It is common practice in the blogosphere to link to other blogs or articles online. This is part of the ‘netiquette’ of blogging, especially when you are writing a contrary opinion. The link provides context, your readers can go to your online ‘opponent’ to see what they said in context in order to decide whether they will agree with you or him or neither.

It is also common practice to link to news items of interest with a brief comment suggesting why the link was interesting to you.

I have occasionally linked to Christianity Today when I see articles of interest there, or when I wish to take issue with something said there. Some of my fellow fundamentalists have commented when I have done that without much of a disclaimer. I guess I don’t think a disclaimer is all that necessary when I am critiquing an article. It is pretty clear that I am not agreeing!  (Does anyone think I am ambiguous when I disagree?) And I don’t think a disclaimer is always necessary when I am just passing along a link to say: look at this, it’s interesting.

But what if I was writing an article listing a whole host of sites as “good resources for church planting” or “good resources for spiritual growth” or “good resources for theology”?

Suppose in writing such an article I listed exclusively evangelical sources with virtually no disclaimers of any kind. And suppose I wrote fairly positive mini-reviews of these sites, implying that these fellows are good brothers doing good work. Suppose that I wrote in a different post a generic disclaimer to my readers that “I don’t endorse everything I link to.”

I think I have a fairly well-known fundamentalist reputation. Ben Wright tells me I represent the fundamentalist wing of fundamentalism. (Thanks, Ben, I guess!) So if I were to write an article full of positive comments about the usual evangelical suspects with no disclaimers in that article itself… what would you think?

Would you wonder if my position had changed? Would you consider my ‘fundamentalist reputation’ maybe not as hard-line as you had earlier thought?

Fundamentalists are agreed that the way we are careful about fellowship is especially in the area of ministry cooperation – shared platforms, cooperative ministry opportunities and the like. We are apparently not so clearly agreed about internet endorsements.

The argument could be made that we will use books by evangelicals (or even others further ‘left’) in our seminaries without much of a disclaimer and a recommendation on the internet is very similar. And we see books by evangelicals in some of our Christian bookstores (like those at our Fundamentalist colleges).

So my question is this: when is a link not a link? When is it an endorsement? Or when is it perceived as an endorsement?

With the turmoil in fundamentalism over the apparent love affair many ‘young fundamentalists’ have with all things Calvin and all things evangelical, should we pause before we make what appear to be endorsements of popular evangelical ministries? What do we communicate when we make such links? Does the internet change our view of Christian cooperation? Is it limited only to active/physical cooperation in some kind of joint endeavour? Or can we give tacit approval to evangelicalism by the links we make?

A while back, I had a much longer blogroll in my side-bar. Some of the sites I listed were friends who weren’t necessarily so fundamentalist anymore. I still have a couple of links to blogs that are definitely not fundamentalist but are particularly interesting to me. But I did purge a lot of the links I used to have. I decided I didn’t want to promote them anymore – even though some of them were personal friends.

So what do you think? Am I merely a paranoid fundamentalist? (Keith, we already know that you will say ‘yes’.) Or is there some cause for caution and concern in the kinds of things we endorse?

JG recently started writing at Mind Renewers. He is not a ranter and raver like me! I think you will find his writing challenging and uplifting.

So here is what I am seeing… Someone makes an argument based on history, but what he says isn’t exactly what happened. It is how he remembered (perhaps) or how he wants to remember it or how someone taught it to him, or whatever, but it isn’t quite right. Nevertheless, he bases a strong argument for a particular view on a weak foundation. Someone with knowledge (or the time to look it up) can easily dismiss what he says. Yet even when corrected, some stubbornly persist in their view of reality… The mind boggles.

What is worse is when we do this with arguments based on the Bible. Someone makes a statement based on a half-remembered verse and fulminates away without so much as looking the verse up so as to speak authoritatively and certainly doesn’t quote the verse. But because he remembers it a certain way, he is making a ‘biblical’ argument.

As I said, I think I am guilty of this as well, I am sure. If our online discussions are important (perhaps they are in some ways), don’t they deserve accuracy? Or should our arguments be just what I feel about something because of the way I seem to remember something (or want to remember something)? Perhaps if we really did take time to be scripturally and historically accurate in what we say, we would say it better and actually persuade someone once in a while. And perhaps we would post less but with more quality.

Now, let’s see if I can find a verse for this…

But I have to say I have immensely profited from his writing and teaching, even if I disagree with him! He is a thinking man who loves the Bible and the Lord.

