After a year with Beliefnet, I’ve decided to move to my own domain for my blogging. It’s been a fine year — some things worked, other things didn’t. But in the end, I’ll be a better blogger on my own. My thanks to the Bnet editorial staff; they’ve been very supportive.
Please change your subscriptions and blogrolls accordingly.
Hope to see you there!
Following up on Christianity21, we at JoPa Productions are developing a series of boot camps for pastors who want to learn about and utilize social media tools like blogging, Twitter, and Facebook. These are one-day, hands-on learning experiences, currently offered in the Twin Cities and soon to be offered around the country. We’ll also be offering social media boot camps for authors soon.
More info HERE.
And find out more about Christianity21 HERE.
I’ve taken some heat in the comment section for using yesterday’s post on “unbiblical” and a “higher view of scripture” as a thin foil for my own disregard of biblical standards. To the contrary, I was pointing to the use of the word unbiblical as a stand-in for a particularly thin hermeneutic. There are, of course, things that are unbiblical: child pornography and shampoo, for instance. Both are technically unbiblical since they are never mentioned; further, the first is morally at odds with the biblical narrative, while the second is not.
So, to repeat, “unbiblical” is not a euphemism on its face; it is a euphemism when used as a stand in for a hermeneutical argument.
Today, I thought we’d poke at the liberals a bit, since the conservatives around here seem to be on the defensive. The euphemism of today is,
Again, I’m not implying that fundamentalists do not exist. They do. But liberals and progressives often use “fundamentalist” as a cheap and easy stand-in for someone who has a more conservative biblical hermeneutic.