Nathan's shared items in Google Reader

ModThemes.com Launches Today!

2009-08-24T17:49:47Z

After 15 months as a lead developer at iThemes.com, today marks the launch of my very own Premium WordPress Theme business, ModThemes.com. That’s right, myself and three other talented individuals, are launching a new business together, and it’s time to open up shop.

What’s That? A New Premium Theme Shop?

As you know, I live and breathe WordPress code (pretty much). I’ve written countless tutorials, built themes, written plugins, even submitted a patch or two to the WordPress core. Let’s just say that when it comes to WordPress, I know my stuff, some of which has recently been added as new functionality to the themes at StudioPress.

So it should go without saying that if I’m going to be helping run my own WordPress business, it’s going to be top-notch quality with some solid code. You can count on it.

I was, however, late to the party, so I haven’t had a real chance to get my hands dirty with any of the code there at ModThemes.com, but I’m currently busy on several projects that will have my signature solid code foundation that I’ve worked so hard to develop.

What is ModThemes All About?

The three things that I think make a Premium WordPress theme are the following:

Killer Design
Solid Code / Awesome Features
Superior Support

Seriously, I think that about covers it. And that’s our commitment to our users. We want to provide beautiful, functional themes, and if you need help after the sale, we want to be there for you.

So if you’re ever in the market for a new theme for you site, or for one of you clients, do yourself a favor and check ModThemes.com out first.

We’ll Sweeten the Deal

If you’re interested in purchasing our Breaking News Theme this week, we’re offing a 15% off “launch special”. All you need to do is enter discount/coupon code “LAUNCH” at checkout and you’ll get an instant 15% discount. Not bad, eh?

But act fast. That discount code is only good for the first 50 people that use it. For other deals and discounts, as well as news about new themes, prerelease teasers, and other cool stuff, be sure to follow @modthemes on Twitter, or of course, follow me @nathanrice on Twitter.

The panhandler's secret

2009-02-27T11:26:00Z

When there were old-school parking meters in New York, quarters were precious.

One day, I'm walking down the street and a guy comes up to me and says, "Do you have a dollar for four quarters?" He held out his hand with four quarters in it.

Curious, I engaged with him. I took out a dollar bill and took the four quarters.

Then he turned to me and said, "can you spare a quarter?"

What a fascinating interaction.

First, he engaged me. A fair trade, one that perhaps even benefited me, not him.

Now, we have a relationship. Now, he knows I have a quarter (in my hand, even). So his next request is much more difficult to turn down. If he had just walked up to me and said, "can you spare a quarter," he would have been invisible.

Too often, we close the sale before we even open it.

Interact first, sell second.

2.7 Comment Classes

2008-12-10T07:00:19Z

Last week I heard about the difficulties that themers face in trying to effectively style the new threaded comments. There are a lot of nested lists and div tags, the hcard microformat for the commenter’s details and variable classes to give you a lot of styling options. On the surface they can seem pretty confusing but when you lay them out it is actually quite straightforward. The image below contains a breakdown of the html elements, the IDs and the classes that are applied to the various parts of the default 2.7 comment output.

Where a number is inserted I have used n. For example, comment-n, or depth-n. It is also worth noting that many of classes are variable, that is, even/odd, byuser, bypostauthor, and so on will only be the case if the comment is numbered odd or even, if a user has commented, if the post author has commented. There are a number of other classes like this. It should be clear which ones are which.

In the main image about I haven’t included all the detail of the comment form itself. I have included that in here:

If you have any questions or comments on this on this please let me know.

Top Level Menu In WordPress 2.7

2008-12-09T13:20:40Z

I explained in one of my previous posts how to add a nice icon to your Plugin in the backend are of WordPress 2.7. Some of my readers on my German blog asked how to add an icon to menus in the top level. I thought there are more readers interested to know about it, therefore I will show it here including a hover effect for the icon.

`add_menu_page()`

The function add_menu_page() exists since the beginning of WordPress and got a parameter added in WordPress 2.7 – $icon_url.

add_menu_page( $page_title, $menu_title, $access_level, $file, $function = '', $icon_url = '' )

This parameter can either send a path of the icon or a div, which can be addressed via CSS style. Additionally I like to show you how to implement the hover effect, which is standard in version 2.7.

Plugin example

Here is a little example to understand. I created the Plugin as you can see below and put it in the folder /plugins/ of the WP installation.
→ Plugins
   → test
     → css
         → style.css
     → images
         → fb_menu.png
     → test.php

The Plugin includes the function to create the menu item in the top level area. Therefore we deliver the value div as last parameter.
In addition we call the function via hook, so that the menu item will be created and the content of the function will be available.

function add_menu_page_in_27() {
	add_menu_page(__('Test', 'test'), __('Test Description', 'test'), 9, basename(__FILE__), '', 'div');
}
 
add_action('admin_menu', 'add_menu_page_in_27');

Icon via CSS Sprites

Now the HTML is in the backend and we use CSS to create the icon. I use the possibility of CSS Sprites.

I add an icon into the Plugin, which contains both conditions. See image on the right.

The associated CSS looks like below, which I placed in the folder css of the Plugin. Thereby the ID of the menu item will be created by the name of the file – toplevel_page_test = toplevel_page_ + test.php.

