Commenting on an atheist site

I lost some of the best years of my life last month to an atheist blog.

With that in mind, I was amused at the recent furore over comment moderation at richarddawkins.net.  People are surprised at the vitriol spewed forth under pseudonymous cover in the under-belly of RichardDawkins.net?  A forum devoted to one of the most vituperative fundamentalisms going?  Does this shock anyone?

A couple of weeks ago I commented on a well respected and well-read atheist blog and was sworn at and wished dead in the most imaginatively vicious ways.  Compared to the abuses I and other Christians suffered there, the “rat’s rectum” comparisons that flew between fellow-atheists at Dawkins’ site sound like Pollyanna.

Anyway, I thought I’d try to redeem my experience by reflecting on some things I learnt, and some things I should have:

One reflection on my experience was written during the interchanges: Evangelists and Apologists Note: The six things that have already happened.

Here are some other reflections:

1. Reason flows from the heart.  These guys raised a banner loud and proud for reason, logic, the scientific method, etc,.   But there was nothing particularly reasoned or scientific about their manner of argument.  They were well read intelligent people (PhD students etc) but much of their commenting consisted in caps locked swear words.  “Logic” was their slogan not their method.
2. They constantly appealed to a logical high-ground without any thought as to whether they were allowed one – being materialists and all!
3. Pointing out this inconsistency didn’t seem to get me anywhere (though you never know how non-commenting readers are responding).
4. Everyone deals in circularities:
   1. I believe the bible is the word of God because in it God speaks
   2. You believe the scientific method is the arbiter of what’s true because it’s proved itself effective when judged by science.
5. Everyone has ultimate authorities which, by the nature of the case, cannot be authenticated by outside sources – ie the scientific method cannot be tested by the scientific method.  One guy admitted that this self-validation hasn’t happened yet but that one day science would definitely be able to prove the scientific method by the scientific method.  There’s faith for you.  Which leads to…
6. Everyone is faith based.  We all proceed from assumptions which we take to be true and then move forwards on the basis of them.
7. I kept getting asked for ‘evidence’.  My responses were in three broad categories, first I’d point to Christ risen from the dead, second I’d simply quote Scriptures.  But probably the most effective thing was to say “everything!  Everything reveals the LORD Jesus to you.”
8. Therefore evangelism is the invitation to the unbeliever to step inside the world in which Jesus is LORD and look again.  Basically it’s saying: “Let me tell you a story about a triune God, the world He made and the Son who redeems it.  Now look again at the world through the Lens of Jesus.  Now do you see why self-giving love is the greatest thing?  Now do you see why trust and beauty, evil and forgiveness, truth and goodness are real beyond any scientific analysis?  In other words, now you can take seriously the most basic aspects of your human existence and not run against the grain of reality all the time.”
9. In this sense theology is a science.  It begins with self-authenticating premises and moves out in faith to investigate .  This investigation is shaped by the Object of knowedge.  Since the Object of knowledge is the Speaking God, the method is to hear His Word.  The premises of our enquiry after knowledge (e.g. Jesus is LORD, the bible is true etc) are not falsifiable in the way the materialists demand they be.  But then the scientific premises (e.g. that true knowledge is verified by the scientific method etc) aren’t falsifiable either.  Premises are the light by which we see.  It’s their success in seeing that recommends them.
10. The failure of “science alone” to see the world was very evident to me.  It didn’t seem particularly evident to them.  That Beethoven’s 9th was a series of compression waves was certain for them.  That it was “beautiful” was a verdict they couldn’t make with anything like the same certainty.
11. The atheists who commented were very clearly captured by the vision of “the onward march of science”, demolishing ignorance and dispelling superstition.  There was clearly a love for scientific progress that had won their hearts.  Nothing less than a greater love could ever displace this.  All their calls for “evidence, evidence” were simply calls for reality to fit into their paradigm – to serve their greatest love.  They need a new paradigm, or better – a new love.
12. The call for “evidence, evidence” in the sense that they mean is a desire to be confirmed in their self-imposed naturalistic prison.  What counts as ‘evidence’ for them is only that which can be assessed according to their naturalistic paradigm.  This is simply a refusal from the outset to hear a Voice from above.  Again it is a matter of hard-heartedness, however seriously they wish to be taken intellectually.
13. My lowest point came in the heat of battle when I fired off a comment justifying my intellectual credibility.  I’m ashamed of what I took pride in at that moment.  I should have borne shame and taken pride in the foolishness of the gospel, allowing Christ to vindicate me.  The cause of the gospel was hindered rather than helped by the assertion of my academic credentials (which weren’t that great anyway!).  This is especially so given what I’ve been arguing above.
14. Having said all this, I think it was a worth-while exercise.  Many of the commenters were American ‘de-converted’ evangelicals and knew a lot of bible.  The hurt from previous scars was palpable and I hope that a charitable Christian voice might at least temper some of the “all Christians are bigots” tirades that otherwise spiral on in these forums.
15. On the other hand, some of the commenters were angry Brits and others who seemed to know very little of Christian things.  All they’ve heard has been from other atheists.
16. And of course there were many more who I’m sure just ‘listened’.  My time at Speaker’s Corner taught me that even as you engage the Muslim apologist in front of you, you’re aiming at the wide-eyed apprentices hanging off his coat-tails.  Who knows how the Lord will use these words?
17. Turning the other cheek hurts but it’s powerful.  I trust that (#13 and other lapses notwithstanding) perhaps the most useful aspect of the interchange was the attempt to model Christ in the way I commented.
18. The absolute hatred for Christians is frighteningly palpable.  The hatred that’s there in the comments sections will rise more and more into the public realm, that seems pretty certain to me.  But if we’re surprised and outraged let’s get a grip – no soldier should act all offended and hurt when the enemy actually shoots bullets at them!
    
