28 August 2012

Pyro and me: philosophy of strategery

by Dan Phillips

Candidly, I'm not writing this because I think it can possibly be of any great interest to anyone. It's more of a bookmark, for my own future use and reference — as in "See my explanation here." I may even give it one star myself. (On re-read, I may give it 2 or 3 for the neologisms alone.)

However Phil or Frank saw or sees their role (respectively), I have always viewed my role here as semi-pastoral, in this sense:
  1. I have some Biblical essentials to communicate which I think are vitally important.
  2. Many of these essentials are communicated too seldom, too unclearly, too timidly, too ineffectively, too zombily, and/or too vaguely.
  3. I mean to communicate them as directly, clearly, forcefully, effectively, memorably, mark-leavingly and fruitfully as I can.
Though this will be a "duh" to long-timers, it actually does place me in a different category from many other high-traffic bloggers. You've noticed it: the writers impart some cybergold nuggets — fine men that they are. Then they wander off to do important, big-name-guy things... and allow unmoderated metas to go straight to Hades.

Which I just won't.

My aim has never been to host an open-ended PoMo discussion group, with sofas and tie-dye T's and foo-foo drinks. I view this as more akin to a Bible study, where I am responsible for leading the discussion in a specific direction — and making sure it gets there and stays there. Participation is welcomed, appreciated, and encouraged; but it is also moderated and directed. This isn't a democracy.

Would be-derailers and snipers tend to find that out quickly. Guys who sit at the back of the classroom and make sniggering, snide little derailing snipes for their own smug amusement, not only refusing to learn but doing their best to prevent others from learning, encounter reality in due time.

Remember, too, that I am not postmodern. I don't think that truth is in the eye of the beholder. If I'm making the case that the Bible is sufficient and the Canon is closed, that is what I am earnest that readers take away. I am not timidly raising a flag to see who will salute it; I am not nambipambily floating a trial-balloon with the intent of tremulously taking a poll afterwards. My goal in life is not to be lauded by as "careful" by RBP types. I am teaching, I am aiming to inform and persuade.

Of course, there are exceptions, such as all the brain trust posts, which are of a totally different nature. But seriously, think about it: I've been at this in earnest for well over thirty-nine years. That's longer than many of you have even been alive, let alone saved. Does it mean I'm right? Mercy, don't I wish! But, friend, in earnest: if I haven't come up with something to say with conviction and force in that time... I've been doing it really, really wrong.

So it's with that conviction that I write. And for most of you, that's actually why you come here. If you had wanted to see timid, dainty, precious, raised-pinkie reeds shaken by the wind, there were lots of high-traffic sites you could go to. This is not that.

(If any of this surprises anyone, donde esta frijole? — which is Spanish for "Where you been?")

Pyromaniacs (to my mind) never has been and never will be simply a clearing-house for that great howling wasteland of insanity that gibbers and prances under the loose canopy of "evangelicalism." Pyromaniac wasn't, and Pyromaniacs isn't. I see Pyromaniacs at its best as a beacon and a lighthouse, a haven and a place of instruction and direction. Not a bloggy Bedlam.

Clear enough?

Keeping it that way, with open comment threads, is actually a lot of work. And it places quite an obligation on me, given my self-assigned role. I can't just throw something out and then allow the subsequent conversation to be captivated by what I think are harmful false teachers, who throw out irresponsible and devastating distractions and delusions, beguiling and ultimately damaging the souls of my readers. I feel that responsibility very keenly.

All this has its parallel in the thought of Titus 3:8-11. As he has done many times in the epistle, Paul urges Titus to insist that sound faith must issue in God-honoring actions (v. 8). Those opposed to sound faith will want to come in with endless arguments and debates, hoping to start a discussion that will whirl about in repetitious circles for their own amusement and aggrandizement — but the net outcome of all such exercises is both unprofitable and foolish (v. 9). Therefore, Titus is to take decisive action: confront the divisive ones decisively, and then show them the door, leaving them to the miseries they've chosen for themselves (vv. 10-11).

I feel a responsibility like that for what I'm doing here, for the reasons detailed above. Of course, many who've been shown the door would argue that their perspective was vital and wonderful and needed and all. To that, my politest and (I think) inarguable response would be, "Then that's what your blog is for."

