<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Jenn Grover Photography &#187; Blogs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jenngrover.com/tag/blogs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jenngrover.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:48:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>My thoughts on posting comments to on a blog</title>
		<link>http://jenngrover.com/2007/12/19/my-thoughts-on-posting-comments-to-on-a-blog/</link>
		<comments>http://jenngrover.com/2007/12/19/my-thoughts-on-posting-comments-to-on-a-blog/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:56:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jenngrover.com/?p=139</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Latin phrase "non sequitur" means, it does not follow. That is what I have noticed about most comments posted on blogs in general, but especially political blogs these days. Over the last month, I have been amazed (and annoyed) at the types of comments people post on blogs. I find more often than not [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Latin phrase "non sequitur" means, it does not follow. That is what I have noticed about most comments posted on blogs in general, but especially political blogs these days. Over the last month, I have been amazed (and annoyed) at the types of comments people post on blogs. I find more often than not people are using the comments section of a blog to reflect their own agenda rather than comment on the post itself. For example, I have a post refuting Dr. Wayne Grudem's endorsement of Mitt Romney. Many of the comments (before my was deleted and re-launched) were attacks on me for questioning the logic of the Mormon religion and one comment was simply urging readers to go visit Hillary's website. None of those comments addressed the true topic of the post. It isn't just my blog, it is almost every blog you read. And it is more often the case when the comments are negative.<br />
<br />
It seems that people do not know how to appropriately discuss opposing points of view rationally or civilly. It can be difficult, I will grant that. More importantly, it usually takes some time and research to craft a rational, civil argument. I think it is partly because American schools do not teach people how to "argue". By argue, I don't mean a rash, haste, disagreement marked by anger. By argue I mean present a different point of view as in a formal debate (not the presidential debates – they don't qualify) or as in a court of law.<br />
<br />
If people want a forum for airing their opinions, there are plenty of options for a free blog out there. Next time you post a comment to the blog – make sure it is relevant to the post.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jenngrover.com/2007/12/19/my-thoughts-on-posting-comments-to-on-a-blog/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>My Thoughts on Christian Blogs</title>
		<link>http://jenngrover.com/2007/12/18/my-thoughts-on-christian-blogs/</link>
		<comments>http://jenngrover.com/2007/12/18/my-thoughts-on-christian-blogs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:31:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christian blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parachurch]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jenngrover.com/?p=138</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It seems as though blogs are a dime a dozen these days. Look, I even have one. There are blogs on every topic imaginable. Some blogs have clever names, some are tributes to their families, and some are meant to be provoke debate. What has caught my attention as of late is the quantity of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[It seems as though blogs are a dime a dozen these days. Look, I even have one. There are blogs on every topic imaginable. Some blogs have clever names, some are tributes to their families, and some are meant to be provoke debate. What has caught my attention as of late is the quantity of Christian blogs. Although from time to time I do discuss spiritual matters on my blog, it is definitely not the primary focus. As a matter of fact, my blog has no single primary focus. Just when you think it's a Mike Huckabee blog, there is a post about the weather or Microsoft Zune. I have been intentional in both not making it a single focus blog and not making it primarily a spiritual blog. I will post something related to faith if it particularly strikes me as "blogworthy", but those times are few.<br />
<br />
Why have I chosen this route? I think that Christian <strong>blogs are an emerging form of parachurch ministry</strong>. Even if the blog is the by the leader of a related church or an organization that we respect, when the time we spend studying the blog surpasses the time we spend reviewing last Sunday's message given at our local church, the function (even though the intention may be otherwise) of the blog becomes parachurch. It is functioning as supplemental to your local church. It is easy to get caught up in blogs that seem to have the right message, have great graphics, and even nice sounding buzz words. However, do I have more affection for those blogs than I do my own local church? Do I allow my children to spend time on certain blogs primarily because they are "safe" or seem to have decent doctrine?<br />
<br />
I recently heard a prominent Christian leader may soon start his own blog. I thought, "No! Stop! Don't do it!" What this leader may or may not expect is that like moths to a flame, Christians will pour onto his blog, and it won't be in addition to the time they are investing in benefitting from the teaching of the their own local churches, it will be in lieu of that time.<br />
<br />
In particular, I am concerned with Christian blogs that are single focus blogs. Think of all of the single focus blogs you visit regularly. Now think of all of the groups of people, situations, spiritual disciplines, or other biblical things that blog does not address. How does that affect your perspective? The Bible tells us that, "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Matt 6:21). So, if my blog time is spent solely focusing on singles or women's issues, my heart will incline towards those things. Those are not bad things to read about or areas to pursue growth. However, those blogs rarely represent balance. Sometimes I wonder if people spend so much time on a single subject because there is an ounce of doubt that Scripture has addressed an issue sufficiently. I think that blogs are even more dangerous in this area because once you read a book you are done. When you read a blog, it keeps coming and coming. The side effect of a lack of balance can be an interruption of church unity.<br />
<br />
Christian blogs are not bad. We shouldn't stop reading them. We should evaluate how we view them, though.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jenngrover.com/2007/12/18/my-thoughts-on-christian-blogs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

