I’ve talked about the practice of delinking before. A the Yale conference on blogs Mickey Kraus talked about ‘cocooning.’ I think with religious and faith blogs it is easier to do. Living Room was one of many bloggers who looked at the topic some time ago also.
Connexions looked at what happens when a blogger disagrees with another blogger and asks to be removed from the blogroll.
This time a member of the Blogdom of God, Parableman has decided World Magazine must be banished with fanfare. I thought it was a translation/theology issue, but I didn’t understand what he was saying.
Jeremy corrected my ignorance in the comments with this:
That’s not it at all. The issue is that one of their authors equated gender-neutral translation with being anti-Christian. I have no problem with those who take various views on translation. It’s the ones who equate a view in linguistics with something of gospel importance that I will say something about. That amounts to adding something to the gospel. I don’t think it was intentional in this case, but I don’t want my site steering unbelievers to a site that allows that. If they apologize or clarify, that’s different, and the links may return.
I’m sorry Jeremy, your post was a bit difficult to understand. I apologize for my inability in understanding what your trying to say. If the clarification doesn’t meet your satisfaction please let me know, and we’ll try again. Your reasons for delinking are your choice, I don’t agree with delinking in the manner you’ve chosen. May we agree to disagree on that?
Unless they apologize for this, I will not promote them as Christian, because their site’s portrayal of what the gospel is just doesn’t coincide with what the Christian gospel really is.
God-blogs seem to go through spurts of the “I’m delinking!!” routine as new bloggers come online and find their way.
Many have done it with posts to punish or hurt others.
It’s your blog, your blogroll. If you want to make a big deal out of changing your blogroll by posting about your angst, the past few years has shown bloggers it isn’t a great idea, but it’s your choice to make the noise.
Why not just quietly remove them?
Parableman has been blogging for nearly a year.
I erred again and stand corrected. Parableman’s archives don’t reflect the reality he has blogged for over a year. I apologize Jeremy.
Urging others to delink because of pique is petty. I think as evangelical and denominational aggregators keep forming and rules are made about who joins, belongs or fits, we’ll see more of these announcing ‘I’m delinking you’ posts.
Jeremy would also like to clarify why he is urging bloggers to do likewise.
It’s the ones who equate a view in linguistics with something of gospel importance that I will say something about. That amounts to adding something to the gospel. I don’t think it was intentional in this case, but I don’t want my site steering unbelievers to a site that allows that.
I did look for this bible translation issue on World Blog and was unable to find it.
Update: Okay, it’s here. Written by a magazine intern.
The Blogdom has set up 10 of it’s 12 apostles, of which Parableman is one.
The stated purpose of the apostle blogs is:
Their goal is to serve the entire Chrisitan blogosphere by linking out to them from a combined single high impact page. This is NOT an exclusive club, or the “top ten” Chrisitan bloggers! It is simply a strategic alliance for the good of everyone. These blogs and the hundreds of other Christian bloggers out there have the potential to make massive impact. Each blogger is happy to receive a personalised email if you believe you have posted something that will be of interest to one of them. A more extended look at the Christian Blogosphere can be found at the blogdom of God where a number of other Christian aggregators are also listed.
Noble words and ideals.
Run by imperfect human beings.
Strategic. High impact. Potential to make massive impact. This is NOT…
Corporate marketing ideas. A well written ad.
Why would someone chosen as a leader delink in this way?
The First Annual Evangelical Blog Awards are being held, (not to be confused with King of the Blogs) sponsored by The Evangelical Underground.
The categories are as follows:
* Best Overall Evangelical Blog
* Best Designed Evangelical Blog
* Best Evangelical Blog-Politics
* Best Evangelical Blog-Ministry
* Best International Evangelical Blog
* Best Domestic Evangelical Blog (U.S.)
* Best Evangelical Blog-Apologetics
* Best Evangelical Blog-Pastor
* Best New Evangelical Blog
* Best Evangelical Blog-Humor
It isn’t clear if Catholics, Orthodox, conservative protestants or none participants in the aggregators are eligable.
A lot of the burst of activity lately has been because of US pundit Hugh Hewitt’s book. It’s become a blogging gospel.
