Archive for August 4th, 2007

So, you want to pop a big number for your blog? There’s an easy way to do it. Wait until a big story hits, then write up a piece on that big story, being sure to use key words that curious web denizens will search for on google, that way your ride the traffic spike on the net from those current events.

But, lets say, you have a habit of perpetual axe-grinding on a subject, that really doesn’t make the front page of newspapers, or major sites. What then? Well that’s easy, you write up a post with those same key words and work in whatever it is you’re interested in that has nothing to do with the story. That way you still get that traffic spike, and you get to go on your regularly scheduled rant. Its win-win.

Here’s a great example of that bait-and-switch blog entry. An entire post dealing with God’s will and the Twin Cities bridge collapse. This is great because the footage has been everywhere. The dramatic video of a school bus crushed by debris has made the rounds and now the web traffic is a-flowing for all those websites out there covering it. So what is the first thing that is read by google ninjas when they hit this entry? Well, check it out:

Turns out that unbeknownst to us, there was an official ruling in the post-evangelical blogosphere yesterday that we’ve become much “too God-centered” in our quest to make sense of tragedy. We make no apology for our desire to be even more God-centered, but we are happy to see the post-evangelicals coming clean about the direction they are drifting.

Why, it has absolutely nothing to do with the bridge collapse and the tragic loss of life. Instead its the author’s same old diarrhea of the mouth (or in this case fingers) about post-evangelicals. What’s even better is the references to post-evangelical complaints is “unbeknownst” to everyone who reads it because there’s absolutely no link to it, and given the general inability of the watchblawggies out there to understand what is actually intended to be communicated by those unlike them, I have my doubts as to whether this is an accurate summary.

All that aside, I find this incredibly disgusting. To use this tragedy as a bait-and-switch to increase traffic in order to attract more readers for a cheap shot against post-evangelicals is, well, sad.

Since the author wasn’t honest enough, either in terms of what the original author was trying to communicate or in terms of googlejuice, here’s the link that was being referenced.

  • Share/Bookmark

I sometimes feel sorry for the watch doggies. I mean, if I realized that my way of doing church was going to be obsolete in a matter of years with the culture shift taking place around the globe, I would be fearful too. As I have said in earlier posts, fear lies behind a lot of what they do. Many will be out of jobs; still some will find themselves screaming from soapboxes to silent ears. But in a world where truth is not only relative, but non existent, a 1700’s man-made model from for Christianity is just not going to cut it. I think many know it, and are very fearful.

For example, pyromaniacs have recently released two new de-motivating posters to their collection. One reads “Cruelty: when critics satirize emerging/postmodern values” and the other “Comedy: when emergents diss their critics.” My dad always told me that hurting people will always hut people. When a dog is wounded, he will only wound (an appropriate analogy for this situation). It seems to me that these are more about attacking an opponent than discerning and informing. I find it funny that when the watch doggies criticize others it is discernment from God Himself to His people (after all, isn’t discernment a spiritual gift). When someone defends their beliefs or another brother from false discernment, they call it cruelty. Pretty interesting paradigm they live by.

Interesting though… after this they really have no reason to attack emerging movement for using media to communicate a point, right?

  • Share/Bookmark

Disillusion with churches full of baby boomers.

  • Share/Bookmark