The blogging world goes crazy

So what is it with blogging at the moment?

As you see in 42: Blogger friend under attack my friend TC has been viciously attacked over his blogging. At the same time Adrian has had to close his comments while Dave is struggling to cope with attacking spam.

I have written 42: Do blog comments work? but I am wondering if I need to change my own views somewhat. I have been against a number of techniques for controlling comments such as registration not just for usability reasons but also because I am concerned about privacy. Sadly attacks by vicious people and spam are going to increasingly deny the rest of us any privacy.

Ideas on how to protect bloggers while also protecting the privacy of well mannered and behaved blog commentators would be gratefully received.

I have also been under an attack for blogging in recent weeks. I am not yet ready to go public on the details, however, suggestions for handling bullies over blogging will also be very welcome.

I am certain that issues such as this will be discussed at the Methodist Bloggers Meeting - January 4th&5th 2008. Contact me to book a place.

Comments

[Adrian Warnock]

Sorry to hear you are under attack and to hear about your friend. All I can say is that so far I am feeling like a load has lifted from my shoulders! Our posting over the years has demonstrated that we don't have to use a comment box to interact.

Bless you Dave!

[PamBG]

I'm astounded at 100 spams per minute and I'm glad my blog isn't popular! I guess that's the price of popularity.

Sorry to hear about your issues too. I don't really know what the answer is. I actually think that ignoring an abusive commenter can be quite effective. But it probably takes a lot of effort on the part of the blog owner and may not be doable if the source is Real Life.

No easy answers, really, are there?

[Suzanne]

Adrian,

You did not respond appropriately. This is the passage from which Driscoll has drawn his conclusions, albeit third hand. Lets not drag Tim Challies into this.

"Who, I wonder, is teaching that men only bear God's image? No contributor to this volume will be found saying that. But not only is Bilezikian's argument diverted by a non-issue, it also fails to explain what the text of verse 26 does say.

How may we understand the logic of God's decision to describe the human race as "man"? Let me suggest that it makes sense against the backdrop of male headship. Moses does not explicitly teach male headship in chapter 1; but, for that matter, neither does he explicitly teach male-female equality. We see neither the words "male-female equality" nor "male headship" here or anywhere in Genesis 1-3. What Moses does provide is a series of more or less obvious hints as to his doctrine of manhood and womanhood. The burden of Genesis 1:26-28 is male-female equality. That seems obvious-wonderfully obvious! But God's naming of the race "man" whispers male headship, which Moses will bring forward boldly in chapter two."

You can read this in context in Recovering Bib. Mhood and Whood. Chapt.3

So really, against the clear teaching that male and female hold sway over creation, against the absolute teaching that it is Eve's curse to be ruled by her husband, we have Ortlund's insistence that Moses is giving a series of obvious hints. Were you aware that this was the origin of the male headship in creation theology?

You say you don't have time. You have time to put woman under man's rule, but no time to raise her up. Isn't man to provide for and lift up woman with his strength, not wander off with some kind of feeble excuse that he doesn't have time to correct his errors.

[Suzanne]

Hi Dave,

Sorry to use this as a platform to ask Adrian to be accountable. He has said that he doesn't have time to deal with the issue of men ruling humanity on the BBB, so he recommended to me a post by Tim Challies.

I realize that Challies is now a published author on discernment, but I think it is nonetheless worth looking at the person who originated the "male headship in creation" rumour. Ortlund openly admits this notion was conveyed to him in hints and whispers from Moses.

[Dave]

Thanks for the mention Dave.

Just a small and minor aside in response to Pam - my 100 spams are per hour, not per minute. 100 a minute would indeed be a lot.

[Peter Kirk]

Thanks, Suzanne. I prefer to base my theology on the clear teaching of the Bible rather than on alleged "hints" and "whispers".

[DaveW]

Suzanne,

See 42: Complementarianism Destroyed where I continue to try to get Adrian to respond to the full arguments.

Peter,

Sola Scriptura is supposed to be one of the foundations of reformed theology isn't it. Strange that they would claim that while making these arguments.

[PamBG]

Just a small and minor aside in response to Pam - my 100 spams are per hour, not per minute. 100 a minute would indeed be a lot.

Oops, sorry, I read "an hour" and typed "a minute".

I'm astounded at 100 spams an hour. I think I've had two spams during the life of my blog, not counting one hostile genuine poster which I don't consider to be spam.

[Suzanne]

Dave,

Thanks very much. I really appreciate your support. It has taken me a long time to work out intellectually a response to many of these mindless and deeply damaging complementarian doctrines that so undermine the integrity of humanity as God intended us to be.

I hope that some men can eventually come to a greater acceptance of the feminine in its own right and not just an element of nature to be subjugated. How often the scriptures uses the metaphor of the mother and her baby to express both the tenderness of God and the care and love of a pastor for those he or she serves.

It is the denial of this tenderness which I perceive. Not that it needs to be expressed by a woman, but that it is so utterly lacking in complementarian leadership, since not only women but the feminine itself is denied expression.

[Dave Warnock]

Suzanne,

Although I agree on the denial of tenderness in fact I think that female submission causes far more problems than that.

Today's gospel reading is from Luke 23:33-43 where we see Jesus on the cross, totally vulnerable, in worldly terms defeated and broken. Yet through that we discover the triumph of God's love.

When women and men focus on male headship and female submission they are hindered from complete transformation into the people they were created to be by the God who died on a cross and then rose again victorious for them.

It is as if we take the salvation that Christ offers and split it in two. Some for men and some for women.

For me egalitarianism is not about being fair or nice. It is not about men becoming a bit more tender or women more butch.

Instead it is about salvation for all. It is about the Kingdom of God. It is about life in all it's fullness for all. It is about standing together for the gospel rather than for the values of this world.

Therefore the cost of complementarianism is high, not just a lack of tenderness but a loss of life in it's fullness and the kingdom with all it's values.

[PamBG]

The case for complimentarianism is rooted in what I call 'Constantinian Christianity'. The point in history when Christianity lost its focus on Christ as the Prince of Peace and turned him into a warlord who sponsored and took the side of the Roman Empire.

It's a code of conduct based on hierarchy, obeying orders and salvation through doing one's duty to law and authority. In Constantianian Christianity the law matters more than people and human welfare is second to the upholding of God's system of law and order. Constantinian Christianity is Phariseeism in another guise. It's everything Jesus preached against.

Tenderness and kindness are weaknesses in this system because it might cause a person to waver in their unstinting effort to uphold orthodoxy. On a discussion group once it was stated that God does not want women to be ministers because women often tend to be kind and a person cannot be both wise and kind. Says it all, really.

I think you're both right.