If I understand correctly Hewitt believes that believer-bloggers should seek power and influence.
I have a problem with that premise. I believe that good content, good linking and a right attitude (and tech skills) are important to the enjoyment of blogging.
But I’ve been seeing a recurring trend that disturbs me. The talk about a christian instapundit, the pushing to get to the top of blog listings, the rules, the tribal looping of aggregators.
There are always going to be bloggers that wish influence and that in itself doesn’t have to be unhealthy, but it can get unhealthy real quick.
And although the best of intentions appear to be put forward, I don’t think the motives are as wise, pure and kind as they seem to sound.
This movement and rush is within the US blog community, and I believe it reflects a lot of the current politics, the country’s mood, the US concept of culture war, the sense of believer marginalization and the marketing of denominations.
God choses who He will, and uses us in spite of our failings and ambitions.
I have no problem with anyone doing their best.
But to push to get to the top, to gain influence and power (over who or what exactly) to get hits, is not something I agree with. Any power we believers have is power from God’s spirit and it manifests itself in servanthood that doesn’t seek the top of the heap. These efforts are promoted to break out the evangelical ghetto, to give voice to the voiceless. Again, it sounds good.
I could be misunderstanding this call to god-bloggers to seek and strive for these things, and I’m willing to be corrected, but I’m not willing to officially ‘join.’ This effort, no matter how many aggregators it breaks itself into, no matter how many jump on board, no matter how much caution is given, is a slippery slope. Bloggers come from all walks of life, with various influences and different levels of maturity and social skills.
I have asked a couple of bloggers for verses that express this reservation.
The rulers of the gentiles love to lord it over you. It shall not be so with you.
Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.”
For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
“If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit says the Lord
That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection.
Women4God
Speaking of aggregators a Women4God list has been formed.
1) Your blog cannot promote a lifestyle that isn’t Christian.
2) No political blogs
3) You have to put the feed on your blog.
4) The aggregator is for protestant evangelicals
Blogging T-shirts
And to top it all off you can now buy a T-shirt with the name of your favorite blog or blog saying on it.
It’s an interesting phenomena this delinking. I don’t know what to make of it. It’s like the cyberspace equivalent of shunning or exclusion.
BTW Bene, loved the ‘Gospel according to Anna with the critical commentary’. Absolutely brilliant!
I agree with you. For myself, there are times I have to really check to see if I am glorifying myself, or God. The temptation to call attention to myself, and to MY blog, and everything that I do is strong. If everything we do is to be done as if we do it for the Lord, then striving to be at the top of lists shouldn’t be on our agenda. Rather, striving to make the most out of what God has given us should be.
So the real question becomes, “Why are we doing this?” What’s the motive? Do I think I need to be heard in every circle, be read every day, by everyone? Is it important that my site meter counter reflects millions of visitors?
I am interested in all these things, but they don’t drive what I write. We all have a lot to learn about what glorifying God really means.
There are some top-notch reads (blogs) that won’t be seeking out a membership to get to the top.
Hits, attention aren’t what motivate them.
Blogging is populist, counter-culture and to me the important blogs are the ones that aren’t seeking the spot light.
We are the church. The problems in the buildings are just going to be bigger online.
I’ve been blogging for a good bit more than a year, actually. My archives aren’t displaying properly, so I can understand why you might think otherwise.
because of disagreement with one of their writers about the language in a new bible translatiom
That’s not it at all. The issue is that one of their authors equated gender-neutral translation with being anti-Christian. I have no problem with those who take various views on translation. It’s the ones who equate a view in linguistics with something of gospel importance that I will say something about. That amounts to adding something to the gospel. I don’t think it was intentional in this case, but I don’t want my site steering unbelievers to a site that allows that. If they apologize or clarify, that’s different, and the links may return.
I wonder how you got into my mind to know my motives. Since you got them entirely wrong, I suggest you rethink the charges you raised against me, not one of which even resembles what I said and why I said it. I will say no more. I’m tired of re-explaining myself to those who prefer to tar someone rather than seeking to understand what’s really going on.