#adminmenu #toplevel_page_test div.wp-menu-image {
	background: transparent url('../images/fb_menu.png') no-repeat scroll -1px -33px;
}
#adminmenu #toplevel_page_test:hover div.wp-menu-image,
#adminmenu #toplevel_page_test.wp-has-current-submenu div.wp-menu-image,
#adminmenu #toplevel_page_test.current div.wp-menu-image {
	background: transparent url('../images/fb_menu.png') no-repeat scroll -1px -1px;
}

wp_enqueue_style( 'test_css', plugins_url( $path = '/test/css/style.css'), array() );

Conclusion

This is a clear and neat solution, which can be also integrated into small functions, if you query of wp-version basis.

if ( version_compare( $wp_version, '2.6.999', '>' ) ) {
 // since Version 2.6.999
} else {
 // less than Version 2.6.999
}

Download

You can donwload this example on my private blog - download page

Jcrop: the jQuery Image Cropping Plugin

2008-09-10T14:26:16Z

Bookmark this on Delicious - Saved by bjornw to jquery javascript crop image plugin webdev plugins cropping web images - More about this bookmark

Lack of Respect

2008-06-18T19:09:00Z

(HT Unreasonable Faith)

WordPress Expert: WordPress 2.6 Features

2008-06-20T13:45:44Z

Originally published on April 24, 2008. Updated on May 5, 20, 22, June 16, and June 20.

WordPress 2.6 may not be due until August 2008, but already I’ve managed to compile a list of features and enhancements that we’ll likely be seeing in this next major WordPress release. (I’ll continue to update this post as we approach the release date.)

NEW (June 20): Admin SSL support — The WordPress 2.6 admin should be able to be visited via either HTTP (normal connection) or HTTPS (encrypted connection), with the option to make admin HTTPS mandatory. [via]
NEW (June 20): Remote publishing disabled by default — Having the main avenue of attack for WordPress blogs be disabled by default will be great for WordPress security. [via]
NEW (June 16): Plugin Auto-Installation — In WordPress 2.5, you were able to upgrade plugins automatically; in WordPress 2.6, you may have similar functionality for new installations.
NEW (June 16): WordPress Auto-Upgrade — There’s been some early progress on incorporating auto-upgrade for WordPress itself into version 2.6.
NEW (June 16): Theme preview — Theme preview functionality would allow you to see what a new theme would look like on your blog before you activate it.
NEW (June 16): Theme paging — For those of you with a ton of WordPress themes (more than 15), you’ll be able to page through them in the administration. This should be especially useful for WordPress MU blogs that have large theme collections.
NEW (May 22): Ability to move wp-config.php — In WordPress 2.6, you’ll be able to move wp-config.php one directory level below the public root. Perhaps this could also allow multiple WordPress installations to share the same config file?
NEW (May 20): Google Gears support — Now integrated into the WordPress trunk (current working version), this feature will allow Google Gears users to experience a faster admin interface, and possibly manage their WordPress blogs while offline (how cool would that be?).
NEW (May 5): Identicons — In WordPress 2.6 you’ll have the ability to select a default Gravatar for those who don’t have one.
Post Revisions — Wiki-style revisions management for blog posts: a cool new power-feature, just announced on the WordPress Development Updates blog.
Shift-Click Checkbox Selection — In WordPress 2.6, you should be able to select a range of checkboxes in the category, comment, tag, post, page, and media administration sections by checking the “start” checkbox, holding the Shift key, and then checking the “end” checkbox… Gmail style.
Post Word Count — A WordPress.com feature that might be making its way into WordPress 2.6.
“Press This” Bookmarklet — The bookmarklet (which existed in WordPress 2.3 and prior but was removed in WordPress 2.5) has returned, new and improved.

Thoughts? Ideas? Add a comment below!

How to subscribe to toilet paper

2008-04-11T14:30:07Z

I recently introduced a friend to Amazon’s Subscribe & Save program and his reaction was so positive that I thought I’d share it with the rest of the world.

Unknown to a lot of people, Amazon sells groceries. Obviously nothing perishable or frozen, but pretty much everything that’s not kept along the four walls of a supermarket. Because they don’t have the sort of overhead a supermarket does, they offer very good, Costco-like prices. Shopping online keeps your meat-and-milk trips to the supermarket short and focused so you don’t succumb to cluttering impulse buys. This is pretty awesome in itself, but it gets better.

For a subset of products—a very large subset from what I can tell—Amazon offers a subscription service. If you subscribe to a product you get an additional 15% off over the already low price. So what’s a subscription? Exactly what it sounds like.

To illustrate, I’ll let you know that I’m subscribed to coffee. I drink Café Altura House Blend and I ordered three 12 oz. cans at the subscription rate of $15.99—that’s $5.33 per can. I go through about a can a month, so I set my subscription to recur every three months and then forget it. Automatically from now on, just as I’m nearing the end of my coffee supply, the UPS man knocks at the door with a box of coffee. It’s a wonderful thing.

My subscriptions include dishwashing detergent, deodorant, fabric softener, toothpaste, shampoo and conditioner, razors, toilet paper, and much more. It’s awesome. I’m never without and I never have to remember to get something.

