Thank you, Allan Bevere

One of the bloggers who got me into blogging announced he is shutting up shop today.

Modern liberals and conservatives continue to control the discussion. Those of us who think otherwise are marginalized because we refuse to accept the power and influence of those who are members of the loony left and the wacky right.

So it is time to close down my blog and leave the discussion to those who somehow think God’s kingdom is embodied in conservatives and liberals who believe their views mean more than the gospel.

May God bless all of you.

Allan Bevere might fairly be credited with being the forerunner of the Methoblog. I recall the happiness I had when I got my first blog post listed on his list of weekly blog posts of interest.

He has been a consistently interesting and faithful voice in the Methoblogosphere. Thank you, Allan, for everything.

Grace and peace.


Merciful blogging

From John Wesley’s second sermon on the Sermon on the Mount:

Because the merciful man rejoiceth not in iniquity, neither does he willingly make mention of it. Whatever evil he sees, hears, or knows, he nevertheless conceals, so far as he can without making himself “partaker of other men’s sins.” Wheresoever or with whomsoever he is, if he sees anything which he approves not, it goes not out of his lips, unless to the person concerned, if haply he may gain his brother. So far is he from making the faults or failures of others the matter of his conversation, that of the absent he never does speak at all, unless he can speak well.

The quote above comes from a long discourse on what it means to have mercy. I quote it here because it strikes me as a good rule for blogging and bloggers. I know too well the temptation to point out the errors of others. I’ve fallen prey to that before. Wesley reminds me here that it is not merciful, and therefore not Christian, to do so.

He makes one exception:

Sometimes he is convinced that it is for the glory of God, or (which comes to the same) the good of his neighbour, that an evil should not be covered. In this case, for the benefit of the innocent, he is constrained to declare the guilty. But even here, (1.) He will not speak at all, till love, superior love, constrains him. (2.) He cannot do it from a general confused view of doing good, or promoting the glory of God, but from a clear sight of some particular end, some determinate good which he pursues. (3.) Still he cannot speak, unless he be fully convinced that this very means is necessary to that end; that the end cannot be answered, at least not so effectually, by any other way. (4.) He then doeth it with the utmost sorrow and reluctance; using it as the last and worst medicine, a desperate remedy in a desperate case, a kind of poison never to be used but to expel poison. Consequently, (5.) He uses it as sparingly as possible. And this he does with fear and trembling, lest he should transgress the law of love by speaking too much, more than he would have done by not speaking at all.

How many of us who go by the name of Christian take such care before writing about the sins and errors of others?

Blogging, Piper, & Evans

I won’t link to all the posts that go behind the link I’m about to include. The back story is simple: John Piper tweeted some biblical verses after the Oklahoma tornadoes. Rachel Held Evans sprung quickly to criticize Piper and his theology. Evans later apologized, sort of, for going off half cocked.

All that leads to this helpful post by Derek Oullette that is based in the above scenario, but I commend it to my fellow bloggers for the observations it makes about Christian blogging.