19. Just as Stephen Fry speaks of descending into the “stinking, sliding, scuttling” floor of the internet, engaging in this kind of way can be the faintest taste of what the LORD Jesus did in descending to a world that hates Him.  (It can be a total waste of time too, but I think there is a time and a place for it).  I spent a few hours in an internet forum.  His whole life He lived and loved and spoke and served among a hatred that literally tore Him apart.  He’s the One we proclaim.  His attitude is the attitude we take.  And as we join Him (in big ways and small) in cross-bearing love, we get to know His enduring grace that much more.
20. There is a time for shaking dust off your feet.  Some need to spend a little longer in the battle.  But probably people like me (who have to be right!) should quit sooner.  :)

.

.

Read Full Post »

The problem with blogging… and its solution

Stephen Fry:

“I don’t know about you but whenever I read a blog I do not let my eye drop below half the screen in case I accidentally hit the bit where the comments reside. Of all the stinking, sliding, scuttling, weird, entomological creatures that inhabit the floor of the internet those comments on blogs are the most unbearable, almost beyond imagining,” (source)

Or David Mitchell:

“if there’s one thing the internet demonstrates it’s that a lot of angry people can read…

the convention of inviting comment from the benign many has put a metaphorical speakers’ corner at the bottom of every web page for the poisonous few.

A friend of mine has come up with an idea to stem the tide of bile. He wants people to post, as a comment, on as many opinion-garnering web pages as possible, as often as they can be bothered, the phrase: “It just goes to show you can’t be too careful!”

It’s perfect; it seems lighthearted without being a joke. It’s vaguely pertinent to almost any subject without meaning a thing. It’s the ideal oil for the internet’s troubled waters.

I invite you all to join me in doing this. Let’s drown out the screeching with this peaceful, bland, meaningless psalm to not being constantly consulted. (source).

.