Some things are available from Amazon but not as a subscription. For example, they offer subscriptions to several Quaker brand granola bars, but not to my favorite, which is peanut butter chocolate chip. Those items you can add to an Amazon shopping list. These are a bit different than a wish list because the items don’t go away once you purchase them. So, once a week I go through the list and hit the “Buy with 1-Click” button on the items I want.

Now, I know what you’re saying, “What about shipping costs?” That’s the even more incredible part. For just $79 a year you can subscribe to Amazon Prime and get free two-day shipping on anything you order. So that’s it. Pay $79 once and don’t worry about how much you use the service. It will more than pay for itself with just a few shipments. And believe me, once you get started, you’ll never want to go to the grocery store again.

You might be a Calvinist….

2008-04-03T16:26:00Z

From here:

After reading nearly five thousand blog posts from the Reformed blogosphere, I have no doubt that the Reformed, while stridently unified by Calvinistic theology though and far from being uniform in matters like baptism, can be described and critiqued as a diverse, but recognizable, movement. You might be a Reformed Christian: if you listen to Bob Kauflin, Caedmon’s Call, and Max Mclean’s reading of the ESV Bible (sometimes at work), use sermon illustrations from Pilgrim’s Progress, drink orange juice to the glory of God in the morning and wine highly diluted with water in the evenings, and always use the cheapest PC laptop you can find; if your reading list consists primarily of John Piper, Wayne Grudem, John MacArthur, D.A. Carson, Ligon Duncon, R.C. Sproul, Jerry Bridges, Mark Driscoll, Paul Helm, Rick Phillips, Phillip Ryken and James White (not to mention Mohler, Dever, Mahaney, etc.) and your sparring partners include Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Brian McLaren, or that guy who wrote The Message Bible; if your idea of quintessential Christian discipleship is John Calvin, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, or just anyone named John; if you don’t like Al Gore or the liberal media or big government or Christians who vote Democrat or “contemplative Christianity”; if your political concerns are gay marriage and abortion and not so much poverty, AIDS, the economy, pre-emptive war policies, racism, and especially global warming; if you are into the Puritans, Van Til, or the Westminster Confession; if you like to talk about how Augustine and Aquinas believed in the “sovereignty of God” but gloss ove their Catholic convictions about justification; if you sleep tight at night assured of your salvation because you KNOW you are one of God’s elect; if you see the Bible as a storehouse of facts and divinely revealed propositions that can systematized into a body of truth that doesn’t have to reckon with reason, experience, or science and never be seen as collection of works written by human authors that share in the story of God’s redemption; if you know the inerrant truth and believe it inerrantly; if you’ve ever been creeped out by a church that appreciates art, architecture, sculpture, icons, and has a crucifix hanging on the wall; if you loathe words like “story”, “narrative”, “relational”, “community”, and “loving” and use words like “Doctrines of Grace”, “heresy”, “glory”, “glorious”, “God-centered”, “God-entranced”, and “supremacy”; if you grew up in a home that appreciated Billy Graham that in retrospect seemed too Arminian, man-centered, and seeker-sensitive; if you subjugate women to men in all levels of ministry, prioritize blogging over evangelism, and like your theology “robust” instead of “feminized”; if you see your conservative theology having no divide from conservative politics; if you want to stop dating the church and start practicing church discipline; if you long for a community that is confessional, historic, and traditional like a rock or an anchor; if you believe love gets in the way of doctrine; if you believe God wants to save everyone but damns a lot of them before they did anything good or bad, that they deserve their punishment for sins that they were prepared for; if you believe God’s love for everyone has a little to do with his Son dying on the Cross and more to do with allowing them to enjoy the benefits of creation; if you believe following Jesus is all about believing the right things but not really about living the right way; if it really bugs you when people talk about “spiritual formation” instead of justification; if you disdain topical preaching; if you use the word “expository” as a code word for “preaching through Romans”—if all or most of this tortuously long sentence describes you, then you might be a Reformed Christian.

Will CushyCMS Take From Blog Platforms?

2008-04-08T10:39:00Z

It could, you know.

CushyCMS is a hosted CMS solution that basically lets you edit parts of your sites by logging in to CushyCSM and alter the content. It’s a wysiwyg editor for anywhere on the web that you control, all you need to do is add a CSS class to the part of the site you want to edit, and give CushyCMS FTP access to your server. Then login and edit away.

That’s no blog.

It is, however, an easy way to manage a static site. And for all of those who uses blogging platforms such as WordPress and Movable Type to power more or less static sites, it might sound a bit more convenient, yeah?

Check out the promo video, and then listen Guy King, CEO of developer company Stateless Systems, demo it for Duncan Riley over at TechCrunch, all in fluent Australian.

CushyCMS is in beta until April 15. I’m seriously considering trying it out for a friend of mine.

Watch Out Carrie Underwood…

2008-02-01T13:08:00Z

Carrie Underwood took the country music by storm with her hit "Jesus, Take the Wheel". As a matter of fact, many Christian radio stations played the song as well (although those same stations passed on her next hit single, where she talks about carving her name into her ex-boyfriends "pretty little souped up four wheel drive's" leather seats. Well, watch out Carrie... Cletus is in town...

