Eleven Types of Christian Blog Commenters

A guest post from my friend Sean after this brief introduction.

I’m a believer in at least the potential value of blogs as a way of Christians interacting (I’m writing one, right?). But usually I back off that view for a few days after there’s a long, controversial exchange on one of the blogs I read.  If you think this is over the top, go to Between Two Worlds or Challies.com and look at pretty much any post with 20 or more comments. (Usually by that time the blog authors, who are great guys, have moved on to other work, like their real jobs.)

The Eleven Types of Christian Blog Commentators (blatant stereotypes to follow):

1. The liberal/skeptic/atheist - This guy is always pretty off base because most of the arguments are based on a different world-view, but after 3-4 posts he always throws up his hands in disgust, says how stupid Christians are, and claims that these arguments are exactly why he doesn’t read Christian blogs (which is exactly what he he was doing at the time).
2. The credentials guy - As the argument progresses, this guy likes to point out that he knows Greek and Hebrew/has a degree in X/is a professional X/has many non-Christian or minority friends, etc. This usually happens when his argument is no good, so to prove its good he adds some “credentials” to it.
3. The guy who always calls for repentance - No explanation needed, except that he himself has never, nor will ever repent of anything on an internet message board.
4. The “don’t judge me” guy - Almost everyone on the boards is afraid to by pigeonholed as anything, so as soon as someone calls them on what they’ve said (and usually the caller is dead on), the guy backs up and claims you don’t really know me (well buddy, what I do know is that you are a jerk on the internet, so you’re probably a jerk in the rest of your life). Sometimes this guy has some crazy made-up handle, because Phobiatos looks much cooler than Bob Davis. Ironically, this guy almost always passes judgment on his accusers.
5. The Bible quoter - Just loves to quote random Bible passages without explaining their context or how they apply, as if the rest of us never considered the Bible but after reading 7 random phrases from the Scriptures, we’re completely convinced. This guy is also usually aghast that the argument keeps going after he obviously just solved the issue and has no concept that people could conceivably interpret passages differently.
6. The dude who doesn’t read any comments - Look, if you go to a blog post with over 25 comments, then it is a given that the thread is no longer about the original post, but rather some dudes in a cat fight, so don’t interrupt their thrilling debate with some random comment about the original topic. This guy is usually redundant, and is always ignored.
7. The guy pimping his blog - Just stop. If you made a good point on your blog about the issue at hand, then cut and paste it, don’t add a link to your insanely boring blog with white type on a black background with some lame title about your special Christian journey.
8. The guy calling for mommy - See this all the time on BTW. Somebody can’t handle the debate so they call on JT to just swoop in and end it all. Are you kidding me? You want JT to police your idiotic comments? Lets take away from his Christian ministry so he can tell you morons to just shut up.
9. The indignant jerk - Always thinks his view is the only way, no matter how meaningless the topic. Usually after many mean post, someone calls him on it, but he claims he has people who know him, like a pastor or an accountability partner. So even though he is a jerk, only his buddy can tell him so, and none of us. Just a hunch, but I bet his buddy is also a jerk.
10. The “innocent” questioner - The worst. All he does is pose questions, all the while claiming he is not making any points or really saying anything. Probably loves Brian McLaren. His questions can only be answered one way, and that is the exact point he is making. The most frustrating is when you try to argue with him, he backs off and claims he never actually said anything, just questions. Talking to him is like trying to nail jell-o to the wall, only if that jell-o is heretical poison that is falling into innocent children’s mouths. Can’t stand this guy.
11. The actually innocent questioner - Usually some sort of wide-eyed student whose come to the mecca of Christian knowledge (the blog) to pick the greatest minds of our generation. Does this guys have any friends? Professors? Family? Church? If you are coming to a message board for advice, it is already to late for you, buddy.

Christ in the Psalms

Yesterday’s SS class is now up on the audio page. Some good questions & comments from the class in this one.

The book I reference (from which I got almost everything I said) is Richard P. Belcher’s The Messiah and the Psalms. This book by my OT professor is a great overview to the Psalms, and especially to reading the Psalms as Christian writing.

New Audio

I uploaded a couple of sermons from a preaching class that I stumbled across this weekend, and also yesterday’s “Behold the Lamb of God” Sunday School class. See the audio page if you’re interested.