Now, add another pressure to maintaining all this. As you (should) know, this is not my paid job. It isn't what feeds, houses and clothes my family. I love this ministry dearly. I thank God for it. But my priority is God, my family, and my local church pastorate. Any of those things "trump" this ministry.

Frankly, I've found that my pastorate has had more of an impact on blogging than I anticipated. Perhaps that was naive of me, but there we are. I still aim to keep on blogging, and am in fact keeping it up, but it's being more of a challenge than I expected.

So one of the impacts of that reality is in metas. To take two extreme poles, I simply cannot spend hours and hours babysitting a meta that has turned into a ridiculous free-for-all for passing barking-loon drive-bys, OR accepting the role of chief and sole debater in a long ongoing series of barrages that would require one-man research assignments and (again) hours of ongoing participation. Just can't do it.

So that leaves me with several choices, none of them perfectly happy:
  1. Stop blogging. (Won't.)
  2. Close comments altogether. (Would rather not.)
  3. Moderate comments and just don't allow the more de-raily, reading-comp challenged, wheel-reinventing endless-do-loop ones. (Do.)
  4. Do my best to allow comments and participate, but close the meta if I am unable to meet what I believe is my responsibility as "discussion-leader," given the accountability I feel for my readers. (Also do.)
So there you go. And if you feel really cheesed off about all this, I'm sorry, but I'd just take this occasion gently to remind you, not for the first time, what your monthly fees are for this service.

Dan Phillips's signature

88 comments:

jbboren said...

You've left out the fifth option: ignore the comments.

It works for many bloggers.

Frank Turk said...

jbboren --

Yes, but so many commenters ignore the posts, turnabout is fair play.

Frank Turk said...

For the record: since people have stopped commenting on my posts, I'm leaving the comments open on my posts as a clear plea for attention.

Kerry James Allen said...

Well said, Dan. Given the fact that we read of many newer believers at Pyro there needs to be a pastoral type care for them. And if I might quote a portion of an upcoming Dose of Spurgeon:

"The lambs are the young of the flock. So, then, we ought to look specially and carefully after those who are young in grace. They may be old in years, and yet they may be mere babes in grace as to the length of their spiritual life, and therefore they need to be under a good shepherd. As soon as a person is converted and added to the church, he should become the object of the care and kindness of his fellow-members. He has but newly come among us, and has no familiar friends among the saints, therefore let us all be friendly to him. Even should we leave our older comrades, we must be doubly kind towards those who are newly escaped from the world, and have come to find a refuge with the Almighty and His people. Watch with ceaseless care over those new-born babes who are strong in desires, but strong in nothing else."

I'd hate to see the comments ended because many of them are substantive and contribute to the discussion, but on the other hand there are a lot of railers and derailers. It's just a shame that we so easily bypass the word "edify" in order to make our own points.

"There never was an enterprise started yet but somebody objected to it; and I do not believe that the best work that Christ himself ever did was beyond criticism; there were some people who were sure to find some fault with it." CHS

Greg Howard said...

@Dan, I'm a longtime teampyro reader but rare commenter. Just as a datapoint, I honestly don't read the comments very often, but I do read, consider and often profit from most everything that comes across the "new posts" feed. To date I myself am basically what y'all would call "weakly-professed Christianoid", but you should know that TeamPyro is one of the things that gives me serious pause in that. In short, I could live without your commenters but I'd be mighty disappointed if you (or Frank) gave up writing this stuff. FWIW.

@Frank: I don't pay any attention to your commenters either, and like I said, I hardly ever comment myself. But I am reading your stuff and, I hope, profiting from it. (I'd welcome some new posts to the Gadfly, too!)

DJP said...

jbboren — you saying that really puzzles me. I actually spoke to that at great length. I know it's a long post, but... are you trying to make me play the "You didn't read the post" card??

Frank Turk said...

The Calvinist Gadfly will go live again in September. We all had a really full summer, and we have a lousy editor in chief.

DJP said...

And so, yet again, it turns out that the actual topic of my post was...

OFelixCulpa said...

Much appreciated! Obviously this is a moderated blog, but I have never felt that you all were shamelessly censurious. That, in my opinion, sets you way apart from the pack. Again, much appreciated!

Frank Turk said...

I was only answering a question.

Randy Talley said...