Read Full Post »

A new way to comment

This morning in staff meeting our administrator passed me a note that had been placed in our church collection box on Sunday.  It simply read: “No, Richard Dawkins is NOT silly!!!”  I think it’s a response to this.

Brilliant!!

.

Read Full Post »

I am 2. Who are you?

I began blogging two years ago today. Thanks to Bobby who suggested it (please pray for him and the family at the moment as they wait on troubling medical tests).

To mark this momentous occasion, I am blogging this entry from my mobile phone. Get me. Surfing the cutting edge of the information super-highway and such.

By far the most rewarding thing about my blogging experience has been to receive the many many comments you’ve written. Some of you I have known from the real world, some I’ve met here and then face to face, some only via the blog and email. But you’ve all been a tremendous encouragement to keep focussed on Jesus. So thanks!

But it occurs to me that there are those out there who read but never comment. Well here’s your chance to emerge from the shadows. Why not say hello in comments – maybe tell me where you’re from too if you like. Be great to e-greet you.

Don’t be shy now…

Read Full Post »

Watch out for the Bible Bloggers

^“38 Jesus said “Watch out for the Bible Bloggers.  They love to parade their stats and gain comments from their adoring readers, ³⁹ to be linked on all the best sites and highly ranked on Technorati. ⁴⁰ They devour the weak and vulnerable and, for a show, make lengthy posts.  Such men will be punished most severely.” 

(Mark 12:38-40, Glen’s Literal (and self-condemning) Translation)

.

Read Full Post »

You’re in good company

Just so my regular readers know, you’re vastly outnumbered on this blog by image searchers (so wordpress tells me).

The most popular searches  are ‘kebab’, ‘waterfall’, ‘puffer fish’, ‘fat cat’ and ‘ned flanders’…

.

…which, I think you’ll agree, represents with eloquent simplicity the profound and far-reaching concerns of Christ the Truth..

Read Full Post »

10 reasons blogging might be ok after all

In the last 48 hours the following has happened in my blogging world

1. I’ve been part of a fascinating discussion on a cutting-edge topic in contemporary theology.  And little old me got to sit at the table along with PhD specialists and theological educators in the field.  Great fun.
2. I’ve been able to help someone via email as they make their journey into Christian faith.
3. I’ve been able to share ministry resources with people that first appeared on the blog.
4. I’ve read wonderfully heartwarming things and been gobsmacked by extremely insightful comments.
5. People I know have been able to contact me by searching me online.
6. People I don’t know but who share common interests have come across me and we’ve corresponded.
7. Discussions about seemingly disparate topics on different blogs have converged around common themes, giving added insight.
8. Via email I’ve learnt about another blogger’s background and Christian story – very encouraging.
9. Commenters have helpfully pointed out where my tone has been unhelpful and obscuring.
10. Maybe best of all, when a comment crossed the line there was repentance and reconciliation (as opposed to nastiness and retaliation).  More of that please.

.

 

Read Full Post »

A little web surfing and spiritual poverty will come upon you like a robber

If watching this for 7 minutes saves you from another 7 minutes of wasted web-surfing, it’s done it’s job.

Full sermon here.

ht prognosis.

.

Read Full Post »

Christ Alone, Grace Alone, Revelation Alone

I’m halfway through Mike Reeves’ excellent lectures on a theology of revelation.  Go and listen now if you haven’t done already.

Maybe I should put them somewhere prominently and permanently on the blog because they explain much better than I can the thinking behind ‘Christ the Truth’. 

To be an evangelical theologian is to have your method entirely shaped by God’s coming to us in Jesus.  Just as we are saved through God’s grace alone by Christ alone, so we know God by God’s grace alone and through Christ alone.  This being the case, we need to be saved from our ‘wisdom’ every bit as much as we need to be saved from our ‘works.’

Anyway, all these sorts of thoughts were circling through my head when I came across this quote posted on Tony Reinke’s blog.  It’s all about how we should ‘restore the bridge’ from classical literature to Christ!

