Heresy

Response to “Some Say It Blundered”

Standard

Tongues of FireWell, like a zombie, the issue of the cessation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit raises its head yet again as The Pyromaniac just can’t let the issue drop without getting in the last word. The biggest gift that seems to stick in his flaming craw is that of the gift of prophecy, so he takes up the sword yet again—even as the cessationist vs. charismatic debate has cooled elsewhere—to take one last whack at post-apostolic prophets.

I like reading Pyromaniac, and Phil certainly contends for the Gospel. More power to him! His upholding of the authority of the Scriptures in an age of concession is admirable. He’s ten times the thinker, theologian, and Christian that I am, and I mean that. But in light of this whole debate, I don’t get some comments from him in his latest post, “Some Say It Blundered“:

The continuationists’ response to this series of posts continues to amaze and amuse me. No matter how many times I point out that I am not making an argument for cessationism—not trying to make one; wasn’t planning to make one; wasn’t talking about the issue; did not even intend to bring it up when I began this series—we still have this flood of frantic comments from people who think cessationism is the issue and who demand to be given proof-texts so that they can dismantle whatever exegetical claims cessationism might rest on.

So Phil, who vehemently claims he’s not talking about cessationism here, ends his post this way:

So here’s my challenge to those continuationists who insist that the problem of bogus prophecies pales in importance compared to the exegetical issues raised by cessationism: Name one faithful modern prophet whose prognostications are both objectively verifiable and always one-hundred percent accurate. Because that is the biblical standard (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).

If you argue (as most do) that the gifts being practiced today are different in quality from the gifts possessed by the apostles themselves, you are actually arguing for a kind of cessationism yourself. If no one can identify a prophet who meets the biblical standard for basic accuracy, the question of cessationism is essentially moot anyway.

Let me understand this then. He’s never talked about cessationism being the issue? Then why does he end his post saying that if he’s right, then the whole point is that the gift of prophecy has ceased?

Hmm.

Honestly, I have no arguments with Phil on the issue of bogus modern day prophets. There are too many charismaniac flakes out there spouting man-inspired nonsense passed off as “The Word of the Lord.” What I do object to is his massive implication that just because there are a whole host of nutjobs out there claiming to be prophets that the real gift of prophecy ceased the second the Apostle John drew his last breath. (Using Phil’s same arugment, there are a whole host of lousy preachers, but that doesn’t mean preaching has passed away, has it? Or did I miss something?)

Phil’s burden of proof for charismatics is to spotlight one modern prophet who is 100% accurate. For the purpose of exceptions, I would like to turn that around on Phil (especially in the light of his post’s conclusion above) and have him prove that beginning the day after John died, not a single accurate prophetic word has been uttered by anyone in the rest of Christian history. Now that’s a burden of proof!

Phil’s biggest beef with prophets seems to be that of their predictive role. He’s skipping over the prophetic role of exhortation and correction, which it would be hard to claim has passed away. That being the case, I would offer A.W. Tozer as a prophetic voice. He most definitely exhorted and corrected the Church in his day. And forty years after his death, his writings look more prescient than ever as he describes the death throes of evangelicalism, so perhaps he was even predictive. No one would claim that John MacArthur fails to correct wayward charismatics in the manner of a prophet or that C.H. Spurgeon’s collected sermons no longer exhort today’s men and women. It’s that predictive part that is troublesome.

But if the gift of prophecy is merely predictive, then what to make of this:

But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.
—Acts 2:16-18 ESV

And

Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.
—1 Corinthians 14:1-3 ESV

And

Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.
—1 Corinthians 14:22-25 ESV

The nature of the gift doesn’t appear in these passages to be focused on predicting the future. This does not mean that the gift never entails prediction:

Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius). So the disciples determined, everyone according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. And they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.
—Acts 11:27-30 ESV

And

On the next day we departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied. While we were staying for many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'” When we heard this, we and the people there urged him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be imprisoned but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” And since he would not be persuaded, we ceased and said, “Let the will of the Lord be done.”
—Acts 21:8-14 ESV

Agabus predicts a famine that Luke confirms. The response by the believers was to prepare to meet the need that would erupt; the Church was guided to react to a specific event in the future. In this way, Agabus’ prophecy mirrors that of Joseph in his predictive interpretation of the dream of pharaoh.