I'm saddened, but not surprised, that a post like this is even necessary.

Nash Equilibrium said...

Dan - You gotta moderate. otherwise the threads will be dominated by crackpots, trolls, atheists and RCC/KJVers. You know, like they do everywhere that isn't moderated.

Frank - I always read your stuff, but don't usually comment because what you say makes sense to me.

Aside: I appreciate that Dan is picking up bad Spanish in Texas: "donde esta frijole?" lol It took me a second to get that joke.

YesNaSpanishTown said...

I am a fairly new reader and appreciate the articles on Pyromaniacs.

I have a question. My daughter is a longtime Christian, and well taught/learned in basic Bible from her own self study and from home/family life--no formal education. Her husband is a very new Christian (2 years)with absolutely zero theological background.

He has been expressing a desire to do mission work. I would like them both to go through some kind of basic program. I have found a few online free theology programs. However, after looking at them, I think that they will leave the husband behind.

Can you recommend any online program with basic OT/NT Survey, or basic Bible study that they would be able to do together.

They have very young children, and attend church (an excellent church) regularly, but not a Sunday School.

They are not evening TV watchers, so I think that they will definitely avail themselves of an online program. Their interest level is high at the moment.

I would appreciate any recommendations.

Thank you and blessings!

DJP said...

Oh now, don't blame that one on Texas. I brought it with me. It's companion to "Como esta frijole?" ("How you been?").

DJP said...

Yes, my strongest recommendation would be that they work with their pastor, and get his direction and help — or perhaps his own tutelage!

Tom Chantry said...

You know, Dan, I think those of us who read closely had kind of figured all this out. And then there are the trolls who don't care. This post is great for you (or others!) to point to and say, "It's not meanness that led to that moderator's comment; it's purpose and discipline." It should be helpful to some casual readers who wonder why this site sometimes seems "mean."

DJP said...

Exactly the point, TC. Well-read.

threegirldad said...

[insert standing ovation]

Larry Geiger said...

"I view this as more akin to a Bible study, where I am responsible for leading the discussion in a specific direction — and making sure it gets there and stays there." Thank you, thank you, thank you! You da man (da men!)

Ian said...

There is another choices

5) Stop creating posts that openly invite respones on theological viewpoints that your in disagreement with, also avoid inflammatory language that is intended to evoke a response.

For example: The sufficiency challenge and your Assembly of God posts that refer to Swaggart, Bakker etc

Jules said...

Hearty support & approval in whichever approach you take, DJP. I vote for #3.

thomcole said...

DanP said, "This isn't a democracy." I tell my kids at home that same thing followed up by, "It's a dadocracy!" Just like my young children need an occasional nudge in the right direction, so it is with a lot of the people who comment here. As your time taking care of your family and Church are important, I say go with Option 4.

APM said...

A few tidbits:

1) I pay my monthly fees faithfuly, thank you very much.

2) Why not get a young Timothy to help moderate the meta? We have a fine gent watching over Spurgeon, another (I assume) posting Phil's worthy works. Why not a faithful shepherd to help in the meta?

3) I thought frijoles were beans, not beens. But my spanglish is rusty.

John said...

So, no "what does this post mean to me...." stuff? Something like that?

Morris Brooks said...

cenIt is difficult enough writing a meaty post, but to also moderate it requires a yeoman's effort; and to do this more than once a week requires a level of commitment, and a calling that most do not have. And to also consider that this is neither your's nor Frank's day job, that neither of you are single hermits, and that you both have other blogs...well that does elicit (from me) a great deal of respect.

So now that you have set the record straight for those who have never gotten it, blog on boys, blog on.

Morris

Frank Rue said...

Why not appoint some of your more regular commenters who demonstrate a resistance to the "diarrhea of the meta" the privilege of moderating in your stead? This may help, but I don't know the availability of the best candidates and if, perhaps, their schedules are much like your own.

Aaron Snell said...

"I view this as more akin to a Bible study, where I am responsible for leading the discussion in a specific direction — and making sure it gets there and stays there."

This is an interesting statement to me. I mean, let's face it - we've all probably been in that Bible study with the person who throws everything off-track, and never seems to realize that what they're saying is the exact opposite of what the text is saying. Some of us have led these studies, and had to grow in our ability to correct, redirect and guide this type of element in the group setting.

