregate reader levels that playing field. And check the regularity of posts and the quantity of comments on this blog. According to those criteria, this is a poor blog. Yet I keep blogging.

Time to wax philosophical for a moment on blogging. I’ve done it before but I wasn’t as careful with my words and made it sound like commercial blogs were bad. So let me give it another shot.

Blogging has quickly changed complexion. And I think it was inevitable. When blogging began everyone rushed to it. And the quality of blog posts was essentially this:

Mon the 2nd – OMG, I haven’t posted in like so long. Sorry. I’ll try to post more often. Swear.

Mon the 9th – Wow, wear did that weak go? Sorry, I’ll update soon. Theirs been alot going on and I really have to tell you about it. I’ll post tomorrow.

Thu the 12th – So I saw Fantastic Four on Tuesday with a bunch of friends (except Danny, who was a total jerk at the movie) and it so totally rocked! The special effects were excellent and the action was nonstop. Great movie go see it. You won’t be disappointed promise.

Tue 17th – I am so sad today :,-( I’ll tell you about it later.

Two months later – Oh yea, I have a blog. Sorry. Since I’m back in school, I’m going to post all the time.

And that was about it. I saw tons of those kinds of things. Corner Gas did a good spoof on blogging. After a while, more serious people got in to blogging, you know, the kind who can spell. And blogging looked like it was going to be a new social arena. Then about two or three years ago, I noticed that it became popular to stop blogging. Some of my favorite people who blogged, quit. There was a group who pressed on for a while and they, largely, have either slowed down or are taking a break. There remains a group of high quality bloggers and a handful of team blogs that remain great.

Okay, so what makes a blog great in my opinion? Well, content for sure. That is why I like professional blogs and visit them. But those are almost like specialized news outlets for me. The blog blogs to me are the personal ones. Not that divulge a bunch of personal information but ones when you read them you feel like you know the person. Those are even better if you do know the person. With those, I don’t care about frequency of posts. What counts there is some good writing, some interesting discussion and that human touch.

Wow, that April Fool’s joke turned out much better than I anticipated! What really blew me away (and is still bothering me a bit) is that it was even plausible to my friends. No one emailed me and said “Nuh ah!” I’m apparently a better liar than I thought.

Thanks for all your kind words but Desiring God is not producing a monthly magazine and they surely aren’t desperate enough to ask some no name blogger to write for them. This story is too Cinderella to be real.

Yesterday when I got home from work I picked up the mail. As I sorted through it, I saw a letter from Desiring God Ministries. No big deal, since I’m a supporter I get regular updates from them all the time. I chucked it and the bills on my desk. I’d take care of the whole stack after dinner. First of the month is bill time. It is also budget time so I didn’t get to the DGM letter before bed time. I threw it in my bag figuring I’d read it on the way in to work in the morning and I could also pray for whatever was in the letter.

So I got on the train this morning and I opened the letter. It wasn’t like the normal bulk mailers I get from DGM. This was a letter from Jon Bloom, the Executive Director of DGM and it sounded personal. It turns out that DGM is going to start a monthly magazine. Jon explained it as “somewhere between Modern Reformation and Books & Culture with John’s [Piper] emphasis on God’s glory” seasoning the articles. He also mentioned that DA Carson would be one of the managing editors. Carson wants a magazine like Christianity Today as it was when Carl F. H. Henry edited it.

Anyway, after explaining the new magazine, Jon explained that someone provided him a link to an article on my blog! How cool is that? Jon read the article and like it and he said that he spent a hour or so looking around and reading more. He likes my writing style and my perspective and he asked if I could submit some more samples of my writing. They want me to write for Desiring God Magazine! Well, they might want me to depending on the samples of my work I submit. Jon gave me his phone number and wants me to call him soon so we can talk. He said he didn’t email me since he didn’t want me to think his email was some kind of April Fool’s prank or something.

What is destroying America? Well, that assumes that America is being destroyed to begin with. But assuming it is, what is destroying it? State Representative Sally Kern (R Oklahoma) has it figured out: the homosexual agenda. It is always nice when you can point to someone else as the problem with our country. Don’t take me wrong, I don’t support the homosexual agenda but I don’t think it is the problem with America either. Perhaps, before we start blaming others we should take a close look at ourselves. We should clean up our contributions to the problems in America before we start slinging blame. Are there ways in which we (and by “we” I mean the Church) are ruining this country? I’m pretty sure there are.

Obama’s pastor, who, I might note, is not running for office, has made some pretty foolish and inflammatory comments. He said, basically, that blacks should not say “God bless America” but “God damn America.” He asserted that we had 9/11 coming because of our own brand of terrorism. Good thing Pastor Wright isn’t running for president, that kind of rhetoric isn’t going to get him elected. But I have to say, Barak’s response isn’t warming my heart either: “I don’t think my church is actually particularly controversial.” He said Rev. Wright “is like an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with”. Yea, you don’t want to go to church and listen to your pastor, right?