“What then shall we say if we would restore the medieval bridge from Homer, Plato and Virgil to Christ, the Bible and the church? Shall we say that Christianity is not the only truth? Certainly not! But let us also not say that Christianity is the only truth. Let us say instead that Christianity is the only complete truth. The distinction here is vital. By saying that Christianity is the only complete truth, we leave open the possibility that other philosophies, religions and cultures have hit on certain aspects of the truth. The Christian need not reject the poetry of Homer, the teachings of Plato, or the myths of the pagans as one hundred percent false, as an amalgamation of darkness and lies (as Luther strongly suggests), but may affirm those moments when Plato and Homer leap past their human limitations and catch a glimpse of the true glory of the triune God.

I reject the all-or-nothing, darkness-or-light dualism that Luther at times embraced. But I also reject the modern relativist position that truth is like a hill and there are many ways around it. Yes, truth is like a hill, but the truth that stands atop that hill is Christ and him crucified. To arrive at the truth of Christ, the people of the world have pursued many, many different routes. Some have only scaled the bottom rim of the hill; others have made it halfway. But many have reached the top and experienced the unspeakable joy that comes only when the truth they have sought all their lives is revealed to them. …

If we are to accept these verses [Romans 2:14-15] in a manner that is in any way literal, we must confess that unregenerate pagans have an inborn capacity for grasping light and truth that was not totally depraved by the Fall. Indeed, though the pagan poets and philosophers of Greece and Rome did not have all the answers (they couldn’t, as they lacked the special revelation found only in Jesus), they knew how to ask the right questions—questions that build within the readers of their works a desire to know the higher truths about themselves and their Creator.”

—Louis Markos, From Achilles to Christ: Why Christians Should Read the Pagan Classics (IVP Academic 2007), pp. 13-14

How do you think your mild-mannered correspondent reacted?

Well – go and see.  Here’s a selection of my many comments!

I enjoy the blog. I hate this quote.

Christ and Him crucified does not sit atop a hill as though waiting for natural man to ascend! The Truth steps down to meet us in ignorance, just as the Life steps down to meet us in death. And besides, which natural mind has ever drawn near to the crucified God? Such truth has only ever appeared as folly to the world, yet this *is* the power and wisdom of God.

This quote is epistemological Pelagianism. Salvation and knowledge go together. We must oppose synergism in the one as strongly as we oppose it in the other. No wonder Luther shows the way. We’d do well to heed his cautions…

It is incontestably and trivially true that pagans can write meaningful novels, develop life-saving medicine, pursue world-enlightening science, make correct philosophical and moral observations. And it’s equally true that pagans can work for peace, give blood and generally be very, very nice people. No-one’s saying unbelievers can’t say true stuff, just as no-one’s saying unbelievers can’t do good stuff. The trouble comes when someone tries to co-ordinate nature and grace in either knowledge or salvation. Whenever the natural is seen as a stepping stone into grace alarm bells must go off. Whenever co-ordination, stepping-stones, bridges, spectrums, pilgrimmages, ascents up hills are discussed flags have to go up…

Truth is relative – relative to Christ, the Truth (good name for a blog I reckon). His subjectivity is the one objectivity. There are therefore whole worlds of understanding that make some kind of sense within their own terms of reference and which make some kind of sense of the world but are falsely related to the true Logos. Therefore in toto and at root they are utterly false. And there can be no bridge between these worlds and the world in which Christ crucified is central. There can only be redemption from these worlds. Such a redemption will require wholesale rethinking (metanoia – change of mind)…  2 Cor 10:5!…

I’m happy to call any number of pagan statements ‘true’ – just as I’m happy to call any number of pagan actions ‘good’. (For me this parallel between knowledge and salvation is key.)

It allows me to say:

1) such ‘truth’ or ‘goodness’ is of great benefit to the world.