We also hear about the prophetic daughters of Philip, but curiously, their prophetic utterances are not recorded. God did not deem them—whether they were predictive, exhortative, or corrective—worthy of inclusion in the Scriptures. Luke does take care to note the existence of these gifted women, however.

Lastly, we see Agabus again. His prediction as to how Paul would be taken into custody not only foretold future events, but steeled the young Church to the truth that their leading light was going to be extinguished.

Prophecy has a number of components, obviously, but Phil is solely troubled by the predictive aspect of the gift and still wants proof of modern prophets.

Is John Knox prophesying the future a good enough example? Over at The Calvinist Corner there are records of Knox, plus Calvinist Robert Fleming (who studied under the tutelage of one of the framers of the Westminster Confession), and friend of Knox, George Wishart, predicting the future, having visions and dreams, hearing the audible voice of God, and other “charismatic” experiences. Click on the links. As Dave Barry says, “I’m not making this up!”

Modern? No. Inspired by God in the manner of the gift of prophecy and the description of the operation of the Spirit as spoken by the prophet Joel and referenced by Peter on Pentecost (Acts 2:14-18)? Absolutely!

Anyway, there’s a post-death-of-the-Apostle-John set of examples right from Calvinist history. I’m sure there have been plenty more like them in the post-apostolic age among Calvinists and non-Calvinists.

The problem, and I’m totally sympathetic to Phil’s complaint about bogus prophets, is that the scientific rationalism and “We’re rich and enlightened so we don’t need God” attitude only kills the miraculous among people who don’t believe it. While this may be prevalent in the West, it does not negate the fact that God is going to do supernaturally miraculous kinds of things (that some claim don’t happen anymore) among people who still take Him at His Word concerning the gifts. This is why revival is sweeping China and other less scientifically-indoctrinated cultures and is missing the West.

In other words, I think that predictive prophetic utterances that are truly of the Lord are rare in the West. But experience does not trump Truth! That our experience of prophecy today is rare does not mean that it is non-existent or rare in places around that world where those who speak predictive prophecy prophesy in obscurity.

God has a history of taking away from those who do not appreciate what He has given them and giving to people who do. Just because the wind has died down here in our anti-supernatural, rationalistic country does not mean that there are not prophets even now speaking to the Church in China and in places where people are willing to believe because belief is all they have.

So no, I can’t give Phil names of any 100% accurate predictive prophets in 2005 (because tracking supposed prophets is not my calling), but neither can he prove that none exist elsewhere in the world, either today or at any time since the death of the apostles—especially since some leading Calvinists of yesteryear were definitely prophesying, hearing the audible voice of God, and having visions in a Europe not yet overcome by anti-supernaturalism and the Enlightenment.

And that’s all I have to say on this topic.

Tearing Down the Gallows

Detail from Rembrandt's "The Return of the Prodigal Son"
Standard

Some want nothing more than to see others hang.

Increasingly the Christian blogosphere is being populated with bloggers outing heretics. I've blogged on this before (here, here, and here) and I'm not going to rehash old posts. What I want to discuss is something I hope all of us will consider whenever any of us takes on a pastor, speaker, preacher, ministry, or trend in the Church. I understand that there are people out there who are trying to corrupt the Gospel and that grieves me, but there are just as many people out there who are simply not understood by others and wind up bullied by well-meaning heresy hunters. Not only do godly men and women discern the difference, but act correctly when the worst is suspected.

That is what this post is about. I hope what follows edifies the Body and serves as a template for confronting others in the manner of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1. Remove the Log

For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
—Matthew 7:2-5 ESV

Anyone who wishes to confront heresy needs to have an exceedingly well-ordered house with nary a pane of glass in sight. Jesus used a strong word here—hypocrite—and He means it. This necessitates great humility on the part of anyone confronting another because we must come to grips with our own sinfulness before we confront a lapsed brother. In other words, a gleeful slashing at an opponent is sinful. No one who confronts heretics should do so if they find it to be enjoyable or a source of self-worth. Too many times that is the spirit I see at work in those who seek to topple heretics. Remember that the criteria used against heretics will be the criteria used against those who confront them.

My personal belief on this issue, in light of what the Lord is saying in this passage, is there are enough issues confronting biblically-solid and doctrinally-correct churches that we have better works to be doing for the Kingdom than looking for heretics under this rock and that. I believe what Jesus is saying is that it's hard enough for us to keep the logs out of our own eyes than to be devoting our time to worrying about the specks in others. I can hate the practices of the 21st century Nicolaitans, but I don't have to spend every waking moment looking for them.