Fourth Wave?

In about 1980 C. Peter Wagner coined the phrase “Third Wave” to describe a new strand of Christianity, especially charismatic Christianity. He believed that this new strand was the third major movement of the Holy Spirit in the 20th century, the first two being the rise of the Pentecostal movement beginning around 1901 and the charismatic renewal that spread through mainline denominations in the 1960’s. Third Wave became a term used to refer to people who believe in (and are excited about) the continuation of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit, but don’t usually hold to some of the big points of classic Pentecostalism– for example, speaking in tongues as a necessary proof of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, or the baptism of the Spirit as an event separate from salvation in the first place.

All that’s background. Whether or not you buy the idea of the first 2 waves, Third Wave now refers to this fairly large, loosely-associated group who are charismatic with a small “c”. They’re usually pretty conservative theologically, value the teaching of the Bible and place a good bit of emphasis on the supernatural, especially in praying for miracles and expecting something significant to happen in worship. Vineyard churches are sort of characteristic of this crowd.

But in the past 10-15 years, another strand of charismatics has emerged. I’m thinking of guys like Wayne Grudem and John Piper, and of movements like Sovereign Grace and Acts 29. This is not really a movement from within the charismatic fold, but from within the evangelical fold. You’re even starting to see the word “continuationist” used rather than “charismatic” because of the desire to stand apart from some of the excesses and problems that the charismatic movement has become known for.

I wonder if guys like this could be the “Fourth Wave.” I think the major thing that sets these groups apart from other branches of the charismatic family is balance, specifically in the sense of placing emphasis where the Bible places it. So they are eager to pray for the miraculous, they believe in things like speaking in tongues (with all the right restrictions), they even think that God sometimes speaks to people in dreams and visions– but all these things are not the main attraction, the Gospel is. So each worship service isn’t primarily about what cool thing might happen, but about proclaiming and celebrating the glory of God, especially as presented in whatever Bible passage is being highlighted that day.

These guys are also closing gaps. When a charismatic and a Presbyterian share the podium at an event like Together for the Gospel, something significant is happening. It’s keeping the charismatic issue from being as much of a dividing line, and the growing number of Gospel-loving, Bible-preaching, responsible charismatics (or whatever you call them) is making their view more palatable to some who 20 years ago wouldn’t have touched it with a ten-foot pole. I guarantee you I went through seminary with more guys who are “open but cautious” on the supernatural gifts than I would have even 10 years ago.

I’m not saying Acts 29 and Sovereign Grace are the next best hope for the church. But the new move of Bible-centered charismatics is encouraging, and I hope the evangelical scene in two decades looks a lot more like them than it does now.

New! Audio Resources

In case anyone is interested (hi Mom!), I’ve uploaded various sermons, Sunday School lessons, and the like from my very brief and limited ministry. What I have is listed below, and I’ll let you know when I add to it.

To download any of these, just right-click and select “Save Target As”.

Sermons

• “Self-Made Religion and the Gospel of Jesus Christ“, Uptown Church, 02/11/07
• “Not Guilty,” Uptown Church, 07/15/07

Sunday School lessons
From the class Behind the Music: The History and Theology of Worship Music

• “For All the Saints”

From a class I’m currently teaching, Behold the Lamb of God: Christ in the Old Testament

• Week 1: Introduction
• Week 2: Genesis 3:15

Hopefully most of the Behold the Lamb series will be recorded, and soon I should have the recordings from the men’s retreat I did in January. Disclaimer: These aren’t cleaned up, remastered, etc, so there are occasional awkward moments, like pauses while I look for a text or questions you can’t hear, but you might find the content interesting.

Perseverance of the Saints

“[Jesus] will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” –1 Corinthians 1:8-9

Perseverance of the saints, one of the “five points” of Calvinism, is sometimes misunderstood to mean that once a person professes faith in Christ, that person will be saved, no matter what happens for the rest of his life. What we actually believe is that because God is the one who brings about saving faith, he will keep those whom he has called faithful to the end of their life. Notice a few things Paul promises the saints in Corinth:

• The saints will endure to the end; they will be found “guiltless” at the last day.
• This endurance will occur because the saints are “sustained” by Christ.
• The endurance of the saints is rooted in the faithfulness of God.
• God is the one who called the saints to begin with, and can therefore be trusted to sustain them until the end.