Scroll down to see this new internet hit…

Attitudes Essential for Effective Evangelism

2008-01-27T23:53:49Z

In our last post we looked at 9 keys to Biblical evangelism. Those keys are what makes up effective evangelism. Today we will look at the necessary attitudes believers must have in order to use those keys effectively. Unless these attitudes are foremost in the hearts of believers any evangelical efforts in which they they become part of will not be as effective. Why? These attitudes are growing in those who have matured as a Christian to the point that their lives reflect God’s grace to all around them. If a believer is still enslaved to their flesh their attitudes will reflect that more than God’s grace.

(click here to read this post)

Statement of Faith for Biblical Literalists

2008-01-25T17:12:00Z

A student who was making a presentation to my class on the Bible today had discovered a page I created a while back, called a Statement of Faith for Biblical Literalists. I am simply reproducing it here, for those readers who may not have seen it:

Statement of Faith for Biblical Literalists

ARTICLE I: One day = six days

Genesis 1:1-2:3 says God completed the creation of the heavens and earth in six days. Genesis 2:4 speaks of the (single) day in which God made the earth and the heavens.

ARTICLE II: A circle has four corners

In Isaiah 40:22 the earth is said to be a circle. Elsewhere (e.g. Isaiah 11:12; Job 37:3; Revelation 7:1; 20:8), the Bible speaks of the 'four corners of the Earth'. Both are true, and both must be taken literally; ergo, a circle has four corners.

ARTICLE III: Before = after

In Genesis 1:24-26, God creates various animals and then human beings. According to Genesis 2:19, the order is the reverse.

ARTICLE IV: Large bodies of water are only found in one place, called 'seas'

In Genesis 1:9-10, God forms dry land by gathering the waters into one place, called 'seas'. On a historical reading, this makes perfect sense: the worldview of ancient Israel and her neighbors knew only of peoples and civilizations near to 'the sea' (i.e. the Mediterranean). From their perspective, and on the basis of what they knew of the world, the whole world was land with one large sea in the middle (the Mediterranean) and a few others nearby. But a literalist has to argue that all current maps of the Earth are wrong, since they show bodies of water in many places.

ARTICLE V: Water = waterlessness

In Genesis 1, God creates by taking the existing deep and causing the waters to gather in one place, so that dry land appears. In Genesis 2, the land is what exists, and since there is as yet no rain, there are no plants, although springs do cause some water to flow onto this barren desert.

ARTICLE VI: The sky is a big solid dome

Genesis 1:6-7 uses a Hebrew word for a solid dome (in the King James Version this is translated as 'firmament'). It is not simply the 'atmosphere' - that's not the word used! It is something solid enough to hold up the waters above. Rain falls, other passages tell us, when 'the windows of heaven are opened'. Of course, these could be beautiful metaphors, but if you insist that the Bible be interpreted literally, then that must apply to these parts of it too!

ARTICLE VII: And on the seventh article, this author rested...

The aforementioned 'articles of faith' are not intended to show that the creation accounts of the Bible are worthy of ridicule. On the contrary, I have a deep appreciation for them! I do think, however, that those who insist that they must be interpreted 'literally' (whatever that means) are imposing their own presuppositions on these texts in a way that is ridiculous. The result is that many get the impression that the texts themselves are ridiculous, whereas it is only the way they are being interpreted that is worthy of ridicule. Take for example the dilemma a literalist would face trying to reconcile Genesis 1:2-3 with 1 John 1:6. In one text, God is light, while in the other, God creates light. In one, there is no darkness in God at all, while in the Genesis passage, the Spirit of God and the darkness simultaneously co-exist on the face of the deep. Of course, the quick reply will be that 1 John 1:6 is clearly using metaphorical language. But what makes this obvious? Presumably the same common sense that leads most people to consider that a story that includes a talking snake is a myth or fable! We all bring assumptions to the text when we read it. Until a reader comes to understand that other people understand the text in different ways without intentionally twisting it to a conscious end, they will not realize how strange their own reading will seem to others starting from different presuppositions.

I sincerely hope that, by pointing out some aspects of these texts that are resistant to such literalistic and ahistorical readings, those reading this will be moved to attempt to reread these texts in more appropriate ways, ways sensitive to the context and details of the texts themselves. For more information, see my page on the creation stories in Genesis, and the many links from there.

Charles Spurgeon and Wine

2008-01-24T15:41:18Z

Charles Spurgeon was by far the most influential Christian preacher of the last 200 years. And today, Christians of all sorts pay attention to what he thought and said on any given topic. Given the nearly unparalleled length of his written works (almost every sermon recorded for us), and given the length of his ministry, one is apt to find Spurgeon statements that can be construed to support both sides of any given debate!

Wine, it seems is no exception. Among fundamentalist and conservative evangelicals, the prohibitionist movement is alive and well. Many claim not only that abstaining from wine and alcohol is the wisest course of action, but some even claim the Bible only supports a strictly tee-totaler’s view on the subject.

Spurgeon converted to the prohibitionist cause, but apparently never held that wine in Bible times was not fermented–at least the wine Jesus drank.