2. Bear True Witness

And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, and they set up false witnesses who said, "This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us."
—Acts 6:12-14 ESV

Before Stephen was smashed to death by stones, the people who opposed him rounded up a crew to bear false witness against him, dragging him before the Sanhedrin at the temple. I find the text of their false accusation fascinating. Why? Because their accusation is exactly what they understood. In other words, the false nature of their testimony came not because they were lying but because they failed to comprehend what they heard.

What exactly had Jesus said to those who confronted Him after driving the moneychangers out of the temple?

So the Jews said to him, "What sign do you show us for doing these things?" Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" But he was speaking about the temple of his body.
—John 2:18-21 ESV

Note the context given by John in that last sentence so no one would be confused.

The Sanhedrin had already heard similar witness against Jesus, so Stephen had another strike against him because the Sanhedrin had a special distaste for the line of accusation the witnesses used. Hearing the same argument probably emboldened them further despite having less personal knowledge of Stephen than the more prominent Jesus.

But the point here is that the lack of understanding on the part of the witnesses is what made them false, not the fact that they were fabricating lies to get their way.

The upshot of this is if we go off half-cocked, lacking understanding as to what our opponents are saying exactly, then we bear false witness against them when we accuse them of impropriety. But too often our accusations are just that—uninformed. A wise man listens, understands, then speaks. A fool speaks without understanding.

Are we spending any time truly understanding what potential heretics are saying or do we shoot first and ask questions later? If the latter, then we are no better than those we accuse because we are bearing false witness against them.

This plays into the next issue, too.

3. Stifle Gossip

The words of a whisperer are like delicious morsels; they go down into the inner parts of the body.
—Proverbs 18:8 ESV

God hates gossip. Gossip is unsubstantiated, unreliable, or comes from second or third-hand sources. Those sources of gossip are usually ungodly, too. God's people should never engage in gossip, yet we so often use gossip to slander those we view as enemies.

Recently, I counted at least four blogs I read that cited a mainstream newspaper article profiling a well-known pastor in Michigan. Those blogs tore into that pastor based on what was in the newspaper article. One of those blogs even slammed the pastor because the newspaper reporter elected to refer to him as "the hottest preacher in Michigan," as if the pastor had any control over the editorial license of the reporter!

The problem with newspapers and other forms of the mainstream media (MSM) is—and unless your name is "Rip Van Winkle" you should know this—they are not always reliable sources. How many times in the last five years has an award-winning reporter fudged the facts on a story or twisted them to make the story more compelling? Do we remember the recent editorial bloodletting at The New York Times?

We now know that newspapers can be sources of gossip just like our next-door neighbor. What sense is shown by any Christian who assassinates the character or ministry of a fellow Christian based on what a newspaper article says? Worse still, anyone who's been a Christian for a while and has any contact with the MSM knows that whenever it covers anything related to the Church it usually interprets incorrectly or out of context! Christians cannot pick and choose their allegiance to newspapers by loving them when they tear into a supposed heretic, but then turn around and scream bloody murder when their own church or favorite Christian leader winds up on the wrong side of some reporter's misplaced ire or outright ignorance.

In short, if we don't check our facts from multiple reputable sources before we say anything about a suspected heretic, we are nothing more than gossips.

4. Confront the Wayward Personally

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
—Matthew 18:15-17 ESV

I find it staggering that the folks most charged up about church discipline are never willing to confront the people they write about in their blogs face-to-face. It is gossip to talk about someone behind their back, refusing to bring the charges to them in person. This is one of the reasons that I shy away from naming names and prefer to talk about general trends that are troubling in the church rather than discussing an individual. Because if I name that individual who has sinned against me or others by their heretical beliefs they have shared with me, I owe it to them to confront them in a manner befitting true Christian brotherhood. How easy it is to snipe at others remotely!

Now someone might argue that the passage I selected above pertains to a personal affront. But I would argue that anyone who perverts the truth of God—especially because they have an incomplete understanding, as many do—has sinned against me because I am part of the Church as a whole. It is my responsibility to go to him or her and set things straight. If they refuse to hear me, then I do have some complaint. However, as I mentioned above in #1, our complaint is done tearfully and with humility.

