That would make sense!

No doubt I waffled on too long and broke it ;-)

My point is that both sides can (and do) claim to be holding true to scriptural principles. It is therefore wrong to claim that one side is ditching scriptural principles and therefore will not pray for healing etc.

Eh? That was not my point at all!

I am sure those comments were commented on by you at the time!

I am not suggesting any other view is "unscriptural" or I would not have written If we ditched every scriptural principle (as we understand it) - the emphasis being as we undertsand it - others may understand it differently.

My whole point is this. Praying for people to be healed is, in my view, although not in everyone's view, a scriptural principle.

BUT there is plenty of teaching about healing I am unhappy with, believe takes principles too far, gets carried away and can actually become abusive. You are not healed because you did not have enough faith is the logical conclusion of some teaching on healing.

Now taking that external factor, seeing the abuse done caused by the teaching that God heals today, seeing how people are manipulated and conned by TV evangelists etc, could cause you to change the view that God heals today because it is subject to such abuse.

In the same way inviting people to be generous to give into their local church community in order to release ministry within and mission outside is, in my view, a scriptural principle.

But the whole area is shrouded in teaching which goes way beyond what I think the biblical mandate is - sow into the revival and reap the blessing, or churches demanding 10% tithing with a decimal point etc. The area of giving to Christian ministries has been a huge area of abuse within the Church for generations, and sadly, the media age has spawned a whole new wave of prosperity teaching which I see as almost totally false.

But does that mean we should not talk about generosity, investing in the kingdom of God, sharing, or giving towards church ministries and projects? I don't think so.

I believe that either side of the discussion christian men should hate the abuse of women with a passion, even if their gender theology differs.

The clash I see more and more is that you see some of the "systems" proposed as being part of the injustice which you rightly believe is against God's will. I can see why you can't let that go.

Ah ha,

I think typepad has started dividing comments onto multiple pages but is not showing the links to navigate between the pages - or something.

I'll look into it.

Hi Dave,

I am certain that there is no conspiracy!

But just a skim of that thread shows me about 50 comments, while it says there should be 96?

I think the discussion went beyond where it currently ends, but can't really remember.

I don't think the previous last post on there was July 15th - I am sure there have been more since then.

Always good to hear that there is gospel life in Northants. Keep it coming.

Wow indeed! I'm afraid that Hope '08 hasn't reached here yet.

"Is blogging really a significant cause of adultery?"

Yeah, I thought that was the funniest part of these "commandments". I just can't remember the last time someone left a comment on my blog which made me start lusting after them. And let's not even mention the fact that the vast majority of Christian bloggers are men. ("Oh Mr Smith, your comment on Lutheran christology has got me all hot and bothered...")

One of the best commercial blogging policies (written by people who really know what they are doing) is: Sun Microsystems Communities: Sun Guidelines on Public Discourse.

Three and a half years ago I pointed to a particularly relevant post by Tim Bray (from Sun): ongoing · It’s Not Dangerous in 42: ongoing: It’s Not Dangerous

Phil,

Happy to be corrected, however, I still do not have much confidence in the process. It is not encouraging that at least some of those present were so surprised at the final version being so different (and then having their names associated with it).

I just don't see anyone finding the EA 10 commandments funny, nobody else has picked up that they are 'tongue in cheek'. So I stand by my critique of them.

The 'blogging relationship commitment' is better (although I would not consider it finished), but I can see that it would not generate much media interest. Question is: Which is more important? Helping people discover more Christian ways to blog or generating media interest.

Given that I believe the media interest has just made us seem quaint and irrelevant it is clear which I think is more important.

Now I think the O'Reilly bloggers code of conduct (that Jeremy pointed us to) is actually a much better document than either of these.

Hi Dave
See this Ten Blogging Commandments which references the key phrase 'tongue in cheek' on the 10 commandments but perhaps you might prefer the 'blogging relationship commitment' further down the page

[ed: turned url into link]

Hi Dave, a few corrections need making. Olive I think has got the wrong end of the stick. During the final session we were discussing the ten commandments for bloggers, I suggested that what we had was a bit dull and it would be more recognisable if they followed the 10 from Exodus. So it was suggested because the point here was that it was to have a bit of humour to it. It was then sent round as far as I'm aware to all participants at the day, because I have another email to that effect. the final one Ruth has has changed again and that's up to the EA. So if you want to be a literalist ok, but bloggers do nick material, tend to incessant blogging and take it al way more seriously than sometimes we should. I like faith and theology's 10 too. They are funnier, but then the EA 10 kicked it all off by getting the interest of the Times.

Agreed. I went along to EA's blogging day, and it was great. Unfortunately they felt the need to get some PR mileage out it, and this was the result. Suffice to say it was written by the EA, not by the 25 or so bloggers present.

It's a shame, because I'm with you in thinking there's room for a Christian bloggers vision statement. Something that sets us apart, calls for integrity, truth-telling, grace and relationship, a better way of being online. Your paragraph is a nice starting point, and I'd also recommend Tim O'Reilly's bloggers code of conduct:

[ed: url turned into link]

bwahoa,

"Are you suggesting only an "elder" can assist in guiding a Church? I don't buy that whatsoever."

Yes of course I am, everybody else is completely worthless.

Oop's maybe I got a bit confused there.

Why would God have given your wife those gifts and abilities if they could not be used to assist in guiding the Church she belongs to?

Are you suggesting only an "elder" can assist in guiding a Church? I don't buy that whatsoever.

There are several people with theology degrees (men and women) in the Church, including retired pastors from other denominations. Lots of people help to shape and guide the Church.

Thanks for the link.

I've been amused that Mark Driscoll endorsed Practical Theology for Women, which means he had to have read it. I hope he didn't learn anything, lest a woman instruct him... :)

It is definitely time to look at mutuality not to profit.

Look to long term not short term.

The whole mess is caused by untempered greed.

I think credit unions, co-ops, mutual societies, local businesses etc have to be the way forward.

bwahoa,

While I do not want to minimise the importance of equality nor accept compromise on this issue. I do work with others but don't forget to challenge them.

H'mm, that was gooood!