So Dan, would you say that the way you correct and re-direct wayward "mouths" here is correlative to how you do so in an actual in-person Bible study? Or are there other factors that make how that is done look different in each scenario?

Tom Chantry said...

5) Stop creating posts that openly invite respones on theological viewpoints that your in disagreement with, also avoid inflammatory language that is intended to evoke a response.

Yeah, 'cuz that would only violate all three senses in which Dan sees his role as "semi-pastoral."

This option would be "choosing poorly," if you know what I mean.

DJP said...

Aaron, by their nature, actual real-live Bible studies tend to attract fewer of the quick-draw popoff drive-by assaults that blogs undergo. Trolls don't have the protection of distance and anonymity and cover for sniping. You have to "own" what you say.

Having said that, yes, leading a group-participation event with gentle firmness is an art in which one can only strive to achieve adequacy.

Some dear souls are simply unwilling to say the equivalent of "OK, let's take one last question," and make it stick; or to say, "Well, let me give you a response to that, and then if you like we can talk with it afterwards," and make that stick. Or to say, "No, I think you know our church's teaching position, and this isn't a constitutional rewrite meeting, so you really aren't welcome to present your 25-page paper in this meeting." But that's what's necessary.

Scatcatpdx said...

I can understand where your position or. I do not comment here much because of the time it take for me to write a replay with a leaning disability.

I believe the comments problem is a greater problem of the 24/7 social networking digital culture; people are losing the ability to civilly and logically debate. I was dismayed with comments on Fox News and WSJ; thousands of post most by drive by, off topic, demagogs. Yes such comment can kill a blog.
I lean more to not or very limiting comments on my blog. Fox news has closed their comments feature and other are moving to Facebook were more difficult for anonymous drive by comments. I prefer to be a tyrant on my blogs one has only two chances if I get a whiff of demagoguery, that person is banned.

DJP said...

Yep. Or take YouTube. Mercy, those metas are wretched hives of scum and villainy. Not worth wading through the sewage to find the few sane sparkling gems of marginal sanity.

But some high-profile Christian blogs aren't a whole lot different, in terms of Biblical sanity.

Sonja said...

Many comments are actually more helpful to me than the post itself. I have so very, very much to learn and the comments will unpack the post more. Often I'm unclear on a point and/or have a question that will be resolved for me in the comments by someone expanding on the post. I truly appreciate the teaching I get from both the Pyros and the commentors. And also, lots of folks are absolutely hilarious (in a good way).

Nash Equilibrium said...

Combox: It's not a Democracy - it's a Dan-ocracy.

Ian said...

"Yeah, 'cuz that would only violate all three senses in which Dan sees his role as "semi-pastoral."


Semi-Pastoral? I missed where being incendiary was a biblical pastoral quality, even semi-icendiary for that matter.

Isn't the name of this blog Pyromaniacs, strange, if someone starts a fire there will be onlookers and people will even try to put it out. If you don't like the attention your fires get STOP STARTING FIRES.

Carl C. said...

Then there's the flipside, aka option #2, where comments are either disabled or not an option. This has its advantage, such as making a stand-alone statement. But it's hard to start a discussion this way, at least the kind directly connected to the writing. For example, Carl Trueman has written several articles at his blog that give striking food for thought and would be fantastic conversation starters, but readers have no avenue for such (unless I'm just the dolt who hasn't seen how!).

So I sincerely appreciate that you haven't taken this route, and all the time and soul the Pyro bare-knuckled-bloggers (BareKB's??) pour into this ministry, for it truly is one. I rarely waste my time looking at comments anywhere else, but here there really are some uplifting, edifying, corrective, reasonable, thought-provoking and Word-rich nuggets. Thanks!

Jules said...

Ian:

Biblical truth is always incendiary, like a "refiner's fire".

Linda said...

Well, I appreciate all of you. (smile) the invaluable information here is a think tank from men who no doubt have been walking with the LORD and have attained such wisdom.

I apologize that I don't always comment since some posts are just recondite(for me). but they challenge me and sometimes I have to read them 2wice or thrice. when I read some of the input it really helps me..

there is a feature where you can have members only isn't there?

Aaron Snell said...

I'd also like to just add that it's great to see the "A WARREN OF IGNOBLE FURRY TICKS" label tagged on another post. Well done.