Personal confrontation also has a sharpening quality. The famous "Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another" from Proverbs 27:17 implies that there is some dullness to begin with. If we do not confront personally, how will they be sharpened? Even more so, how will we be sharpened if we fail to faithfully bring that personal confrontation?

5. Practice the "Golden Rule"

And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
—Luke 6:31 ESV

Who here wishes to suffer the brickbats of someone accusing you of heresy? If not, why should we dole out the vitriol on them?

There is always a way of correction that follows the way of Christ, reproving wisely and under the right circumstances. And for every person who will come back with Jesus driving out the moneychangers, I say, You are not a member of the Godhead. If anger is called for, we must be very careful that we do not violate Eph. 4:26. Not many of us are adept at righteous anger. Those that are rarely need to use it because they understand the implications:

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.
—Matthew 5:22 ESV

We are liable for our anger one way or the other. Are we using it wisely?

6. Observe the Samaritan

Jesus replied, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, 'Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.' Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?" He said, "The one who showed him mercy." And Jesus said to him, "You go, and do likewise."
—Luke 10:30-37 ESV

I want to look sideways at this familiar passage, at what Jesus is implying here in His parable. As the storyteller, He is observing the Samaritan, that outcast race, showing us what that man is doing right.

We know from John 4:9 that the righteous people of God, the Jews, have no dealings with the unwashed Samaritans. They were rejected because of their incorrect beliefs. Yet Jesus used the example of someone who was incorrect in everything else he did, though right in one crucial area.

I have said in other places on Cerulean Sanctum that those we find to be in error are often so because they are reacting badly to something we ourselves did wrong or failed to do at all. The way that some pervert the Gospel also shows us where we have failed to defend the portion being perverted. This is to our shame as much as it is to theirs.

So just like the Samaritan, real heretics may have something to teach us, for rarely does any heretic do everything wrong. There may be one thing they do exactly right that may prove us to have fallen down in our own faith. God often uses heathens to correct His wayward people. The hard way is for them to overpower us. The better way is to observe them and learn from what they do right, just as the Jews in Jesus story of the Good Samaritan needed to learn something from that hated heretic Samaritan.

Wise men and women understand this and realize that judgment begins with the House of God. (1 Peter 4:17)

7. Pray Psalm 51

Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being, and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones that you have broken rejoice. Hide your face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit. Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will return to you.
—Psalms 51:1b-13 ESV

The Return of the Prodigal Son by RembrandtFrom where we started, we come full circle to here. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; you, me, and all the heretics of the world. Before we confront anyone, we should repeat Psalm 51. Think of it as a way of "counting to ten" before we accuse someone of anything. And pay close attention to that last verse, verse 13: Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will return to you.

Is that our aim when we confront heretics? Do we really wish to see them abandon their heresy and return to God, or do we wish to see them consigned to hell? I know which one gives the Lord more pleasure.

And that is the way I pray that all of us will pursue.

Has the Christian Blogosphere Lost Its Collective Mind?

Standard

Okay, so I go away for the weekend only to come back to what appears to be a collective nervous breakdown in the Christian Blogosphere.
Out of Control Midget Wrestling
Folks, I know that no one cares to read us out there in the secular world, but still. If we're going to act like imbeciles, then our witness is destroyed, toasted, racked on a spit, and baked to a crackly crunch. Is that what we're about? Does it lift up the name of Jesus for us to go postal on each other?

I understand that even now a horde of Slice of Laodicea commenters, brows knit in consternation, is marching up to the Great White North, torches in readiness, to roast Tim Challies' backbacon. Ingrid's already apologized for the unintentional outcome of the post that created this stir, but when you can't tell the trolls from the real commenters on your blog, you've got deep blogging issues.

James White is ranting that some Baptist Web site won't answer his e-mails from almost three years ago. The way things are going over at his blog, I expect to see him drop the term "semipelagian poopyhead" on some minor heretic any day now. Loved his take on KJV-only and his book The Forgotten Trinity, but anymore I leave his site feeling drained.

A number of Christian blogs (I'm not even going to name because I'm tired of it) are leveling the boom on Rob Bell of Mars Hill Bible Church based on quotes from a secular newspaper. Do I have to remind the owners of those blogs of the last three years of MSM implosions based on lousy reporting? There's a little thing called "context" that can turn quotes 180 degrees. My advice? Go to his church and see for yourself—then you can desecrate him all you want (as long as you follow this advice first.) I knew Rob from Wheaton College, and yes, he was "unique." But I can't tell you anything about him based on a sound bite. Before we publicly lambaste someone who claims to be a brother in Christ, we better have our facts straight. A couple quotes from a secular newspaper doth not a lynching make.