We should believe this 1) because the Bible teaches it and 2) because it’s a great comfort. What a relief to know that my ultimate security depends not on my faithfulness, but God’s! My own performance, my own commitment to God, is inconsistent at best. Thank God I depend not on my commitment to him, but his commitment to me.

Yesterday’s Charlotte Talks

Listen to the archived version here. If you listened yesterday morning, this is the full version with no fundraising breaks.

Miscellenies #2

It occurred to me last night that if you were a Christian pacifist, you should never vote for a Christian candidate for President.

If pacifism is taught in the Bible– that is, if war is always wrong in all circumstances– then a Christian should not, in good conscience, be able to take the presidential oath of office. That oath affirms that the President will “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Constitution stipulates, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” It doesn’t seem like a pacifist should be willing to take on that role. And if you think all Christians should be pacifists, then it seems like you certainly would not want to put a brother (or sister) in that position.

There’s a reason I was thinking about this, but it’s not interesting enough to explain.

*****

The radio show this morning was really fun. I’ll point you to the archived version when it’s up. We didn’t really get to much spiritual stuff, but the political topics were interesting. And of course, the whole spiritual/secular distinction isn’t legit, blah blah blah. I found out afterward that the host had really wanted to talk about evolution, but we ran out of time. Maybe they’ll have me back on.

My favorite Jake moment was a shout-out to Mike Kruger, as I blurted out while the host was trying to close up, “neutrality is a myth!” You’ll have to listen to get the context.

Listen Up!

Tomorrow morning (Wednesday), your humble correspondent will be appearing as a member of the “Average Joe’s” panel for Charlotte Talks, a local show on our NPR station. Every month they have four people from the community on to talk about all kinds of things. Some of the potential topics for tomorrow include the war (of course), evolution vs. Intelligent Design, education, and religion. I don’t know anything about my fellow panelists other than what’s on the program’s website, so we’ll see.

If you’re in the Queen City, you can hear the show on 90.7 FM at both 9 AM and 9 PM. They’re doing a fundraising drive, so during the morning show they’ll cut away a couple of times, but the “uncut” version will air at 9 PM. For those outside Charlotte, you can listen live online, or check their archive later in the week.

Pray for me! The producers know that I’m a seminary grad, work at said seminary, and am preparing to be a missionary, and several of the topics have a spiritual angle (doesn’t everything!). So I have a feeling my Christian worldview will come up. My goal is to speak persuasively, but also kindly and winsomely, and maybe even mess with some stereotypes many NPR listeners might have about Christian conservatives. Above all, please pray for me that my words and attitude will honor Christ and draw attention to him and the Gospel.

Same Old Same Old

Calvinism has been a hot potato among Southern Baptists for many years, and things continue to heat up. Recently a nominee for the presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention brought up the old charge that the doctrine of predestination “has a tendency to blunt the sharp edge of evangelism and missions.”

Blogger Timmy Brister has a great response to this claim that’s worth reading. I’ll only add that I think the brother who made these comments is relying on some shaky numbers. In a post on his blog he makes two claims I found especially suspect:

• “Today the Presbyterian Church and other reformed church groups are not on the leading edge of missions.” It’s hard to know exactly how he would define “cutting edge,” but I would point out that Reformed groups are vastly outnumbered in evangelical circles. So no, our missions groups are not likely to be the largest. I would, however, be interested to learn how many people have been led to explore missions after hearing John Piper or reading his Let the Nations Be Glad!

• “The number of missionaries send [sic] by Presbyterians in the last fifty years have been rapidly decreasing.” I wonder if he’s including the Presbyterian Church (USA) in this– a denomination that has, indeed, been dying a slow death for most of a century, owing largely to their abandonment of historic Reformed doctrine. I’m sure their missionary numbers are “rapidly decreasing”– just like their membership numbers– and that would make the overall Presbyterian number look pretty bad.

This is a tired old line that really needs to be dropped if we’re going to get anywhere in a reasonable, Bible-based debate on these issues. Of course, it’s also a reminder to those of us who do love Reformed doctrine: we need to be tireless evangelists, so that (among much more important reasons) this charge is less and less effective.

Do read Timmy Brister’s piece, though– it’s more comprehensive and better researched than my quick thoughts.