Wow, according to Parableman I’m not a Christian. Delinking is fine; that attitude is a little worrisome though.
Oops – let me completely flip flop here. World Magazine doesn’t think I’m a Christian! Parableman is concerned by that attitude.
I can see where Parableman is coming from. Sorry I misread his post the first time.
Thanks Jeremy. I’ll fix that.
What you were saying wasn’t clear to me.
I’ll quote you from this comment thread.
If I make a mistake you are more than welcome to stop by and correct me.
If I contributed to your misreading of Jeremy’s post I’m sorry Darryl. I am not understanding either, but it was good of him to come over and try to explain more clearly.
I wonder if World Mag would think we are Christians. World Net Daily might not either. Have you lost any sleep over that?:^)
No, not a bit!
Okay, I’m going to try to find the article.
It wasn’t that WorldMag thinks those who support the TNIV are not Christians. It’s that the agenda behind the TNIV is anti-Christian. They admit that Christians unwittingly support that. My problem wasn’t at all in their opposition to the TNIV, which I have mixed feelings about but will buy the translation when it comes out and read it cover to cover. My problem was in calling the gender-neutral translation philosophy an anti-Christian agenda.
Your clarification deals with some of the issues. It contradicts itself, though, when it says my motivation is out of anger rather than to do with nonbelievers who might click on the link right after quoting me on the real reason.
Okay, I removed the word anger.
99 percent of bloggers post removing links out of frustration or anger because of disagreement with what/who they are posting about.
I found the Word link, and I looked up a few other reviews of that bible. I was unaware none believers cared much for perusing World Mag.
I don’t know any believers that read it, but I guess it is popular in the US.
Are there any other corrections you need or would like in the post above?
About a third of the commenters at their site are people who hate Christians or at least hate evangelicals. Another third consists of reactionary religious right types who have been spoonfed beliefs and have no arguments to back up what they say. The other third are careful enough thinkers have discuss things reasonably. The low signal-to-noise ratio in the comments is why my tenuous confidence in linking to them is so easily shaken.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I only link to sites I want to read myself. I have no clue if anyone else (besides my husband) uses my blogroll as a portal. I think that making a big deal out of de-linking is making a tempest in a teapot. Sure, if someone purports to be Christian and, you, the blogger, disagree with their self-assessment, go ahead and blog about it. That is one of the purposed of the blog platform anyhow, isn’t it? That we can express opinions no matter how minority or unpopular?
On Bible (and liturgy, for that matter) translations that are ‘gender neutral” – I personally find them insulting and I will not buy them,use them, or refer to them. I blogged on this over a year ago here http://fructusventris.stblogs.org/archives/007420.html
and over 2 years ago here
http://fructusventris.stblogs.org/archives/007420.html
But there are a lot of politically correct idiots out there as well as some well-meaning fools and even some sinister ‘change agents’.
As for associations and miscellaneous blog awards – I joined the Christian Carnival and the Catholic Carnival – other than that I can’t be bothered. I have more important things to wrooy about than my blog ranking or other popularity contests. The more important things include my family, ”ocal community, and most especially my immortal soul.
Alicia, no one was questioning anyone’s Christianity.
***The stated purpose of the apostle blogs…***
I just wanted to point out that you had a typo in that sentence. It’s not spelled “apostle” it’s “apostate.” ; )
Bene, we must be on the same wavelength. I’ve been feeling somewhat uneasy about this subject too. I joined the list of evangelical blogs and the Women4God aggregator, though I have some misgivings. I am bracing myself for the first time someone other “member” disagrees with/chatises/repudiates something I write. It’s bound to happen.
But I decided that if the folks who started these things really wanted the aggregators to reflect the wide spectrum of believers out there, then I might as well be on the list too. I am a member of God’s family whether others think so or not. If the content of my blog fails expectations or guidelines and someone wants to give me the boot, so be it. I’ve suffered worse. It won’t stop me from speaking my heart and mind.
All of us bear a responsibility toward one another, and that includes suffering those who disagree with us and bearing up the weak or hurting among us. I suspect Christians will be no better at doing that in cyberspace than they are in real life. Apologies for the cynicism, but that’s been my personal experience.