2) such ‘truth’ or ‘goodness’ can be truly seen by the regenerate as evidences of common grace.

but,

3) such ‘truth’ or ‘goodness’, viewed from the pagan themselves, does not lead towards but away from Christ and Him crucified.

A pagan’s goodness leads them away from the grace of Christ, a pagan’s wisdom leads them away from the revelation of Christ…

I could tell you all sorts of propositions that surrounded my saving faith in Christ, but I’d be reflecting back on a miracle. I wouldn’t be telling you the natural steps that secured salvation any more than the servants at Cana would be telling you how *they* drew wine out of those stone jars.

Just as there are no discrete human deeds that add up to divine righteousness, so there are no discrete human understandings that add up to divine knowledge. All must be of grace, all must be of revelation.

 

So there.  I also discuss Acts 17 and Romans 2 a bit.  And there’s even some good points made by other bloggers!  Common grace really is astounding  ;-)

.

 

.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Feeding the monster

As I began this week, the prospect of blogging struck me as a foul burden.  For some reason the phrase ‘feeding the monster’ flashed across my semi-wakened consciousness.

Has it come to this?  Blogging is now a beast to be placated?

I have over 60 draft posts in some state of readiness for publication.  One of them is an outline for a 50 part series.  There’s stuff from my website I could post.  There are many sermons I’ve yet to upload.  There are quotes that have blown me away recently.  But I can’t be bothered with any of it.  Who knows if this will see the light of day.

 

Blahhhh.

 

And blogging is freely entered into.  It should not be like a career ladder whose first rung we eagerly grasped but whose upper reaches ensnare us.  Blogging doesn’t pay the bills.  And it’s not some covenanted relationship I’ve undertaken before the Lord or His people.  Still – at times it feels like feeding the monster.

We are not held captive by foreign overlords.  Our own desires enslave us.

.

Read Full Post »

Nice and Christian

Those two things aren’t the same you know.  But often we forget that.  Especially as we try to live in community.  I mean, think about it – what helps our Christian communities function? 

Surely we get along because we all play nice, right?  Empowered by the gospel of course.  We have to add that caveat.  But now that it’s added we settle down to the real glue for any community: being nice.  When people are nice, communities flourish.  When people are not nice communities fall apart.  This is obvious.

Just look at Colossians 3:12

Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

Yep.  See?  Be nice.  Be nice and everyone will get along.  Cover over all that nastiness with sweetness.  Or polite reserve.  Or effusive flattery.  Whatever you do, don’t be nasty.  The minute someone’s nasty, it’s over.

Really?

Well that would be the case if we were a part of any natural community.  What did Jesus say?  Pagans love those who love them.  (Matt 5:46-47).  You don’t need the Holy Spirit to do that.  You don’t need the supernatural grace of God.  You don’t need a new heart of flesh to be nice. 

So what’s going to mark supernatural communities?

Look at how Colossians 3 continues…

Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.  (Col 3:13)

Natural communities don’t have this.  At the first hint of nastiness, natural community fractures.  But for Christians nastiness is an opportunity.  Here’s where we truly show ourselves to be the people of Jesus.  We forgive.

Many people think nastiness ends Christian community.  The gospel says nastiness is where Christian community begins.

What about blogging?  A million blogs can be nice.  It doesn’t make them Christian.  Now may Jesus deliver us from nasty Christian blogs.  Please Lord!  But niceness is not the cure.  Many may think they have a Christian blog because everyone is nice.  That doesn’t make it Christian.  It’s Christian if it answers nastiness with cruciform love.

We must bear with each other.  Forgive.  Show mercy towards opponents.  Die to self.  Crucify our own need to prove ourselves.  Answer harsh words with gentleness (Prov 15:1).  That’s where Christian community begins. 

.

Read Full Post »

Disagreeing with brothers and sisters

Yet another conversation containing the names Goldsworthy and Blackham has collapsed under the weight of pointed comments that got out of hand. And I was the chief commenter.