Doug Kutilek, at Sharper Iron, shared some interesting quotes on this topic recently. Here is an excerpt from the early Spurgeon (1877):

‘UNFERMENTED wine’ is a non-existent liquid. Mr. Wilson [in his book The Wines of the Bible: an Examination and Refutation of the Unfermented Wine Theory, by A.M. Wilson (Hamilton, Adams & Co.)] has so fully proved this that it will require considerable hardihood to attempt a reply. The best of it is that he is a teetotalert of more than thirty years’ standing, and has reluctantly been driven ‘to conclude that, so far as the wines of the ancients are concerned, unfermented wine is a myth.’ While total abstainers are content to make no assault upon the cup used at the Lord’s table, they work harmoniously with all who seek the welfare of their fellow men; but when they commence warfare upon that point they usually become more factious than useful: everything is then made subordinate to their one idea, and the peace of the church is disregarded. [Read the whole quote at Sharper Iron]

10 years earlier (1857), Spurgeon had said:

I am no total abstainer. I do not think the cure of England’s drunkenness will come from that quarter. (Pg. 380, Spurgeon: Prince of Preachers, Lewis Drummond)

By 1887, however, Spurgeon had donned the blue ribbon of the Temperance Movement. It was not just his position change which could cause confusion, but even as an abstainer he acknowledged both sides of the issue, to some extent.

In the book Charles Spurgeon: Prince of Preachers, by Lewis Drummond (Kregel, Grand Rapids: 1992) one finds the following contradictory quotes from Spurgeon from his later years:

“I don’t need it for myself, but if it will strengthen and encourage a single soul among the 5,000 that are here, I will put it [a blue ribbon] on.”

“Next to the preaching of the Gospel, the most necessary thing to be done in England is to induce our people to become abstainers.” (Both quotes, pg. 440, Spurgeon: Prince of Preachers, Lewis Drummond)

So there you have it. Next time you are debating this topic, cite Spurgeon for support. No matter what side you’re advocating!

For further resources on the alcohol debate, check out my previous articles on wine:

Pictures borrowed from Wikipedia articles on Charles Spurgeon and Wine.

Memo To Christians With Artistic Gifts

2008-01-21T17:37:41Z

Recently discovered document, from backstage at the ~~REDACTED~~ show.

_____________________

TO: “Christians” with Artistic Gifts
RE: Success and Doing Your Best

It has come to our attention that you are employed in the world of entertainment. While this, alone, should disqualify you from the book of life, since you claim the title “Christian”, please realize that we will be watching you like a hawk. At some point, you will fail, and when you do, you will get a foretaste of what your experience will be like in hell, as we will be the hands and feet of God to deliver it to you. So please, keep in mind the following:

1) If you are ever interviewed, our skepticism of the press will vanish to be replaced with an “absence detector”, which identifies anything and everything you never said in that interview. Even if you DID say what didn’t get printed, it does not matter - you must not have said it forcefully enough, or else they would have printed it.

2) If you are involved in an artistic venture that requires dancing, you are going to hell. Unless you are encased in a full-body cast, we will characterize your performance as “writhing around” and “fanny shaking” and “pelvic thrusting”. Fanny-shaking is of the devil.

3) If you’re a woman, it doesn’t matter if you’re wearing a burkha. Your dress will always be called ‘immodest’, and characterized as “fleshly” or “worldly”. Deal with it.

4) If you’re an actor, you’d best marry another actor and ONLY perform with that person. Otherwise, do not take any part which requires you to so much as hold hands with another actor. If you do so, be prepared for an onslaught of criticism for your cavalier attitude toward sexuality.

5) If you are required to travel as part of your work, please realize that - unless you travel back to your home church EVERY week - we will exoriate you for your lack of faithfulness in attending your local church. NOTE: If you have support from your local church community while you’re on the road, that doesn’t mean you’ll get a free pass. We’ll just criticize you because of all of those people who can’t afford such nicities.

6) DO NOT, by any means, attain any level of ‘success‘. If you do, it will be evidence of your carnality and worldliness, which we will roast you for. If you are successful, that is a sign that you’re not being persecuted, and, therefore, not a Christian. Your best bet is to suck enough to prevent success, but not so much that your tithe won’t pay for the new educational wing at your “church”. Remember - the tallest blade of grass is always the one that gets cut down first.

7) If you do not mention “Jesus” (”God” doesn’t count) at every available opportunity, we will trumpet this as evidence of your fleshly, worldly motivations and your selling out on the altar of worldly success. We will thump our breasts to show what an awful hypocrite you are!

8) If you are a painter, we’d best not find any paintings of things outside of Christianity (or, worse yet, which depict anything apart from a modernist or romantic view of the Biblical account). If we can construe something to be anti-Christian, we will, and we will blame you.

9) If you are a singer, every song had best mention “Jesus” (not “God”), or you’re a worldly sell-out.

10) If you are an actor, never play the part of a villan or do anything that would be a sin. Additionally, do not ever act in a movie that gets a rating of PG or higher (unless it is a semi-realistic portrayal of the crucifixion, in which case we will only criticize you for being a Catholic instead of being a Christian). We may give you a pass, though, if you act in poorly-produced pre-mill dispensationalist fantasies.

11) At some point in your life, after you are on the public stage, you will sin. We will be there to point it out for you, just in case you don’t see it. After this, we will be sure to label you by your sin for the remainder of your life. If we could (and unfortunately, your lawyers would probably prevent it), we would engrave it on your tombstone. Regardless, we will bring it up at every turn to justify why were were right to ~~hate~~ critize you in the first place. If, by some chance, you don’t have publicly known sin after awhile, we will dig into your past to find it for you.