APM said...

"A [WARREN] OF IG[NOBLE] [FUR]RY [TICK]S"

To which I say: "holy frijole"!

I'm really getting dull-witted in my old age.

I'm I the only one who doesn't catch these jokes until they are 'splained to me?

Dan Rolfe said...

I'm another one of those grateful and regular (but silent) readers. Perhaps more of us should have said "thank you" long ago.

I'm a busy pastor as well, but I do drop by several times a week just to to see what new encouraging or challenging topics you guys write about. Thanks for the hard work you put in here, and I specifically thank you for today's well written post.

Ian said...

Jules,

I see biblical truth more related to mercy and love then fire.

AJM said...

Dan,
I read but do not comment often.
You may be unique with your desire to be pastoral (semi or otherwise)
I pray that you become ubiquitous.

Tom Chantry said...

Ian,

Jules cited scripture, while you told us how you feel.

You, also, chose poorly.

Ian said...

Tom,


Bblical truth is more related to mercy and love then fire.

Stephen said...

Is this the part where I say that I think truth is more like the grease falling off bacon than it is the ashes left over from a fire?

I mean, if we are just going to make up comparisons.


I learned all this about truth from something that was said to my spirit, which I am told is more rare than a word from another person but less rare than a dream.

Stephen said...

If only the Bible gave us some imagery, to describe how it works.

Jules said...

What you see is irrelevant, Ian. Scripture alone is our sole authority.

Ian said...

Stephen,

I feel like, or better said, semi-feel like you should read Psalms, or Ephesians if you are interested in how you should view and share biblical truth. Or if you feel or semi-feel like your always a Prophet or a semi-Prophet confronting false prophets or anyone that doesn't view Scripture like you see it, I would read Jeremiah.

Or you can read both and apply when necessary, that is if you feel like it or semi-feel like it, and of course, most importantly, if Tom Chantry approves.

Linda said...

Ian,

God's word is "like FIRE"- and "like a HAMMER that breaks a rock in pieces"-Jeremiah 23:29, it is "living and active sharper than any double-edged sword"-Heb. 4:12.

Jules is dead on!!

Jesus said, "Sanctify them by the truth; Thy word is truth"-Jn 17:17


Ian said...

Jules,

Do we know each other? how would you know what I view as irrelevant unless you view yourself as a Prophet or a semi-Prophet or maybe it's just your feelings.

Kerry James Allen said...

Ian, do you drive a semi-truck for a living?

Ian said...

KJA,

No I don't, but you asked, which is commendable. DO you have something against semi-truck drivers? If you do you could have said, "You drive a semi-truck for a living", not truly knowing my profession, so you can disqualify and disagree with everything I say about transportation but you didn't.

Jules said...

Again, Ian, what you view or do not view is irrelevant. I do not need to know you to affirm that Scripture alone is our sole authority.

The question is not, "What do I think God's Word says?" The question is, "What does God's Word say?"

Sir Aaron said...


You could take on some people who'd act as moderators but not necessarily as writers.

Ian said...

Jules,

Do you ever read other people's comments on Scripture?

Merrilee Stevenson said...

Ian wrote:

Jules,

I see biblical truth more related to mercy and love then fire.

4:23 PM, August 28, 2012



I think you'll find the order viewed differently here: biblical truth related to fire, then love and mercy.

Great post, by the way. 5-star quality.

Lastly, Dan, I'd appreciate your prayers as I plan tentatively to start a ladies Bible study this fall. I'm leaning strongly towards Proverbs, and using your book as a guide. And I have a tendency to not be strong in those ways you were describing yourself, but greatly need it. Thanks in advance.

Ian said...

Merrilee,

I think? Are you sure you wanted to say, "I think"?

Merrilee Stevenson said...

Why would I have said it any other way? If you are a thoughtful, careful reader, if you are able to be instructed, then...yes. If you have an axe to grind and are inclined to argue without listening, then...you will not likely find what I'm talking about. I was being somewhat optimistic.

Kerry James Allen said...

Um, Ian, I was joking, as in after you used the term "semi" about a zillion times I thought perhaps it was a Freudian slip related to driving a "semi." Don't worry though, my wife doesn't think I'm very funny either.

Linda said...