I feel sad writing this post. About four times I nearly threw the whole thing away because I don't want to be accused of perpetuating the same problem I'm complaining about.

I've long contended that the Internet is not real life. It's a lousy community when you get right down to it. And for that reason I want to tell a story from my own life that I hope you all will read and consider.

When I was at Carnegie Mellon University studying AI & Robotics in the early 1980s, CMU was on the cutting edge of the pre-Internet world. Every dorm had networked computers, IBM was opening up a networking research center on campus, and there was so much stinking CPU horsepower at the school that they ran their HVAC systems through the mainframe cooling systems in order to heat their academic buildings. In short, only MIT was even close in computing power.

One of the cool things about the school was that it was on ARPANET. I could e-mail a friend at MIT. Back then that was something. We also had a college online community that existed only in cyberspace. We talked about every subject imaginable. Everyone had cool handles, so it was easy to hide behind our anonymity and be "free."

I liked to hang out in an area discussing Christianity. Needless to say, it got contentious considering that the (self-identified) "heathen" to Christian ratio was about 500:1. One day a "heathen" posted something really sick and the worst flame war I've ever seen in my life erupted. I tried with all my might to keep it civil, but things got out of control. I've never seen such hateful things said in my life from people with handles like Blasphemer, Bot, Mr. Wizard, and Grue.

Yet behind each of those handles was a person—someone I could be sitting next to in class and not even know it. So I proposed something radical. I asked that the most vocal people—about forty altogether—meet up at a local Italian restaurant for dinner. We could talk face-to-face, drop the anonymity, and be real people. Maybe then we could come to a better understanding. Everyone in the flame war agreed, all forty.

I reserved a room at the Italian place, set up carpools with the forty, arranged a rendezous on campus so we could drive down in the carpools, and had the whole thing worked out. I was really looking forward to this.

Day comes, my watch shows 4:30 PM. I'm in the meeting spot for the carpools and no one shows. Around 4:40, my laid-back, barefoot Christian buddy, Tom (AKA "Captain Zodiac"), arrives and says, "Hey, where is everybody?" Tom and I sat there until 5:15 before we finally called the restaurant, canceled, and went upstairs to grab a burger in the lounge cafeteria.

Two days later, most everyone was at it again on the BBS system, flaming away. When I asked where everyone had been, there was a vast silence. I never got a response. As for me, I gradually bowed out of the "conversation" having learned a great lesson about human nature.

Folks, a name and a postage stamp-sized pic on the Web is not a person. You don't know me and I really don't know you, either. It's easy to tear out someone's heart on the Web through our pseudo-anonymity. It is far harder to tear out someone's heart in person. But when we get right down to it, the Lord would not have us savage each other on the Web anymore than He would condone us savaging each other in person.

Can we all just take a deep breath and hold it for a few seconds? Can we count to ten before we post the latest flame bait or character assassination. I'm tired of the hunt for heretics. Cerulean Sanctum gets more combined hits from people looking for heretics than any other kind of Google search. That's really sad.

Is this all we are about? I've blogged many times about this, but it's getting stupid now and I'm questioning why we Christians even blog if this is all we can do.

If the picture that some of us are presenting to the world at large looks like a bunch of fussbudget, life-haters on a perpetual witch hunt, well let me tell you we're excelling at that.

Can we stop for a while? Please? I'm pleading now. Let's stop slaying each other remotely via words. Just last week I proposed that we spend a month in prayer for anyone we disagree with before we write them up on our blogs as "Enemies of Christ." Is that an impossible request?

August is a new month. Yes, it's a hot hazy one in much of the nation, but we can bring down the temperature if we try. Can we attempt this month to write something better on our blogs than one spiritual smackdown after another?

I have an idea. Why don't we try to reach out to some secular blogs and see if we can reciprocate some blogrolling. Better yet, why don't we try to reach out to some secular bloggers who may never have had a good relationship with anyone who takes the name of Christ and show them the love of Jesus any way we can? Can we try to turn the "dog days" of August into the "God Days" of August?

Isn't that ultimately the heart of the Lord for all of us God-bloggers?