12) If you attend a church that is not on our short list of “approved” churches (like Grace Community Church in CA), then you don’t really count as “Christian”, as your pedigree is suspect. Should we ever see you in the same photo with Rick Warren, Erwin Mcmanus, Rob Bell or other “Christians” we ~~hate~~ disagree with, you can pretty much expect the ink to flow from our loving pens.

So, please realize that as a Christian artist, you have chosen a profession with more minefields in it than the Kuwaiti border. Your best bet would just be to turn back now. Should you decide to trudge on forward, remember - we will be watching you - like a hawk.

In Christian love,

The watchmen (and women)

When Systematic Theology Supercedes Scripture

2007-12-29T18:49:47Z

Chris Lyons has spoken out again and again about the dangers of buying so totally into a systematic theology that it becomes an idol. Recently Jim Bublitz has provided us with an example of this in the form of a criticism of Chris Lyons. Check out the criticisms leveled:

Those words, spoken by Chris Lyons
on his podcast represent the ongoing challenge by his CRN.INFO website, to the Protestant Reformation and the beliefs that were affirmed in it. He is joined on the podcast by his blog contributor Tim Reed who is Senior Minister of Owosso Church of Christ. Tim and Chris are postmodern followers of the “No Creed But The Bible” Restoration Movement (stemming from 19th century Stone-Campbellism). So it is that you will find them militating against the Confessions of Faith and Systematic Theologies which have always been an important part of Protestant Christianity.

As you listen to the second half of that podcast, you will note their certitude in declaring various Reformational beliefs (most notably Calvinism) as being emphatically untrue. While calling for those who hold such beliefs to behave less certain, they themselves demonstrate dogmatic certitude that such beliefs are unbiblical. Chris Lyons asserts that ALL discernment watchdog websites (ODM’s as they call them) are operated by Calvinists. While disparaging these beliefs, he enlists the help of several contributing postmodernists, including two that espouse Calvinism and yet demonstrate little willingness to engage the blog’s frequent misrepresentations of their beliefs.

Notice that the criticism has nothing to do with placing the Bible as our authority, nor does it have anything to do with Christology, or even acting like a Christian. Jim, is, instead criticizing Chris for being critical of “Reformational beliefs”, “Calvinism”, and “Protestant Christianity” (which is such a broad category most doctrinal statements both affirms portions of it and condemns portions of it).

Accusing this blog of these things means about as much to us as accusing us of being critical of Jungian psychology, or despising the designated hitter. In other words, it is, at best, a non sequitur when it comes to discussing what it means to follow Christ, because we aren’t following a philosophy of “Calvinism”, “Reformational beliefs” or “Protestant Christianity”. We are following Christ.

This is also the same reason we compare the watchkitties to the new Roman Catholic Church. The key difference between the RCC and other churches is the source of authority. The RCC has the pope, tradition, and the Bible as their sources of authority, while other denominations use only the Bible. Well, other non-watchkittie denominations. Because, as Jim has made clear here, the watchkitties’ source of authority are Calvin’s writings, councils and individuals who codified his writings and the Bible.

And that, friends, is the danger of systematic theology.

Is KJVO a Great Danger to Historic Fundamentalism?

2007-12-06T17:13:00Z

I like men to come right out and say what they believe. I would rather have that than the public jello accompanied by the behind-closed-doors concrete gossip. That is something I like about Mike Harding. I'd rather know and he doesn't disappoint when he writes this yesterday:

I am a committed Fundamentalist. At the same time there are some great dangers in our movement. KJV Onlyism is the greatest embarassment to historic Fundamentalism that I know. It shows how intellectually bankrupt and dishonest some aspects of Fundamentalism really are. It is laughable if it were not so serious in its consequences. Also, we have our fair share of Easy Believism and Semi-Pelagianism. Third, certain quarters of Fundamentalism have a pattern of preaching that does grave injustice to the text on a regular basis.

For this essay, I want to park on what Harding says about those who use the King James Version only. I want to enumerate what he says so that it is clear to everyone reading. He writes that using the King James Version only is:
1. A Great Danger
2. The Greatest Embarassment to Historic Fundamentalism
3. Intellectually Bankrupt
4. Dishonest
5. Laughable
6. Serious in Its Consequences

Did you feel like Harding was holding back here? Or did it seem like what he was thinking somehow seeped out? I guess we can put away this urban legend that the KJVO guys are the impolite ones, one of the major arguments that I regularly read by eclectic, criticial text guys like Harding. It's true that many KJVO guys should say things in a nicer way (even me sometimes). I don't think "intellectually bankrupt," "dishonest," and "laughable" are nice, but I'll leave that up to you. Personally, I'd rather know what he is thinking, but since "nice" is important to them, and they use it as a major argument in almost everything that they write, then one would think that he would use a different tone. You see, style never was an issue. Manners always was a red herring to cover for the incredibly faulty exegesis of the multiple version people. They regularly will tell their own people that "errors in the Bible might shake you up a little, but don't let it." They don't want their people hearing a position that says that we don't have errors in the Bible. The vitriol comes out.

I would actually welcome a public debate with Harding on this very issue to check out how dishonest, stupid, and funny we are. If our position really was those three things, he should cream me. I would gladly go and do it on his home turf. He could have home court advantage, so to speak. I should run out of material in about 17 minutes and resort to ad hominem type personal attacks if my side doesn't have the stuff, but then again, maybe liars, dummies, and hilarious are actually ad hominem, aren't they? Well, of course!