Here is a little bit of a recent blog on Elijah:

Elijah was too hard a worker to become depressed, and those who attempt to excuse their depression on the basis that even a mighty man of God like him got depressed, are missing the point. It wasn’t depression, but disappointment that you see haunting this man. Things didn’t go as he had expected—as he had planned—and he didn’t like it. That’s the problem with many of us as well. When God doesn’t do things our way, we quit, give up, or try to go our own way.

That’s good. Bracing, but good.

Anyway, add Dr. Adams to your blog reader. You won’t be disappointed.  (And you will probably disagree with him from time to time.)

PS: This is post # 500! Will he ever shut up?

One of them is from Anniston, Alabama, who viewed, according to Sitemeter, my main page, my about page, and then went over to my church site. This visitor spent 3:31 on oxgoad.

Another, briefer visit was from Mobile, Alabama, just a quick hit and gone.

The first visit was from the UK, 1:56, with an “out-click” on my link to the Pulpit Magazine article concerning Piper, Driscoll, and harsh language.

This group is a private forum for members only. From their about page:

The Spurgeon Underground Fellowship is a small group of like-minded, committed Christians who strongly hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura. We believe that the Bible is our sole authority for all doctrine and practice. We do not reject biblical commentaries and other writings by committed believers, but we hold them accountable to the “whole counsel of God” as found in the Scriptures. Because we believe in the doctrine of salvation as taught by the Scripture, we are also strongly committed to what is commonly called the Doctrines of Grace or Reformed Theology.

This group was created for fellowship, prayer, and interaction for those who hold these doctrines. These doctrines are not politically correct, nor are they readily accepted in the majority of the Christian churches in our day. This fellowship is a haven in the midst of a stormy sea. As such, membership is by invitation only and only extended to like-minded, like-spirited men. If you would like to know more about the fellowship, you can read our fellowship guildelines posted below in Adobe Acrobat format. You may also email the Forum Administrator.

What gives with this? Why the secrecy, fellows? How does clandestine spirituality promote the body of Christ?

And why the mis-spelling of “guidelines”? It occurs twice on the about page, both in the comment above and in the link to the “guildelines” document. Is this just an accident or is it somehow a subliminal play on the word “guild”?

Count me mystified.

UPDATE: One of the members of this group enlightens me in the comments. I meant my comments to be taken lightly after a rather tense week, so I hope our brethren who are involved in this group aren’t offended. I wish them all well in their various ministries. By the way, you might want to check out their group blog, linked in the comments below.

We’ll give our friend Greg, an excuse, but he’s the only one we’ll let off the hook. Chris A. also posts regularly, as do the fellows at TheoSource and Brian at Exegesis and Theology. And the intrepid Scott Aniol. But where is Jon & Champ, Frank, even PaleoBen, with whom I am wont to tangle? Even the vaunted SI, the 800 lb gorilla of the fundamentalist blogosphere seems to be falling off in the volume of its discussion. When most [hyperbole!!] of the current conversations are in-house between the admins and moderators, it does seem that the former furious interest has waned.

One can think of several reasons why this might be so.

1. It’s summertime! (Or maybe better, it was summertime.)
2. The Internet is changing, and I am behind the curve as usual. [Facebook, anyone? Or is that also passing away???]
3. Other bloggers may have a real life. It has crossed my mind that blogging could be considered a non-productive activity. By some, that is!

Well, I’ll continue to post theological and philosophical editorials at this space, but if any of you out there are opinion-junkies like me and know where all the fundamentalist rabble has gone, please let me know!

UPDATE: I wonder if this post, focused on an entirely different category of blogging, might shed some light on this. The times, they are a-changin’.

Jn 3.16

John 3.16

Jer 33.3

Amos 1:1f

Isa 6:1ff

Rom 3.21-26

Maybe you knew about this already, but having just found it, I had to play with it a little and see how it works.

Right now, it only links to NLT, ESV, and KJV, although many other versions are planned (and are listed on the options page for setting the plugin up).

UPDATE: It appears that the ‘ff’ tag isn’t working, even though the Logos site says it does. Still, a nice little addition.

Just wondering

UPDATE: I guess there is one link. Greg Linscott posted a forum note on it. Zero discussion so far. I realize that it was Memorial Day yesterday, but it is interesting that there has been no commentary. Perhaps the leading fundamentalist blog is not what it once was… or perhaps the blogosphere itself is old news. Have the yfs moved on?

They work long hours, often to exhaustion. Many are paid by the piece — not garments, but blog posts. This is the digital-era sweatshop. You may know it by a different name: home.

This from the New York Times. It must be true, then. Here’s the link: In Web World of 24/7 Stress, Writers Blog Till They Drop.

PC World is also reporting on this. Blogging to an Early Grave?

Be warned!