I’ve only just started blogging in the last few months, and I’ve enjoyed it. If it starts getting to be too much of an ordeal, I’ll just walk away and find another outlet. I hope that won’t be the case, but I’m leaving my options open.
Those who wish to pursue greater influence and an audience will find it. It’s not that hard, and it often doesn’t require (or earn) the blessing of God to succeed. If God chooses to bless their efforts, wonderful. I intend to keep plodding along, regardless.
Thank you for bringing your concerns to the fore, we should all pause and consider them carefully.
I think you’re misunderstanding what the influence issue is all about (as have a bunch of people who claimed I was pulling rank and using whatever influence they think I have, which was as far from my motivations as I can think of, since my motivation had nothing to do with believers and what they do on their blogs. It had to do with nonbelievers and what they might think of the places I link to as Christian blogs. If those blogs display those who are simply exclusive not just of genuine Christians but even of their fellow conservative evangelicals, then it doesn’t bode well for the reputation that sort of blog gives to people who might go there from my site).
Anyway, the goal of theee aggregators and blogrolls is to influence in the sense of making Christian blogs more visible to nonbelievers. If I’m at #50, where I was last week, I’m likely to have more nonbelievers visiting my site than if I’m in the 80s where I am now, both because people are more likely to browse the Ecosystem and click on higher-ranked blogs (and because it in the Blogophere Daily News) and because having more links means having a higher Google rating and therefore popping up at the top of Google searches more often. Both kinds of visibility will increase readership among the general populace and therefore increase the spread of the gospel and how it affects Christians’ thinking. That’s the kind of influence Adrian and others have been talking about.
*I think you’re misunderstanding what the influence issue is all about*
We’ll see.
I hope you are correct. I’ve said what I think how it’s going to play out before and seen it before. I don’t know how posts about delinking or about rankings rising is going to do much for believers or non-believers, but that’s just me. We’ll see.
If people judge you by your blogroll, that seems like a lot of unnecessary angst, and I’m sorry to see that.
Most of us link to whomever we want, and enjoy blogging. I don’t envy the pressure you seem to be under Jeremy, cut yourself some slack eh?
I agree with my commenters. Getting to the ‘top’ in rankings is easy. As for influence and visibility as you all get there, enjoy it.
Expressing concern and opposition are not mutually exclusive. It appears confusion is already surfacing.
Jeremy, what makes you think your blog is a good blog for people who don’t believe to visit?
Having asked that, please understand my intentions. I agree with Bene that announcing the delinking is probably not a good idea.
But in explaining why I asked you that question, I see that it is easy for us to think that what we do is going to be of benefit for the one who doesn’t believe. Yet, to announce the delinking of another, in my opinion, just might turn off a person who doesn’t know Christ more than if they actually visited the site you delinked. In other words, if I delink someone, and do it publicly, am I not also tooting my own horn as being one who is able to judge what site is good for non-believers, and what sites aren’t good? Sort of arrogant, isn’t it?
If we claim to glorify God, I am of the opinion that we will always do that best by proclaiming what good He has done in our life, rather than by proclaiming the evil of others. If we have to delink, why can’t it be silent? Why must we blow a horn?
I link to people I know, and to people who have touched me with their warmth, kindness, and peace. If I treat them as neighbors, I cannot foresee ever having to delink anyone. But if I did have to delink someone, the thought of doing it publicly, since I know them, would be heartbreaking. Maybe joining all of these aggregators isn’t the best thing for the community of God, if it causes such division.
Tom, one primary purpose of my site is to interact with nonbelievers on topics that interest me, which would include apologetics, theology, philosophy, and politics. I have some regular unbelieving readers, and they keep coming back because they see me as different from the rest. I’m not sure what it is, but that’s the sense I get. Almost all of them are philosophers. Not all of them understand much about Christianity. Someone today asked me what the difference between fundamentalism and evangelicalism is, because he thought they were the same. That’s a pretty basic distinction about American Christianity that he wouldn’t know.
