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.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
36 Comments(+Add)
Is it not incongruous to explain how God’s sovereignty works? And how incredible it is to sense the pride in some who BOAST in their knowledge of God’s sovereignty. It rains on the just and the unjust, and isn’t God sovereing enough to share some finite soveriegnty if HE SO DESIRES?
Making a tragedy doctrinal sport is a Christian disgrace. I suspect the rescuers had no time for such foolishness, and the families of the dead and injured are not comforted by the ivory tower gazettes. Let not a man think highly of himself when he is nothing.
Reading the self absorbed musings of such articles paints the picture of all the agreeing parrots as they nod is satisfied agreement, safe and secure in their unassailable knowledge of the Holy One and His ways.
Pray for the familes.
I just posted a comment asking for links.
You guys ought to read more blogs than the two or three you like to criticise… The “internet Monk” raised the question of whether there has been too much God-talk in response to the bridge collapse. It has been the main subject of discussion on three or four other blogs for the past three days….
What’s most disgusting about it is that the “internet Monk” was apparently criticising Piper, and Piper’s church is in the shadow of the bridge that fell. So… Piper’s doing hands-on pastoral work there while Mr. Spencer is sitting in his basement taking “cheap shots” at him…. hmm…
You guys are really on the wrong side of this one.
You also sound pretty certain about the motives behind the comment YOU were criticising. (talk about “cheap shots”) What makes you think they did that just for “traffic.” If they were just fishing for traffic, they probably WOULD have linked to Spencer’s blog….
Sometimes it seems like you guys are just out to criticise certain blogs no matter what they do……
Alan,
Why else would you put a criticism of a blogger at the top of a post on current events that is getting lots of google love? At best that should be an aside, not something that gets top billing.
Alan,
I don’t read Internet Monk, but if you are correct, and Internte Monk criticized Piper how does that effect our friends at the fire blog? They said, “we’ve become much too God centered…”
So somehow you’ve deduced that Imonk was making fun of Piper (Let’s give him value “A”) and they said they were the one’s being attacked as too God centered (Let’s give them a value of “B”). If I were to write your argument out in equation form it would look like this:
Then we’d have to examine it some more perhaps like this
Note: C=one crappy argument.
Well, let’s see….
YOU blogged about it. Why?
Is your criticism about the order of the paragraphs in someone else’s post? Because it would be pretty hypocritical of you now to say they shouldn’t have dealt with the subject at all….
because… YOU dealt with the same subject
and it’s hard for me to see why it’s more important for you to do nothing but criticise Christian blogs you don’t like than it is for someone else to denounce the idea that Christians are being “too God-centered” (!) in the way they comment on current events….
I think it’s pretty obvious that you are grinding an axe, but maybe it’s just me….
Joe…
maybe you should read the post you’re talking about before calling my it a crappy argument…
Alan, You need to bone up on your research skills there bud. I didn’t blog about the tragedy. Tim did, his point was more about the fact that they attempted to use the tragedy to do something. If he’s right, then that’s sad. I commented on the fact that when they were asked to cite sources for their claim to be accused of being too God centered they couldn’t/didn’t/wouldn’t do it.
BTW, where did we write about the tragedy in Minnesota? Did I miss that post?
As for your last two paragraphs, I’m not even sure what you were saying. I think you were insulting me or at the very least my friends here at this BLOG, but I’m not sure. If you want to show me the axe I’m grinding (besides the one that says your not very good at debating on this particular thread) I’ll listen.
I did read it Alan. I went and read Internetmonks, I read this one. I read Pipers, I even read the fire blog.
Alan,
I realize I may be being too harsh in my argument with you, so I’ll back up and ask a question for clarification. How does Imonks blog refer to the fine men at the fire blog? They claim that attack as personal. I didn’t see it.
Joe,
That comment was not addressed to you… It was my answer to the queston Tim Reed asked…
He said. “Why else would you put a criticism of a blogger at the top of a post on current events that is getting lots of google love?”
I answered….
You posted in between. I didn’t know you were going to do that or I would have been more clear…
My second comment…the one addressed to you by name…was my only answer to you.
I gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. I’m still not seeing their logic (how criticizing Piper equals a vote about them and all that). Oh well, I’m off to eat a freeze pop and read a little
Alan,
I didn’t blog about it. I blogged about bloggers blogging about it. Or at least bloggers pretending to blog about it.
Wow, a merry-go-round. Here are the facts:
1.Either God personally brought down the bridge.
2. Or God allowed the bridge to come down and did not prevent it.
How will we know which? We cannot. The sovereignty thing.
Tim,
THEY “blogged about bloggers blogging about it,” too, and you said that was wrong…
and why did you claim they left off the link because they are “dishonest”??
You keep telling us what’s in other people’s hearts…. that doesn’t seem the least bit wrong to you???