[deep exhale]

And this is precisely why people hate the issue being brought up.

It aggravates old wounds.

Wrong response 1:  We should be able to discuss such things dispassionately.

No, actually.  If we’re not emotionally engaged it’s obviously not an issue close to the heart of the gospel.  Dispassionate disagreements are not worth having at all.  But I think this is an issue touching on the nature of faith, our doctrine of God, the supremacy of Christ.  If those things don’t tug on heart strings there’s something wrong.  Dispassionate engagement is not an option.  But Christian engagement is a necessity.  Dying to self.  Crucifying the flesh with its desires.  Giving our lives up for others.  Paul said he’d go veggie for life if it protected non-meat-eating brothers. (1 Cor 8:13)  That’s not dispassionate engagement, it’s a costly love for those with whom we disagree.  We should feel strongly and make the conscious effort to swallow pride, to abandon the need to be right, to look on people we feel are mistaken and love them (Mark 10:21).  Such disagreements among believers should be prime opportunities to give and receive grace.

Wrong response 2:  Given the aggro that attends it, it’s always wrong to raise this issue.

Well – maybe on the Paul-going-veggie example, we should just go vegan!  And Paul says he’d do it for life.  There will be seasons when we just have to go veggie.  And this must not be with the thought of regrouping for our next assault.  It must be with the thought, “I will shut my mouth indefinitely on this issue if that is in their best interests.”  But then of course Paul did actually side with the strong and taught accordingly.  There must be ways of raising the issue while at the same time making every effort to serve those with whom we disagree.  We have to find ways of doing that.

What we really need to do is go on mission together.  Like in the best buddy movies, we need to go into the front lines as a rag-tag bunch of awkward, mistrustful rejects.  But as the heat of the battle presses us together, as we start sticking up for each other, as we see each other’s gifts serve the common good, then we’ll have that common love and respect for each other that is the ground not the goal of such discussions.

But we’re very sick at heart you know…

.

Read Full Post »

Piper or Darwin – Who is the more controversial target?

The figures don’t lie.  My post dissing Darwin has just received its 70th comment.  It has caused twice as much of a stir as my next most controversial post – Piper’s theology of glory.

Pause for thought?

 

.

Read Full Post »

Most commented

At 41 69 comments and counting, the evolution of a creationist is now my most commented upon post.  I might have known. 

 

(Update: my points were reposted here and at last count it had 99 comments – though no-one seems to have interacted with my points!)
 
Anyway, here’s the top ten in terms of comments:

.

 ——————————————————————————————————————–

. 
First Place

(69 comments)

 

 The evolution of a creationist – my journey towards young earth creationism. 
 
.

Second Place

(35 comments)

 
John Piper’s Theology of Glory - again, predictably controversial.
 
.

Third Place
(20 comments)

 
Mission, evangelism and social action part two – one post in a series about how our doctrine of God shapes our mission. It turned into an interesting discussion (mainly with Bobby) about Calvin, Barth, Athanasius, trinity and OT.
 
.

Fourth Place (joint)
(18 comments)

 

 
Five Smooth Stones – Grace - from my five part series examining key doctrines through the lens of David and Goliath.
 
I am not - a discussion of how I use my ‘personality type’ to shrink from obedience.
 
Substitutes for the Spirit – how our flesh masquerades in ‘spiritual’ ways.

.

. 

 

Fifth Place

(17 comments)

 

Christian cosmology – some thoughts on how a positive Christian cosmology might take shape.

 

.

 

Sixth Place (joint)

(15 comments)

 
Falling off either side of the wrong horse - how Intelligent Design is no more Christian a response to cosmic fine-tuning than positing a multiverse. 
 

All Scientists are Unbelievers – we’re all involved in faith paradigms, naturalistic scientists included.

Allah is an idol – that’ll get discussion going!  