Now you may think I'm angry with Mike Harding. I'm not. I've said I like him. I feel sorry for him. He's been blinded on this issue. Satan is working powerfully, I believe. Harding's been compromised in a number of ways through his associations (because of fundamentalism and his commitment to fitting into it), which results in numbers of blind spots. To give it a Scriptural designation, he's been spoiled "through philosophy and vain deceit" (Col. 2:8), so that he staggers "through unbelief" (Rom. 4:20).

I'm going to go one by one through the labels that Harding gives the KJVO position and I'm going to show how that those designations actually and ironically do clearly belong to him. I'll let you judge for yourself. I've searched my soul and I can't defend laughable and unintelligent. Sometimes I'm embarrassing, especially when I spill on my tie or miss a spot shaving. I'm probably those three. Dishonest though, no.

1. A Great Danger?

Is KJVO a great danger? I think that double inspiration is a great danger. That doctrine isn't in Scripture. Harding is saying, however, that the belief in one Bible, the text behind the KJV, that it has been perfectly preserved by God, is a great danger. On the other hand, he is saying that his position, that we don't know what the Words of God are or where they're at is actually the safe, edifying position to the saints. We have certainty. He has doubt. He is saying that doubt is the less dangerous position.

His position is incredibly dangerous. Bart Ehrman was on a track to the Lord's service, but he couldn't square errors with the doctrine of preservation, so he pushed the eject button on Christianity. Now Daniel Wallace professes that inerrancy of Scripture is not a cardinal doctrine and unnecessary to the Gospel. He pragmatically explains that the reason is because if we tie inerrancy to the Bible we currently possess too many people will go off the deep end and depart from the faith. Even Wallace would say that preservation is a logical conclusion to inspiration, so, according to him, if we claim inerrancy, we'll propel people away from the Bible. And here's a comment from a Vinny at Daniel Wallace's Pen and Parchment blog in a recent article Wallace wrote about the impact of textual variations:

Like Bart Ehrman, I came to a belief in evangelical Christianity in my late teens and I know that a significant part of the attraction was the idea of finding a source of certainty in an unsure world. One of the first books I read was “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” and I remember thinking that the arguments and evidence were not nearly as persuasive as I thought they were going to be. Over the course of a couple of years, I found many things to be less certain and knowable than I first thought. Unlike Ehrman, I abandoned the faith before I turned twenty.

Now that is dangerous! What I am finding is that the doctrine of inerrancy is being attacked vehemently by many today and their reasoning often comes from the acceptance of errors in the Bible because of an eclectic and critical text view.

Eclectic and critical text men are often the same men who assail the authoritarian type leadership of certain fundamental Baptist pastors. Do you understand that when one of these men stands before his congregation and tells the people what the Words of God are that he is taking canonicity into his own hands? He is canonizing those Words into the text, making himself the pillar and ground of the truth. Does that seem dangerous to you? Does that seem to supercede his God-ordained authority? And yet these critical text pastors do this regularly.

Do you think that the proponderence of new versions has led to greater or lesser trust in God's Word? That is fairly easy to answer, isn't it? Do you think their attack on the standard Bible for the English speaking people for 400 years could possibly engender more respect for Scripture? Of course not. The multiple version crowd is the dangerous crowd. Danger has become their business.

What isn't dangerous is believing that God fulfilled His promises of preservation and that He supernaturally did it either by providence or a miracle, whatever it took to do what He said He would do. So I absolutely beg to differ on this point that the KJVO position is a dangerous position. Certainty in Scripture would seem to be what we want. We have it. They don't.

2. The Greatest Embarrassment to Historic Fundamentalism

My question on this one is: "Embarrassing to whom?" It is embarrassing to, ta-da, new-evangelicals and liberals! We is embarrassed before these great "scholars." Most people in churches wouldn't know that they were supposed to be so embarrassed for believing in the perfect preservation of Scripture if they weren't told by the so-called scholars and these eclectic, critical-text pastors. I'm glad he told us this one, because if he hadn't, then we would be judging his (and their) motives. They feel lumped in with all the KJVO "hicks."

Another question: "What difference should this make?" It shouldn't make any difference how we look. What makes a difference is that we take the Scriptural position and honor God. By faith we please God. As long as I'm not shameful to God, I don't mind if the world and its scholarship doesn't like me or my positions. They should be embarrassed for their lack of faith. I'm not.

This point was very revealing about fundamentalism and the hold that respect and admiration from men has on it. This is where fundamentalist politics comes in. Men cow-tow to the norms of a fundamentalist sub-culture. Whoever doesn't fit in, doesn't get dealt with an open Bible or with patient discipline, but with a political cold shoulder. Much of the reputation of meanness has been earned by fundamentalism. Harding should be embarrassed about even bringing up embarrassment.

I'm going to continue this series, in the near future, perhaps the next couple of days. When I do, I will also discuss preservation in light of the issue of providence and miracles, that I started a few days ago.

Free Christmas Icons for You

2007-11-27T23:57:41Z

Last year I did a free Christmas icon pack for fun. They are still looking fresh and cute. So, I just want to announce again in case you missed it last year. The pack included 49 icons in various formats: GIF, PNG, ICO (favicon purpose), and vector EPS (print purpose). It is free. You can use them for any purpose — commercial or personal. Only restriction is you can not resell/redistribute them (ie. upload to istock or offer download on your site). If you like my icon design, you can check out my stock web icons.

