I didn't post this morning, because I have more going on then I normally do, that I'm forced to get done. However, I really want to write on two issues of interest in the near future. Both of them would take longer than I have right now. They are somewhat unrelated.
The first one is concerning a kerfuffle over special music in church that started when Mark Dever of 9 Marks, over at TGC, in promoting congregational singing somewhat put down special music in churches. Then the FBFI through its blog, Proclaim and Defend, pushed back against what Dever said. I have very specific thoughts about special music in church and I want to write about it.
The second one relates to a post that Roger Olson, renowned Arminian very loose evangelical, wrote at Patheos about the definition of fundamentalism. I want to speak to his definition and what I think of it.
I'm not sure when I'll get to it, because Thomas Ross posts on Friday, and I'm not sure I want something standing for less than a day before he posts. Stay tuned.
In many instances, if one finds something on the internet, the polite, good mannered thing to do is to give a "hat tip," like what a professional baseball player does to the crowd after he hits a home run. No one asked me to do this, but I give an ht (hat tip) to SharperIron and its moderators, because I was led to the two above articles by looking over at SharperIron.
Along the same line, I was happy that Tyler Robbins emailed me with the following link at Banner of Truth, arguing for door-to-door evangelism. He thought I'd like it, and I do. I think they could do better in their presentation of how to start with someone at a door, but what they do offer is much, much better than nothing.
Since I'm talking about articles now, I may as well give an ht to Dave Mallinack, because he sent me to an article against pragmatism by Steve Damron at the Fairhaven Fundamentalist (you'll have to go to p. 8, the format doesn't do that automatically, so keep pushing the right arrow button until you arrive). Some of you might say, it's not that great an article and isn't Fairhaven pragmatic? OK. Even though it has some interesting and worthwhile content, it isn't what or how exactly how I would have written it, but I was happy he wrote it. It means a lot, and I think people should be happy to read it, and support the thoughts overall he writes therein.