Today in Blogworld 03.20.13

Mike Leake

Battling Discouragement as a Pastor’s Wife

Pastor’s wives have it hard. And they often get discouraged living in the fish bowl. Amie Patrick gives some good advice on battling discouragement.

Rules for Writing

These are helpful. I would greatly benefit from #7.

Read the Fine Print Before Supporting “Marriage Equality”

The same-sex marriage debate has some fine print. Be sure that you read that before you sign on.

9 Things You Should Know About Duck Dynasty

I can’t get into it, but many of my friends love Duck Dynasty. Here are 9 things to familiarize you with this popular show.

Check out the dude digging for gold…then watch what he does:

Two Rules For Blog Critique that Would Help Online Discussions

Mike Leake

What are the top 5 blogs that you read? Now ask yourself about the length of each post. I’m guessing that your favorite blogs typically post articles that are about 800-1200 words in length.

Lengthy articles only get read by your most loyal of readers. Therefore, most bloggers will post articles with one simple point that can be made in under 1200 words. If it takes more than 1200 words to make your point then bloggers are advised to turn their idea into a series of posts.

Here is my point. Bloggers can’t shouldn’t fit everything they have to say about a particular topic into one post.

Therefore, I propose these two rules for blog critique that would help online discussions:

  1. Only critique what the author is saying. One of the rules to reviewing books is to deal with what the author actually wrote instead of what you thought he/she was going to write about. Perhaps you can offer a small critique and say, “I wish you would have written a chapter about ____”, but the thrust of your critique needs to be about what is actually there and not about what the author left out. The same applies to blogging—if not more so. There is always more that could be said. Don’t critique all of the things that the author could have said, just deal with what he/she did say.
  2. Don’t fault for a point the author does not make. Consider this post by Tim Challies on the issues surrounding Sovereign Grace Ministires. Tim’s point in this article is that those of us on the outside of a situation ought to withhold judgment until all of the facts come forth. In the meantime we ought to hope and pray for the best. At the same time we should be careful not to dig too deeply into matters that we are not directly involved in. Tim’s article caused an uproar. Some even accused him of “implying that Christians’ shouldn’t care if kids get molested in other churches”. His post is not dealing with how a church or a Christian should respond to child molestation. His post is about how Christians ought to think about controversies that they only see from the outside. Critique that if you will, but don’t accuse the author of paving the way for child molesters simply because he wasn’t making a point about abuse within the church.

There are exceptions to every rule. Occasionally a post is off base simply because of what is not being said. These ought to be exceptions and not the norm. Keep in mind that writers cannot fit everything into one particular piece. I close with these words from Lore Ferguson

Today in Blogworld 03.19.13

Mike Leake

After being sick and not posting for a couple days, I should probably call this “a few days ago in blogworld”; at least until I get caught up.

10 Things to Consider Before Engaging in Controversy

Burk Parsons encourages us to examine ourselves before engaging in controversy. Here are ten questions to ask yourself. (HT: Z)

9 Things You Should Know About the Papacy

With the election of a new pope the papacy has been in the news a good deal recently. Here are 9 things you should know.

9 Ways to Boost Creative Thinking

Why are there so many lists of “9” things these days? Here is another one—this time 9 ways to boost your creativity.

The King of Clean Comedy

I love comedy. I seldom get to watch it because most of it is too vulgar. Jim Gaffigan is an exception. I appreciated this article about top comics “working clean”.

Here are 50 misconceptions debunked. (I’d like to research a few of these, but that’s because I’m a nerd)

Should I Voluntarily Abstain From the Lord’s Supper

Mike Leake 3 Comments

This is a question that we will address in our Life Groups this evening.

If I am struggling in my faith, where my love for Christ is faint, my love for other believers is hardening, and I’m having a hard time seeing the gospel should I take the Lord’s Supper when it is offered?

Allow me to make that question concrete.  Many pastors have us “examine ourselves” before we partake of the Lord’s Supper.  Typically we are urged to look at our hearts and see if there is a breach of fellowship between ourselves and another believer.  If so, we should make that right before we partake.  We are further urged to look at our life and our heart.  Is there known sin that we are refusing to give up?  If so, we need a serious time of confession before we partake. 

But what do I do if I look into my heart and see some of those really deep and tangled sins?  What if I am struggling in a relationship with another person, but it’s not just as simple as—“make things right”?  What if I find myself much like the man in Mark 9—“Lord I believe, help my unbelief”?  Should I take the Lord’s Supper when my faith is weak, I’m struggling with bitterness, and I’m having a hard time giving myself fully to the Lord?

I find John Calvin’s answer to this question helpful. In his day there was a rampant view that only “those who were in a state of grace ate worthily”.  This was defined as those who are “pure and purged of all sin”.  To such a view Calvin responds, “Such a dogma would debar all the men who ever were or are on earth from the use of this Sacrament”.

This doctrine (very similar to the scenario I mentioned above) Calvin says “deprives and despoils sinners, miserable and afflicted with trembling and grief, of the consolation of this Sacrament”. 

He then goes on to define what it really means to be “worthy” to take the Lord’s Supper. 

Therefore, this is the worthiness—the best and only kind we can bring to God—to offer vileness and (so to speak) our unworthiness to him so that his mercy may make us worthy of him; to despair in ourselves so that we may be comforted in him; to abase ourselves so that we may be comforted in him; to abase ourselves so that we may be lifted up by him; to accuse ourselves so that we may be justified by him; moreover, to aspire to that unity which he commends to us in his Supper…

Calvin continues…

How could we, needy and bare of all good, befouled with sins, half-dead, eat the Lord’s body worthily?  Rather, we shall think that we, as being poor, come to a kindly giver; as sick, to a physician; as sinners to the Author of righteousness; finally, as dead, to him who gives us life.

I appreciate Calvin’s pastoral sensitivity. For those reading this that are pastors, be careful in how you speak to these weak and feeble souls that may cut themselves off from this ordinance. 

For those that are reading this that are those weak and feeble souls, I want to encourage you that when you look into your heart and see darkness, sin, despair, bitterness, and a whole host of other things—your best response is not to run away from the table and try to go fix it.  Your best response is to run to Christ as represented in the Lord’s Supper. 

Thoughts?

—

Originally posted here.