Benjamin Keach is a favorite Particular Baptist of mine. Here’s a good quote of his on infant baptism from the Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies:

From Benjamin Keach: Gold Refin’d, or Baptism in its Primitive Purity (London: 1689), 69-70, 146 (orthography and punctuation modernized).

What commission our brethren have got, who sprinkle children, I know not. Let them fetch a thousand consequences, and unwarrantable suppositions for their practice, it signifies nothing, if Christ has given them no authority or rule to do what they do in his name. Natural consequences from Scripture we allow, but such which flow not naturally from any Scripture we deny; can any think Christ would leave one of the great sacraments of the New Testament, not to be proved without consequences?

We affirm, that in all positive or instituted worship (such as baptism is) which wholly depends upon the mere will and pleasure of the law-giver, it is absolutely necessary there should be an express command, or plain and clear examples, though in other respects we allow of natural deductions and consequences from Scripture for the confirming and enforcing of duties, and for the comfort and instruction of God’s people. But as there is neither express command nor example for infant-baptism; so it can’t be proved by any consequence or inference, that naturally and genuously rises from any Scripture, as we have proved, nor does draw any such consequences to prove it.

I don’t know why I like this but I do:

I kind of think I’d like one! Thought it strikes me as being pretty geeky like checking weather.com to see what it is like outside instead of looking out the window. Maybe it is nostalgia. I was involved in the first flight of the B-2 back in 1989 and for that I got a mug. Like the beauty above, it changes with hot liquid. It has a drawing of the B-2 on it and it changes from saying “Out of the Black” with the B-2s wheels down to “Into the Blue” with wheels up. But it still isn’t as cool as this!

Help me. I’m a nerd. I’ve got one of these babies on my desk.

This weekend I picked up two films from the library that were related. The first one we watched was the classic The Day The Earth Stood Still. There’s a lot to say about the film but I’ll summarize. It was a powerful message in the middle of the Cold War that needed to be heard. This was Sam Jaffe’s last film for about 10 years because of the witch hunts that plagued our country at that time. In the midst of that comes this film which quietly and forcefully preaches the message of peace. Veiled in a pretty standard "man from Mars" film of the age came a solid warning. Klaatu kept warning about the earth becoming a burned out ball. Just what would happen in a nuclear exchange.

The other thing that needed to be said is the Christ imagery in the film. I know it has been covered before, but it bears repeating here. Klaatu walks among the common man peacefully with the name Carpenter, Jesus’ profession. He befriends a single mom with a son as her only child. If you accept the Roman Catholic legend that Mary remained perpetually virgin, it sounds like Jesus’ family. Klaatu meets Professor Barnhardt and amazes him with how much he knows about the equation he’s working on. Just like Jesus in the temple when he was 12, speaking about things he shouldn’t be able to understand. Soldiers kill Klaatu and put his dead body in a prison cell. Soldiers killed Jesus and his body was laid in a sealed and guarded tomb. Gort, Klaatu’s robot, blasts through the wall to carry Klaatu away. A large stone was rolled away from Jesus’ tomb. Helen Benson is the first to see Klaatu after a machine resurrects him. Mary was the first to see the resurrected Jesus. Klaatu appears to the assemble scientists and gives them a message that must be spread across the world if earth is to survive. Jesus appears to many, 500 at one time, and sent his disciples to the ends of the earth with a message of salvation.

Wow, that was more involved than I thought it would be! Anyway, the message of The Day The Earth Stood Still was not that the earth needs a savior, but that the earth needs to stop warring or it will be blasted. Still, it is a great film and I am horrified that it is being remade with Keanu Reeves in the lead. I hope they don’t mess this classic up.

The other film I rented was a remake of a classic and a fantastic remake it was! Fail Safe was released in 1964 and it had a similar message to The Day The Earth Stood Still. But I rented the 2000 version. It was shot in black and white and it was done as a live TV show on CBS. It had an all star cast and was not only well conceived but the pacing of the film was tense and gripping. Man, it was so good! To think that it was shot live. There were only one or two minor places where actors stepped on each others lines and once I think Dryfess forgot his line for a moment but he covered and recovered.

What I tried to explain to my kids as we watched was the constant threat of annihilation we lived under during the Cold War. We faced the possibility that the Soviet Union might misunderstand something we were doing or we might make a mistake and provoke them. By God’s mercy, my children never lived under that threat. If you want to give your kids a taste of what it was like, check out these two films.

Last night we had a congregational business meeting. It was the meeting I’ve been hoping to attend since I started attending. :) We talked about our plans to plant a church. About half of the elder board spoke and so did representatives from our denomination. I’m an advocate of church planting and for a while thought it might be my calling so hear this from the lips of an advocate, not a critic.