You, along with most of the other complainers, have in your complaints ignored the purpose of what I’m going. I’m letting it be known that not every evangelical is going to tolerate disagreement over translation theory to be raised to the level of calling someone anti-Christian. Those visible to non-believers have a moral obligation to distance themselves from anyone who would call everything they don’t agree with anti-Christian. Just as President Bush had the moral obligation to condemn the torture at Abu Ghraib that had become associated with him because it was under his presidency, so too do I have to distance myself from attitudes like this one.
I don’t see what this has to do with any aggregator. It’s WorldMag. They’re one of the highest traffic Christian blogs. My connection to them is that I have linked to them at various times in the past.
By the way, your argument that I am arrogant for judging blogs is going to apply to your own arrogance for calling me arrogant. That kind of argument doesn’t fly, because it’s immediately self-refuting. Making judgments is something we’re called to do. When to do it and in what way is something we need to consider carefully. Moral judgments are not arrogant unless we ignore our own sin while emphasizing those of others. I can’t think of something I’ve elevated to the level of the gospel such that I’ve called anyone anti-Christian for denying it. If I had been doing that, I would not be in a position to make the criticism I did.
This discussion isn’t an argument to ‘win’ Jeremy.
Here is my summary.
I think your public announcement of delinking was ill-advised. So do some others. You don’t.
I have serious reservations about apostles in the Blogdom aggregator. So do some others. You don’t.
I have reservations about the motivation and marketing behind some of these aggregators. So do some others. You don’t.
I see Tom’s questions above as open-ended, not a personal attack. You don’t.
You have gone to a great deal of commendable effort to correct my mistakes and explain your intent, I trust you feel you’ve been heard.
I have no problem admitting I am arrogant. I see it as one of my worst traits, sadly enough. Good hope to you, Jeremy.
“apostles in the Blogdom aggregator”
I don’t believe that there are any apostles in the blogdom, and I’ve never heard of an apostles aggregator. I do know that when Adrian was first talking about the Decablog, people were a little worried than having 12 people in it would send the wrong message, that the people in it were going to represent the 12 apostles somehow. He realized that such an impression would be both false and a bad one to send, so he changed it to 10. Fortunately, it was before he had even contacted the 10 people now in it about it.
Since you listened to me and were glad to change your views before when presented with the correct information, let me try again with the aggregator. The way he presented it was as follows. Some people were asked for permission to be included in an aggregator that was intended to try to give a place for people to go that would include posts from the highest-profile bloggers in the blogdom who link to others a lot and support bloggers without as much recognition. Adrian viewed me as one of those people, and I was happy to allow my blog to serve this purpose if the aggregator does in fact serve that purpose.
I never said I had no reservations about this. I have some. I don’t think it’s going to be incredibly effective at what it’s designed to do. I think it’s more likely just to be a nice place to see what’s up with these particular blogs. Since Adrian extended an offer to anyone to do the same with their own aggregator of whatever blogs they wanted, I saw no harm in going along with it in case it does have the good effects he intends.
As for Tom, I don’t think I said he was accusing me of anything. I do think he had an overly negative tone in his questions. There was all that stuff about tooting my own horn, and then there was the suggestion that the aggregators were causing the division, as if they were at all related to the WorldMag thing.
I’m willing to stand corrected.
The 10 (not 12) apostles serve the blogdom of god aggregrator.
10 Christian blogs: decablog
Adrian Warnock
Evangelical Outpost
In the Agora
Jollyblogger
La Shawn Barber
Le Sabot Post-Moderne
Parableman
Patriot Paradox
Smart Christian
Wittenberg Gate
Working with the Blogdom of God
I quoted Dr. Warnock’s purpose.
So the 12 are 10 and are no longer being called apostles?
Wow. Heated up, aren’t we?
Well, see, this is the thing I’m worried about. When people start defending leagues and groups rather than love one another. Sorry, Jeremy.
