'No comments' sez SBC Today blog

[William Thornton]

SBC Today has ambitions to be a premier source of info for SBCers. Mebbe they are and mebbe they will continue to be. I get the feed. But don't expect to comment because they have deep-sixed comments, as in "We do the talking here. You just pay attention and shut up." Somehow, blogs seem to lose something if they are just pronucimiento sites. They explain the change about comments but I can't access the video from this computer (though probably I can at home), not that I'm eager to sit and watch a video of Wes Kinney anyhow. Can't you guys just type it out?

BTW, SBC Today has the subtitle: "Restoring Unity Through Biblical Discipleship & Baptist Identity." Right. Kinney's comment concerning Wade Burleson made a couple of weeks ago might be illuminating:

For my part, I’ve sworn off any contact with or acknowledgement of Wade Burleson and what he is doing. We’ve installed a plugin that allows us to block IP addresses, and I’ve set it up to block the range of IP addresses Wade Burleson has used to comment on our site in the past. And, with God’s help, I’ll do my best never to visit Grace and Truth to You again. I’ll do as I’ve done in the past, trying my best to write and facilitate blog posts that will serve the preservation of our biblical Baptist distinctives, but I’ll not be drawn in to this kind of silly controversy again.

Right. Got it. Unity...

[TIC below]
Perhaps the change has something to do with a new member of their "resource management team" who looks to me like a young Luca Brasi. What do you think?


[For the record, I get Barber's feed and enjoy it.]

[Timothy Bonney]

I don't read SBC Today but, a blog isn't necessarily intended for dialogue like a message board. It is more intended to get your own opinion out there. At times I've not allowed comments on blogs I've written because a few people out on the net just want to argue with you on your own blog or make snide remarks. If you try to filter out the nastier responses you get accused of abridging their free speech, which is silly, since the blog owner owns the blog. And, anyone can go start there own blog and say whatever they want about me, my blog, etc.

So, William you could always start a blog commenting on SBC Today articles if you like.

[William Thornton]

I don't read SBC Today but, a blog isn't necessarily intended for dialogue like a message board. It is more intended to get your own opinion out there. At times I've not allowed comments on blogs I've written because a few people out on the net just want to argue with you on your own blog or make snide remarks. If you try to filter out the nastier responses you get accused of abridging their free speech, which is silly, since the blog owner owns the blog. And, anyone can go start there own blog and say whatever they want about me, my blog, etc.

So, William you could always start a blog commenting on SBC Today articles if you like.

I don't think 'nasty' was the problem and I don't see how a blog with this many people involved as contributors who are serious about contributing to things SBC can be taken seriously by not allowing comments. But then, I haven't seen the video explanation for the change.

[Haruo]

And if they do not allow comments, why do they need to block Burleson's IP addresses? Trying to keep him from even reading??

[Jonathan]

Yep...pretty much, "we need for you to read what we write".

Of course, there is a post on preaching with the following paragraph from a book by Dr. Mohler on preaching:

“Rarely do we hear these days of a church that is distinguished primarily by its faithful, powerful, expository preaching. Instead, when we hear persons speak about their their churches,they usually point to something other than preaching. They may speak of its specialized ministry to senior adults, or its children’s ministry, or its youth ministry. They may speak of its music or its arts program or its drama team, or of things far more superficial than those. Sometime they may even speak of the church’s Great Commission vigor and its commitment to world missions - and for that we are certainly thankful. But sadly, it is rare to hear a church described first and foremost by the character, power, and content of its preaching.” (Mohler, 78-79)

To be honest, what I want to hear about a church is how efficiently the body is reaching the lost with the Gospel AND mentoring them to a point of Christian maturity where they're prepared to disciple and mentor others. As I've detailed before, I'm an avid listener to good preaching and listen to 1-2 per day. But too often there is a world of difference in powerful preaching and "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you". Such a task is beyond the scope of the foolishness of preaching.