Go Download Christmas Holiday Icons

(more…)

False Dichotomy and Anonymous Cowardice

2007-11-26T17:52:11Z

This post from CRN.com puts on display two of the watchdoggies’ favorite things: false dichotomy and anonymous posting. In this case it takes the form of five sets of two solas that are placed against each other. For example:

Sola Effutio (Only Dialogue) vs. Sola Scriptura (Only Scripure)

Of course the really stunning part here is that the majority of scripture is dialogue. Dialogue between God and humanity, between prophets and Israel, between Jesus and, well, lots of people, between Paul and the churches he founded, and between the other writers of the epistles and the people they are writing to. But, even if you want to say that dialog is ok because it actually is scripture then we can start going to the various creeds and theologies through history, all of which is the result of… that’s right dialog. None of the creeds, or theologies created (including Calvin’s institutes) were created by a single voice. In fact, its fair to say that the creeds and theological works some of which are revered by the watchdoggies are the pieces of dialog about scripture that have occurred through history. Placing scripture and dialog against each other in a false dichotomy isn’t just a logical fallacy, its dishonest. The watchdoggies don’t choose scripture over dialog, they just want to only have a dialog with people who already agree with them.

Sola Tolero (Only Tolerance) vs. Sola Gratia (Only Grace)

Speaking as a gentile Christian, thank God that Jesus didn’t accept this false dichotomy. If anything grace and tolerance are complementary ideas, which makes sense since I haven’t seen either grace or tolerance come from watchdoggies.

Sola Voco in Dubium (Only Calling into Question) vs. Sola Fide (Only Faith)

Now this is one where I paused for a second to make sure that I didn’t accidentally end up on some sort of parody site because this is a bunch of people who take pride in tracing their roots back to the Reformation which by its very nature was calling into question previously accepted and settled theology. Of course today the watchdoggies look a lot like the Catholic church in the way they’ve integrated their tradition with scripture and call them both authoritative, so its only natural that they’d get a bit upset with anyone calling into question what they believe.

Solas Humanitas (Only Culture) vs. Solus Christus (Only Christ)

For a group that thinks organs and pews are just peachy and hymns are the way to go to worship you’d think they’d be a bit more careful in forcing a choice between culture and Christ.

Solas Deo Amor (Only God’s Love) vs. Soli Deo Gloria (Only God’s Glory)

Usually when two of God’s attributes are set against each other its an atheist doing the pontificating. I really hope I don’t have to make a case that Christians can and should choose both.

The entire post I linked to is, yet again, a gigantic smear against those the watchdoggies disagree with, its just a shame the author didn’t have the testicular fortitude to put his own name on it. For some reason I have a hard time picturing Luther skulking in the night to a church door and quietly tapping the nail that held in the 95 theses. Then again, I’ve always had a hard time seeing any parallels between Luther and the watchdoggies.

Exhibit 5,034,416: Why You Can’t Trust ODM’s…

2007-11-26T18:18:36Z

During our discussion of Rob Bell’s The Gods Aren’t Angry tour (which I will discuss, most likely, in much more detail after attending it on Friday here in Indianapolis), I made the following comment:

God isn’t “angry” at anyone - even those who have not accepted grace through Jesus’ sacrifice.

Just as in the Exodus, God has provided a lamb, whose blood we can either accept, “placing it on the lentils of our doorway”, or that we can neglect.

There is absolutely nothing we can do to “appease” His anger, because it has already been appeased in Jesus’ blood.

What remains is not anger that must be appeased - it is simply judgment which may be avoided by acceptance of grace… Bell’s point in Mars Hill sermons is consistently that there is nothing we can do to “earn” God’s love (i.e. appease his anger) - He accepts us where we are when we call on Him, and anything we do from there on out is out of love and gratitude - not appeasement…

Somehow, “Pastor” (using the term very loosely) Ken Silva decided this, in itself, warranted an article of its own. In the standard Watchdoggie/ODM fashion, though, he decided to only quote the first part of the comment, neglecting to quote the italicized portion, in an attempt to mis characterize my comment as a “disciple of Rob Bell” (whatever…).

For those new to the ODM (Online Discernment “Ministry”) scene, this is a perfectly encapsulated example of why you can’t trust ODM’s to tell you the truth - their blind hatred of anything/anyone they disagree with leads them to twist words into something less than (or completely different than) what they were trying to say.

It reminds me of a comment I made to my son the other day after watching an incredibly powerful interview of Bono by Bill Hybels. While relating a story of his journey in reacting to the AIDS crisis in Africa, Bono described how, years ago, only 6% of the church thought that AIDS was something that should be responded to. In reaction to this, Bono commented, “it is no wonder I hated the church and what it was doing”, followed by a change in heart as he was surprised by the response of evangelical churches to this epidemic in the years since.

My comment to my son was this - the sad thing about that interview is that if one of these wacko ODM sites decided to write about that interview, the only quote you would see is “It is no wonder I hated the church”, and that would be the sum total of his words…

It is sad to see so much ‘false witness’ borne by those who claim to be “watchmen”, when their only function seems to be as rabid watchdogs…