What you are creating here is as mean-spirited and angry as anything you have ever pointed out on the prime “watch blogs”… you sure got a lot to be proud of…
Alan,
*Sigh* Read what I actually wrote. I didn’t have a problem with them blogging about the actual event, what was low was to take a shot at an amorphous group they disagree with and leveraging the googlejuice from the tragedy to get more pub for that cheap shot.
It is dishonest to leave off the link because it keeps readers from seeing what was actually written. What i-monk wrote was no where close to what was represented, unfortunately (or fortunately if you happen to be from team pyro) most readers would have no way of seeing first hand what was written.
No, it doesn’t. I do give the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, there’s not much doubt in this case. Had the paragraph at the top been added to the bottom, or contained the link, or was put in its own entry there would be room for lots of doubt.
Let me ask you this question. When a 50 year old husband tells his 50 year old wife he just happens to not love her anymore, but instead loves this sweet young thing over here, do you accept that statement at face value? I don’t.
How was what I wrote mean spirited? Did I misrepresent what they wrote (as they did to i-monk)? Did I create strawmen via posters that misrepresented an entire movement as they did (once again) just one post up? Did I add a cheap shot to the top of an article guaranteed to generate more hits than normal due to keywords included in the main body of the article? Short answer: no.
Whatever…
John 9:41
It’s official: the snake is eating its own tail.
(i.e. I’m confused and this seems to be going around in circles and what does John 9:41 have to do with this and how many degrees of bloggers blogging on bloggers blogging should we go through?)
Galatians 5:12
Proverbs 5:19!
***Whispers aside to any who will listen*** Why are we all throwing out references?
“1.Either God personally brought down the bridge.
2. Or God allowed the bridge to come down and did not prevent it.”
and the difference betwen the two is……………?????
Same for salvation. If God foreknows all who will and all who won’t and does not intervene, how is that different than directly predestining some to unbelief.
The only way your point works, is if the open theists are right. In which case, I’ll go back to the rock and roll life, and forget this “god” thing altogether.
Chris P – how over simplistic was your premise. God knows who will exercise their God given free will and be saved. And I could never go back, I’ve bricked up that door.
The difference between my two points is that God orchestrates everything, and the other is that God allows things and incorporates them into His plan.
Nephi 14:4
Mariam 19:10
(I am with Juline and Joe on this. You guys are being ridiculous with references from Scripture. Mine from the Book of Mormon and Koran, not from the Word of God. I refuse to treat God’s Word as pieces on the chessboard.)
I was going for smarmy, or maybe even sardonic. But I’ll take ridiculous.
“I’ve bricked up…”
Thank you, Ken, that was abbreviated. It should have read:
“By God’s grace and power, I’ve used my God given free will and bricked up that door”. (I hope you can understand as a brother what I meant without it bothering you)
There are some audiences who can never even say amen without doctrinally micro-managing your rhetoric. Whew!
“There are some audiences who can never even say amen without doctrinally micro-managing your rhetoric.”
Really, hmm…
Proverbs 5:19
Job 1:1
“The difference between my two points is that God orchestrates everything, and the other is that God allows things and incorporates them into His plan. ”
Once again what is the difference? If He has complete foreknowledge, and he does, then there is no difference.
I am only oversimplistic to the ones who want to complicate matters.
1 Peter 1: 1-2
Isaiah 5.
Come on, Chris, God foreknows everything. If he allows man a free will he knows what will happen. If he orchestrates everything he still knows what will happen. I have read your writings, you well know the difference.
If God collapsed the bridge then what can we do.
If the bridge collapsed because of fault maintenance then we can improve on that.
It all goes back to how God interacts with mankind.
II Maccabees 2:4
Alan:
Your charge that I am criticizing Piper and BBC is a lie. You can’t find one line to that effect.
I raised a question that ought to be raised in any discussion of this: how does the affirmation of God’s sovereignty interact with pastoral care and other factors? I said “Can we be too God centered?”
Your representation of my motives can only come from some kind of divine insight. Maybe you can tell us how you got it. And why I was criticizing Piper and not one of a hundred other bloggers.
Chris P.
I’m intrigued by your comment: “The only way your point works, is if the open theists are right. In which case, I’ll go back to the rock and roll life, and forget this ‘god’ thing altogether.”
If the open theists are right (about the nature of reality) how does that destroy your faith or your desire to remain in your faith?
What’s to prevent you from going back to the “rock and roll life” now?
If God micromanages every molecule at every moment, why do you feel compelled to convince everyone that is the case? You act as if everything depends upon you and your arguments. It seems to me that some Arminians have more confidence in God’s sovereignty than you do.
If you really believe what you say you believe, then why do you act as if we all have the ability to make free choices?
Rod
(Grr. II Maccabees 2:4. Now I have to get out my grandmother’s Catholic Bible and look that up…)