[William Thornton]

Well, I took the time, to view Wes Kinney's video explanation of 'no comments' and heard him say the following (allowing for Wm's paraphrase):

1. We're all pastors and we don't have time to fool with your comments
2. We value conversations and have benefited from the same over the past year
3. Henceforth, we will point you to conversations elsewhere

Makes perfect sense to me: "We value conversations, but not in our comment stream. We value conversations but not with Wade Burleson and his ilk. We value conversations but don't really have time for such on our site." Yeah. Quite clear.

I admit that there are a handful of people who need to get a life outside of blogdom where they are ubiquitous in exhibiting their brilliance in comment streams but I think SBC Today just blew off a few toes with this. The explanation is worse than the act.

I am fairly up to date with this computer but found it highly inconvenient to take time to download Kinney's video. He could have typed it in sixty seconds...but, I know, he's a busy pastor and I am presumably an unbusy pastor.

[Timothy Bonney]

And if they do not allow comments, why do they need to block Burleson's IP addresses? Trying to keep him from even reading??

LOL, they are really doing that? That is a silly waste of time. There are dozens of proxy servers out there to get around IP blocks.

[Timothy Bonney]

1. We're all pastors and we don't have time to fool with your comments
2. We value conversations and have benefited from the same over the past year
3. Henceforth, we will point you to conversations elsewhere

OK William, I take it back, it sounds pretty restrictive. I was reacting based on my experience with personal blogs. That's a different animal.

[Haruo]

And if they do not allow comments, why do they need to block Burleson's IP addresses? Trying to keep him from even reading??

LOL, they are really doing that? That is a silly waste of time. There are dozens of proxy servers out there to get around IP blocks.

I agree it wouldn't work if he wanted to go around, but unless that's the purpose I can't think why they would bother to even try. It just seems to silly, almost like the FBCJax motion to make the church doors hit someone in the butt after their butt is already in the narthex of another church...

Haruo

[Timothy Bonney]

I agree it wouldn't work if he wanted to go around, but unless that's the purpose I can't think why they would bother to even try. It just seems to silly, almost like the FBCJax motion to make the church doors hit someone in the butt after their butt is already in the narthex of another church...

Haruo

I've seen bylaws from more than one church that tried to legislate away a problem after it had already happened. It is one of the ways to tell, when you interview with a church, if they have long term hang-ups. I'd say a bylaw about lawsuits would be more than enough of a red flag to be cause for questions later.

[William Thornton]

I just swapped email with Wes Kinney who added a bit of detail about what I describe above, the handful of folks who seem ubiquitous in their commenting and I have some sympathy for him if they feel the need to moderate all of that stuff. He also said that there is no IP blocking at SBC Today although there was for a few days. I don't think that I am making public anything that he wants kept private. At any rate, he made more sense in the email than on the video. Still, it's tough to speak of online conversations when you deny comments.

[Gary]

You all may think it is a bunch of hooey, but here is what the Baptist Planet folks had to say about this situation.

http://baptistplanet.wordpress.com/2009 ... no-future/

SBC Today is a Southern Baptist niche blog which has called attention to itself by exiting the blogoshphere.

Specifically, it has no blogroll, it doesn’t accept linkbacks and has announced that it will no longer accept comments on its posts (it was that last action which marked its exit from the blogosphere).

Wikipedia accurately describes the blogosphere:

The collective community of all blogs is known as the blogosphere. Since all blogs are on the internet by definition, they may be seen as interconnected and socially networked, through blogrolls, comments, linkbacks (refbacks, trackbacks or pingbacks) and backlinks.

Clearly, little remains for SBC Today to remove itself from even the possibility of participation in the worldwide online conversation that drives the blogosphere, except perhaps to take itself offline altogether.

Even so, we do not agree with those who say SBC Today is no longer a blog. Its entries are hyperlinked, printed in reverse chronological order and make some use of hyperlinks to outside resources. Its publication platform is blog software. So in a truly minimalist sense, and you may quarrel with us about this, even with comments off, SBC Today remains a blog.

Just not a blog which respects its readers enough to accept comments.

Too bad.

The wages of disrespect for one’s readers is typically death.

I for one would without one iota of snark dearly love to see sitemeter stats for SBC Today before, during, and after.

Gary

[William Thornton]

I'm guessing that things will change on SBC Today. I can see the guys getting fed up with taking time for the handful of oddball commenters, but still...