Kerry James Allen, I thought you were funny in a cute way-(I smiled). I thought of "Semi"but his name was spelled "Semmi" in the movie "Coming to America" after I read your post..
I recon mine is just waggishly funny though

Nash Equilibrium said...

Why do I have the term Knight-Errant stuck in my mind after reading Ian's comments?

Kerry James Allen said...

And now thanks to you Nash, I have a neologistic phrase semi-stuck in my mind: Errant Apparent

Ian said...

Merrilee,

Exactly , however your colleagues here can't stomach that you shared with us how you "feel". Get your axe out so you can be taken seriously.

Tom Chantry said...

Ian,

You have understood exactly nothing of the conversation here. Furthermore, you have taken this discussion far afield from Dan's initial post. And since Pastor Dan is probably off doing important stuff (like ministry) right now, I'll tell you for him: venting your frustration about other posts on this meta is not smiled upon. Commenting without interacting in any meaningful way with the original post - while common - is not really tolerated either. And taking an aggressive stance with a Christian sister who has dealt with you charitably is not only rude and ungentlemanly, it is deeply offensive to most of the commenters here, and probably also to most of the quiet readers.

Perhaps you've done all the damage in this meta that you ought to do.

Cathy said...

Dan- your post reveals the heart of a true shepherd. If anyone is "cheesed off"- it might be because they don't understand and respect that role and the responsibility that pastor-shepherds carry.

Ian said...

Tom,

If you makes YOU feel better shut me down, but your explanation why is laughable.

Jules said...

Tom:

Your explanation was clear, cogent and anything but laughable.

Ian said...

Jules,

If I misunderstood anything it was your comment,

"What you see is irrelevant, Ian. Scripture alone is our sole authority."

I thought you were accusing me of not taking Scripture as sole authority.
Understandable the way it was worded and my experience on commenting here. It turns out that's not what you meant.

I doesn't seem the goal of these comments are to understand one another but I knew that going in.

michelle said...

Wow...this meta has been fascinating, and sad to read. I am an avid reader and occassional commenter. I only comment if I have a strong conviction about something that has been said in the post or is being said in the comments.

Ian - I enter the fray with some trepidation because it appears to me (correct me if I'm wrong), nothing anyone here is saying to try to explain or demonstrate how you might possibly have missed the point of the post is really getting through. Regardless of our "feeling" and "thinking", scripture has been presented that demonstrates that there a refining nature to Scripture that, I would argue, is a true deomonstration of God's love and mercy. His goal after all is to make us more like His Son. And therefore, Scripture will confront us and make us uncomfortable and possibly even offend us as it deals with our sin. That is indeed the most loving and merciful thing a Holy God can do for His children, don't you think? If we use Paul as an example, he demonstrate this in his dealings with the churches. I do believe he called the Galatians "foolish" for their behavior with the Judiazers that were causing havoc in their congregation and was quite blunt in his displeasure and dismay with them. He was no less blunt with the Corinthians when he confronted them with the multitude of issues going on in their congregation. What Dan is doing is no different from my view. And I personally applaud it. It is refreshing and God-honoring.

Kerry James Allen said...

Chantry for the gold. Ian, since you seem to be semi-irritated by Tom, and the semiabstract content of Pyro, which is semibreve in relation to Scripture, and your comments toward the ladies are rather semicivilized, and you appear semiconscious at times, maybe you need to take a semipermanent break from the comments.

DJP said...

I'm back.

Partly, it's been exactly what Chantry said. But then, since not too much harm was being done, I thought I'd just take the chance of allowing Ian to provide a relatively mild illustration of what I was talking about.

More on that, later.

First, I really did write this for the reason I gave: to be able to refer back to it later.

So what a nice treat it is for folks like Greg Howard, OFelixCulpa, Nash, threegirldad, Larry Geiger, thomcole, Morris Brooks, Carl C., Dan Rolfe, AJM, Merrilee and others to take the time to say such kind and encouraging things. Thank you. I do appreciate it.

Jules said...


Final Attempt:

Ian…you stated, "I missed where being incendiary was a biblical pastoral quality, even semi-icendiary for that matter."