Bene, I’ve posted my view on this topic, just to let you know since I can’t find a trackback:
http://messychristian.blogs.com/messy_christian/2005/01/christian_facti.html
I guess I’m being a typical centrist here, but I do have a problem with the top 10 blogs thingy. I just don’t understand how it could help the blogosphere … it does give the impression of being an exclusive club, an in-crowd of Christian bloggers where people should go to to get noticed. Personally, it’s not inline with my blogging philosophy which is to meet new people, blog about things I care about and to encourage new bloggers. But that’s just me…
I’m sure others have different ideals.
I’m wary of these sorts of things as well (although I added my solo blog to the Reformed Blogs Aggregator to both submit my writing to a readership I have affinity with and to get a glimpse of likeminded bloggers I’d never read before).
But even though I’m still not clear on how this whole Decablog and what-not stuff is supposed to work, it appears to me that the purpose is to create exposure and increase readership of “smaller” blogs by “using” more widely read blogs.
I think we should give Jeremy and folks the benefit of the doubt at this point. They haven’t even started and some of us are already nervous.
It’s possible we don’t understand exactly what they’re doing. Shouldn’t we take a wait and see attitude toward this and not jump to conclusions about how this will create division/clique-ishness/exclusivity/etc?
Just a thought from someone who otherwise doesn’t “get” all the aggregator/alliances/blog-marketing hoo-ha.
I agree with most of your points Jared, but having been part of some of the original hoo ha a few years ago, my caution is personal and based on experience. It doesn’t mean it will happen again.
My caution and criticism is not contrary just for the sake of it. I don’t think I’m being oppositional. If I am, there are people that will call me on that.
I already think too many of us are addicted to conflict.
One of the things I’m wondering about is the US drive to market, be the best, gain influence and power. My internal jury is still out on that one.:^)
The recent Dobson issue is a classic. Many believers piled into ‘liberal’ blogs, defensive and even rude and arrogant and using the sub-language of religion.
I’ve posted about the rise of protestant aggregators, to applaud any effort that genuinely ‘gives voice to the voiceless.’
We’ll see how it all plays out.
I didn’t think the originally intended 12 were ever called apostles except disparagingly by a critic. I had assumed you were using the same kind of sarcasm in criticism of it. As soon as Adrian saw the 12 referred to as apostles, he changed it to 10. It was just about an immediate reaction on his part. He never intended anyone to be viewed as special, holy, or anything like that. He just wanted 10 bloggers who are well-known, who have contributed a lot to helping promote other Christian blogs, who represent a fair diversity of styles, topics, and perspectives, and who are solidly evangelical in subscribing to a statement of faith that Jollyblogger supplied.
MC, the point of the Decablog is to foster the meeting of new people and the encouraging of new bloggers. It set up some bloggers who are well-known who are go-to people to send good posts to so that others will see them more easily. It’s thus supposed to have the same sort of effect as the Christian Carnival except not as one central post on one blog. I’m not as confident as Adrian is that it will have as much success in this purpose as he thinks it will, but you have to look at why he set it up and not why you would expect someone to set such a thing up. Anyone who complains about this without having read his 4-5 posts explaining what it is and why he set it up is merely acting from ignorance.
What hoo-ha of a few years ago are you referring to, Bene?
A very ugly and sad chapter as the blogosphere was growing.I played an unfortunate part because of misguided enthusiasm and idealism and miscommunication that escalated into serious actions.
It caused harm to many. Things were done with the best of intentions, and the misunderstandings led to my blog being taken, a reader being threatened, anger,hurt on all sides and fear on my end. That fear remains to this day because of the initial events and subsequent abuse.
It lead to entrenching among bloggers and loss of faith in the newly growing endeavor that has never really been healed.
It had similar goals to the latest efforts; to help the god-blogs connect, be heard, gain influence and find each other.
Those that lead are well served to know their gifts, and honour gifts in others.
“organized religion” in the true sense of the word, not the stereotypical one, can be a good thing…when it makes order out of chaos and increases our fellowship among all parts of the Body of Christ. Just my two cents, having been a part of, and pioneered, several inter-church gatherings/associations, both here and abroad. The blogosphere is even more ideal for that sort of “connecting.” In every church there are problems, divisions, etc. but that doesn’t mean we should give up on church. We’re all going to be together in heaven–we may as well start enjoying each others’ company now!