Worship to honour the Lord – the most bizarre video of worship I’ve ever seen.  This includes my favourite ever comment on this blog:  “I just assume if ground is holy enough to remove the shoe it is too holy to spin the sock.” (Missy)  Go and see the context.

The Truth that is in Jesus - some thoughts on doing evangelism while avoiding the evils of apologetics

Seventh Place (joint)

(14 comments)

Go and preach the gospel… to other Christians.  The gospel is for Christians too you know, so lets get into the habit of encouraging each other with it. 

Nicea comes before Chalcedon - We mustn’t study Chalcedon before or apart from understanding the Nicene homoousios. 

Oneness and Threeness – the trinity.  In particular examining what the oneness of God is (namely the communion of the Three).

Who is the first horsman of the apocalypse? – thanks to Google, one of my most popular posts.

.

Eighth Place (joint)

(13 comments)

 

He saved my life and I don’t even know his name – Who is the Good Samaritan?  Jesus of course.

Christ in the Old Testament 3 –  Part of my biggest series.  This post looks at the identity of the Angel of the LORD.  Jesus of course.
 
The Light shines in the darkness – rejecting Christ is the impossible possibility.  The complete insanity of unbelief.

Where’s the turning point? - the father’s arms, not the pigsty, is the real place repentance happens.

Door to Door – discussing cold contact evangelism 

Bible college – just clarifying how the terms ‘bible college’ and ‘seminary’ are understood here and in the States.

.

Ninth Place (joint)

(12 comments)

Personality, temperament, gifts, huh? – the conclusion to a series on how to think about personality types.

Creation voice proclaims what? – Jesus of course.

Bible overview – the book by Steve Levy and Paul Blackham.

Quiet times – questions about this touchstone of evangelical spirituality.

.

Tenth Place (joint)

(11 comments)

Who the man? … in the parable of Matthew 13:44-46?  Jesus of course.

Blogging personality – a link to a site that calculates your Myers-Briggs type on the basis of your blog.

So what? – What’s the pay-off of a trinitarian theology in which the oneness of God is nothing else but the communion of the Three?  Much in every way.

Adjectives for God – I suggested some.  You suggested others.  Quite a nice collection.  

.

 ——————————————————————————————————————–

.

If I’m going to beat 41 I’m going to have to write some super-post on Science, Islam, Piper, Trinity and Myers-Briggs in the Old Testament.  Suggestions gratefully received.

.

Read Full Post »

This year

Alongside the usual rants about trinity, OT, Christ-centredness and preaching I’m planning on writing about:

Pastoral care (in particular mental illness)

Pornography

Apologetics

Islam

Marriage

Mission

What will you be blogging about in 2009?

.

Read Full Post »

Blogging personality

Further to previous discussions on personality (here, here, here, here)…

This site will tell you your Myers-Briggs type based on analyzing your blog. 

(ht: Biblical Studies and Technological Tools)

It came up with INTP for me.  I’m officially ENFP but my E and T are quite weak so that’s a pretty good guess.

Does it get you right?

.

PS I’ll get around to writing the last science post some time soon.  Bit busy at the moment.

.

 

Read Full Post »

Happy Blogday to me

One year ago I stumbled into blogging the way Aaron stumbled into idolatry.  I just clicked a few buttons at WordPress and out came this blog. (Ex 32:24)  Resemblances to that foul incident could be multiplied.

Anyway, thanks to Bobby for suggesting I start this.  Personally, I think his tactic was to stop me spending so much time leaving interminable comments on his.  ;-)

I’ll take this anniversary week as an excuse to do a bit of housekeeping and collect together my series’ etc and produce a proper ‘About this blog’ sort of page.

Who knows if I’ll notch up another year.  But it’s been fun so far.  Mainly because of the people who have commented – so thanks very much for that, I’ve really enjoyed it.

.

Read Full Post »

Who will be my 1000th comment???

There may be a prize, you never know!

.

Read Full Post »