# Have blogs helped or hurt the church?



## RamistThomist (Oct 27, 2006)

A few qualifications:
I am not saying anyone who has a blog is against the church or hurting Christendom. This is mainly talking about internet theologians. Is the blog really the next Gutenburg? Or does it encourage doing theology autonomous of the local church?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 28, 2006)

In a sense it is the next printing press. It's cheaper to read a blog than buy a book. They can be used for good or evil. They are used wickedly when men spout off their personal opinions in opposition to the Church and subvert the faith. They also tend to promote "soundbite" theology, quick witty sayings, without much substance. The internet too often forces people to NOT think for themselves or think through issues as thouroughly as they can. But blogs can be helpful when used under the authority of the Church and for the promoting of the faith. I know some pastors use them to help teach their church during the week. You could use them to expound further on your sermon throughout the week, or prepare them for the coming sermon. They can be helpful with breif Q+A type stuff, announcments, coordinating prayer requests, etc. As with books, you must be accountable for everything you say. If a pastor knows people in his congregation have blogs, he needs to monitor them as part of his sheperding, so that everything the saints speak is edifying (Eph. 4:29!).


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 28, 2006)

In my opinion, most of them promote individiualism and foster confusion. These self-appointed teachers promote factions and destroy unity.

I rarely read them, and if I do they are authored by appointed teachers who have been given the right hand of fellowship by those who are lawfully approved.


----------



## Civbert (Oct 28, 2006)

I think anyone who has a blog should make sure his elders know so the elders can keep an eye on them. Personally, I read them just like the opinion section of a newspaper. 

Overall, I think blogs are beneficial - especially when elders and pastors take advantage of them. And I've read many interesting posts from lay-people. I think it puts peoples ideas out in the open for healthy debate and criticism. I've seen few blogs I'd consider authoritative regarding doctrine. Most don't even try. Usually bloggers are clearly posting opinions and not teaching doctrine - and the few that do try to educate on doctrine do a fair job of giving it to you straight - "this is what Presbyterians believe" or "this is what reformer X taught, and this is what reformer Y taught". It's not much different than reading a book or magazine article - except that questionable posts are often challenged - which doesn't happen as readily with books and articles. 

Maybe there's an overall lower quality value in some blogs than a good periodical - but you can't say that books and periodicals are free from really bad doctrine either.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 28, 2006)

Possibly, the better question may be has the internet benefited Christs church?


----------



## polemic_turtle (Oct 28, 2006)

I think it could if we focused upon using it as a tool and not as a source of entertainment. There is an incredible amount of time wasted, I know.

1.) It can aid in learning, but it can distract you from learning.
2.) It can aid communication, but it can aid misunderstanding.
3.) It can distribute sermons, but it can distribute ****ography.
4.) It can aid in spreading good doctrine, but the inverse is also true.
5.) It can be used legitimately by the church, but it can also aid the basest fools spread their slanders.

Ah, we'll just have to be mature about it. There's too much freedom otherwise.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 28, 2006)

The fundamental question being asked here is not really about the internet but rather one of; is greater authority and regulation better or worse than lesser authority and regulation. The internet itself is really irrelevant to the underlying principle being questioned.

The internet, both for secular and church use, is highly unregulated and with that comes a certain amount of good and a certain amount of peril. It’s not unlike the issue Luther faced when Rome warned against the rise of ‘high flying spirits’. Luther’s answer I think really gives us the answer. Yes, self appointed prophets and Gnostics in the guise of “theologian” and “preachers” will promote false doctrine. It happened in Paul’s time without the internet, and during the Reformation. But the Gospel is simply too important to let the worse danger of ecclesiastical tyranny. 

Rome is not the only “denomination” able to set up a false ecclesiastical tyranny, they were just the most formal about it and put it to pen, paper and system more than most so called protestant groups do today. Plenty of pietistic denominations and sects have lorded over their people with false doctrine yet claiming, “only the bible” and “gospel only”. Christianity is always a two front war. Even in Luther’s time it was a war with the devil’s religion in Rome and the devil’s religion among the Anabaptist, any trick or strategy to hide the Gospel is fine with the ruler of this world.

The internet is just the latest fad in history in which this occurs. Does the internet over-ride authority wrongly at times, yes the giddy spirits are there. Does the internet give the people tools to discern bad or false authority, yes. Because the Christian is on one hand to balance submitting to true authority that gives them pasture and the true Gospel, but also required to flee Babylon when it occurs with all due speed.

It’s freedom is its weakness and strength.

The good thing about the internet is that if I’m reading a man’s teaching and hear not the voice of Christ in it, all I have to do is “click”…hang up the phone. It’s that simple.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 28, 2006)

> The fundamental question being asked here is not really about the internet but rather one of; is greater authority and regulation better or worse than lesser authority and regulation. The internet itself is really irrelevant to the underlying principle being questioned.


 
I agree - though blogs do hurt the church, its not the internet hurting the church, but rather, keyboard theologians. Quick to type, slow to think, slow to listen. ITs easy to type things on the computer with no one looking you in the eye.

What they don't seem to realize is, literally - the WHOLE WORLD is watching. The internet is an instantaneous world-wide network of eye*****.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 29, 2006)

Have discussion boards helped or hurt the church?



Has the PB helped or hurt the church....



I mean, a bunch of keyboard theologians arguing at each other while the world watches? QUick to type (as evidenced by my numerous typos), slow to think, slow to listen....


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 29, 2006)

trevorjohnson said:


> Have discussion boards helped or hurt the church?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This board is not going to dismantle Gods decree's. The elect WILL come to the saving knowledge of Christ Jesus. All things, I repeat, ALL THINGS work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. So, to answer the question Trevor, this board has not hurt Gods purposes or plans.

You make mention of arguing; generally, it is iron sharpening iron. Can it be seen as arguing-To the untrained eye, it could be misconstrued as arguing. To the trained eye, it is debating for the sake of truth; there is a difference! The apostles had disagreements; 

The world watching is important. If the world is watching, those elect, of the world, will gleen from even these debates, profitable fruit, worthy to regenerate and convert. Nothing that anyone does here will monopolize Gods decree.

As far as the consensus goes, I believe our reputation speaks for itself. Glory to God alone.


----------