I responded that, "Biblical truth is always incendiary, like a "refiner's fire"." I referenced Scripture (specifically Malachi 3:2), because this is how Scripture defines itself. Stephen, along with several others, also demonstrated from Scripture how Scripture describes itself, (fire, a hammer Jeremiah 23:29, a two-edged sword Hebrews 4:12, fire John 15:6)

You then stated, "I see biblical truth more related to mercy and love then fire," sans any Scriptural reference, which leads the reader to believe that your position is based upon your own personal interpretation of Scripture. As any student of Scripture knows, this is expressly forbidden (2 Peter 1:20), thus my statement, "What you see is irrelevant, Ian. Scripture alone is our sole authority."

So again, the question is not, "What does Scripture say to me?"

The question is "What does Scripture say?"

Ian said...

Michelle,

If you go back and read my initial comment you'll find what I said was twisted and became something else. Having read here for many years, commenting infrequently, I see the purpose of these posts are to do exactly what the title of the blog says "setting the world on fire". There intention is to light a fire, get attention. Not only serve as a refining fire as found in Jeremiah. So I find it odd that someone would complain the attention when that's what is desired.

Yes the word of God is a refining fire, but not ALWAYS like Jules said. Sometimes it acts as water, two-edged sword, hammer, depending on how the Holy Sprit moves on the heart.

KJA,

If I offened anyone, especially the ladies, they can address me and I will deal with it, I don't see how your comment helped that in anyway. And BTW you really don't understand my humor,

DJP said...

Now, Ian.

What you have done is provide us with the spectacle of someone who evidently fundamentally does not even understand the purpose of this blog — including even the everywhere-visible Biblical reference for its name — and yet takes on himself to tell us all that we're doing it wrong.

But that's easily correctly. And was. In fact, it could have been corrected if you'd just read the post attentively!

Yet your next move was basically to pull up a box of Kleenex and sob about how mean everyone is (rather than admitting you were wrong, and moving on).

And so you can all see that, from Ian's first wrongheaded lament about (horrors!) speaking ill of Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker and their host denomination, much of the rest of the thread became devoted to the goodhearted attempts of goodhearted folks (with, I am sure, better things to do) to set Ian straight, when Ian had absolutely no intention of receiving a syllable of help, no matter how transparently relevant.

That is just the slightest whiff of the odor of what happens with unmoderated metas. Instead of talking about the post's contents, it becomes a therapy session for someone with his own agenda.

So, Ian, to you: you've said your piece, and chanted your threnody. If you'd like to apologize to anyone or acknowledge their correction, you may. Otherwise, you're done for this one. I'll leave your words up as a testimony to your complaints.

DJP said...

Oh, and Michelle. I should have thanked Michelle, too. Come more often, Michelle!

Tom Chantry said...

Threnody?

Tom Chantry said...

Oh. Great word!

DJP said...

Thx. "Jeremiad," if you prefer.

Tom Chantry said...

Yeah, but I wouldn't have learned a new word if you'd said that.

DJP said...

And that is what I live for.

Ian said...

DJP,

Of course Dan, if I TRULY did offend anyone I offer apologies, Thanks all, Peace

Tom Chantry said...

Yeah, but I wouldn't have learned a new word if you'd said that.

And that is what I live for.


Hey, it really IS all about ME!!!

Kerry James Allen said...

Pyromaniacs: Providing light and insight into neologisms, threnodies, jeremiads, ululations, and the lucubratory of Tom Chantry. And at discounted rates of course.

Nash Equilibrium said...

My advice is free, too, and worth every penny.

michelle said...

Well thank you Dan! :o)

DJP said...

And, almost as if scheduled to illustrate my point, check out the meta to this post by very good brother Denny Burke.

Don't misread me as intending anything negative about Denny. I'm not. But that meta is the sort of thing I'd never want to let happen, myself, me. Which is what I was trying to explain.

Linda said...

DJP, If I understand you, You desire fruitfulness and edification -real productive growth with your bloggers since this is the gift God has given you to edify others with and what brings you true joy in Christ and true Unity

The philosophy is shifting more and more into the “let’s all hash it out and maybe we’ll all learn something”, as well as “let’s not be too restrictive on letting people express their thoughts”. I believe this is a disasterous mistake

sadly, I believe the transition of many Christian bloggers unwittingly is going postmodern which brings about endless debates, conversations and pedantic nattering

All I see in that is fruitless pride and the pulling in different directions

Morris Brooks said...

Pedantic nattering...a keeper.