One of the things that was stressed was the importance of picking the right man to be the planter. If you get the wrong person, the plant will most likely not succeed. Our denomination turned our church plant survival rate from about 3 of 8 to 4 of 5, or something like that. Part of the turn around was a robust screening process. I’ve been through the screening process and I can testify that it is pretty thorough! The approach our church is going to take is to find the right guy and then let him pick the location and build the team.

I support all of that. That is the model I would adopt if I were the senior pastor. But something kept nagging at the back of my mind during this. Two of the leading church planters who were mentioned were Tim Keller and Mark Driscoll. Two guys I really admire, guys who I really believe are doing things well and are focused on the right issues. But that nagging thought kept coming up. It can be summed up in a word I think: star. Keller and Driscoll are very successful at what they do because God has blessed their ministries. But is it possible for us to attempt to reproduce their success by doing exactly what their advocating the wrong way? Could we over-emphasize the church planter, expecting him to be a rock star and draw people to himself or his preaching style? I mean, if you get the right guy in there he could draw a lot of people just by his personality and style. A friend used to be on staff at Bethleham Baptist Church and joked about the Piperites. Guys who wanted to be the next John Piper. So though John and Tim and Mark are very humble men, there are fanboys who flock to those kinds of leaders. Nothing wrong with them or what they’re doing, but we like winners.

So when it comes to church planting, might we accidently reproduce this error if we’re not careful? Might we not look for the rock star who can succeed without succeeding? By that I mean someone who can get a church plant to viability but not really reach the community with any real solid results. Not by intentionally sheep stealing, but American are fickle things, even the Christian variety. There is a percentage who church hop and shop who look for the latest and greatest. I felt that urge at my previous church after I’d been there a few years. Time to check out other pastures and pastors. Thank God he prevented me from doing that. But the urge is there for many of us.

To be fair here, I don’t know of a single successful church planter who has done this. It just get a little nervous when I hear the promise that we’ll succeed "when we get the right man" instead of "if God is in it." Lakeland has always and only said "if God is in it" so this isn’t a finger pointed at my church, just a critical question of the approach.

What prompted me to post this was when I read Rick Phillips’ thoughts about church vision this morning. That was something that came up in the meeting last night also; vision, five year plan, etc. I don’t know that I agree with everything Phillips says, but his words are a good warning about relying too much on plans and programs and not enough on God. There can be slippage.  A church can start out focused on God and then begin to slide into reliance on programs and leadership and reproducibility, etc.

They’re really both the same danger aren’t they? Finding the right guy and developing the right plan? And what is curious about both is that the can be powerfully good or miserably bad depending on how we rely on them.

George W. Bush. That name, to many, brings to mind a war-monger and one of the worst presidents in recent history. I’m not a fan and voted against him last time, but very often mixed in the "bad" is at least some good. Jimmy Carter was a really nice guy but not much of a president. But he got Egypt and Israel talking at Camp David. Turns out that W is doing something equally fantastic for the world. Bob Geldof recently traveled with him to Africa and in a Time article pointed up the good W’s done for that continent. There is so much heat and smoke generated by Bush’s War on Terror that it can eclipse what his is accomplishing elsewhere. Please read the article whether you’re a fan or foe of W.

With all that is happening in Africa, it is easy to think of the tragedy as happening to statistic, not people. While satellite photos won’t put faces on the horror, it can show you the magnitude of what is really happening. Here are some photos of real human beings, created in God’s image, fleeing from Chad for their lives. The black dots are human beings, the yellow bars are vehicles carrying human beings. Yes, Africa is a long way away, but it is still on the globe that Jesus created, loved, died to redeem and is coming back to rule. It is part of the world He sent us, his disciples in to to preach the good news, to feed, to cloth and to love as He’s loved us.

According to a Times On Line article titled "That Martin Luther? He wasn’t so bad, says Pope." Pope Benedict is going to lift the charge of heresy from Luther’s shoulders. I’m sure Martin will be happy about that.

So is this it? Does Rome and Protestantism kiss and make up? is the Reformation over? Eh, hold on. While this is good news of a step in the right direction for Rome, this doesn’t bring to an end the Reformation nor the need for it. While the Council of Trent stands as official Roman Catholic dogma, there remains a curse of damnation upon anyone who believes we are saved sola fide. What this in effect does is to admit Luther on Roman Catholic terms. That is, if you understand Luther as we understand Luther, then you’re okay. What is missing in this article is the Pope admitting that Luther was right on his most important doctrine: sola fide. All Benedict is admitting is that the Roman Church "much to learn from Luther" but are they going to learn the right things?

Be careful of Rome my friends. You don’t easily or quickly turn a container ship around. If Rome is moving, they’ll do it slowly and cautiously and make it sound like they haven’t really changed at all. They may never officially withdraw the condeming statements about the gospel they articulated in Trent. They may well just redefine it as if that was what they always meant. Luther and Rome understood each other very well at the time.

[HT: Ref21]