Evangelical Outpost has an interesting post called Lessons of a Recovering Statistics-Addicted Influence Seeker.
Statistics-addicted? this seems to be a feature of the generation of self-publicising bloggers. And, yes, I know, I am one of them. I have a Sitemeter link which means I have an account which means that I can see how many people look at my site, when they look, what they look with (op. sys., browser, screen size, shoe size), where they come from, who they had dinner with etc. It’s all logged. Wu-hu-ha-ha-ha-Ha-HA! Graphs, pie-charts, bank accounts – I can see it all. All the time. Whenever I like.
Influence Seeker? What? Like … power? Bring it on! I want to change things, make a splash! Double Wu-hu-ha-ha-ha-Ha-HA!
Here are some things I have learned:
- The less I write, the fewer the number of people who read. Temptation: write more. Influence! Influence!
- Blogosphere activity is growing at about 10% a month. How do I know? When I hit a certain level of traffic per day according to TLB (I have passed through the same point several times over the last year) I find my traffic ranking drops. Either there are more blogs or people clicking more. But not many extra clicks at Doggie’s. And yes, it’s sad that I know this.
- Registering with the League of Reformed Bloggers is a complete waste of time. Showing the list on your blog gets you lots of links out and in, but not much extra traffic my way. Is every Reformed blogger sitting patiently waiting for everyone else to read their great stuff, just like me? Hate aggregators. Huff.
- I like interaction. I like seeing what happens. OK, most of the time nothing happens. But sometimes it does. So that’s really why I do it. If people comment that’s good. It makes me think. Perhaps I get some people to think too. All-round benefit.
Bored now. I wouldn’t read my blog.
My surname is pretty rare. Except for my immediate family, I have never met anyone else called “Dancer”. When I lived in Scotland (until 16 years ago), my family were the only Dancers in any of the Scottish phone books I could find. Yes, I checked. Sad – I know. I even checked when we went on holiday to angle-land. There were a few in the south-west, if I remember correctly.
Not long after Susan and I moved to Little Eaton there was a local TV news report which featured an elderly lady who was a Dancer. It spooked me. But since then? Nothing.
Imagine my surprise, then, when this evening, after the news on a BBC Panorama Special on hospital cleanliness (7pm for those keenies), the expert microbiologist was Dr. Stephanie Dancer.
Made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. Too close for comfort.
I have just discovered that Graham Weeks (of GenevaNet fame and glory) has a blog. Hello Graham!
Yes! It’s true!
The big surprise was that my best mark was in Hebrew – just crept into the ‘1st class’ category. I just scraped a pass with Job. Pastoral Principles was a little better. In both of these I did not do enough reading to justify better.
However, I can breathe a big sigh of relief.
As a non-CofE Christian, I would be the first to admit that I do not really understand the CofE. The heirarchical structure seems to bear a striking resemblance to Saturn’s rings: the closer you look the more levels of complexity there seem to be. Why?
It seems to me that the battle over women in the clergy was lost in 1994. Why there should now be a particular fight over the women as bishops without bringing into question women priests is unclear to me. Perhaps someone could enlighten me?
It seems simple: women are excluded on the grounds of 1 Tim 2:11-15. This trumps any appeal to ‘tradition’, which appears to be the main argument against.
There is much made of the fact that many women ‘feel called’ to the priesthood. This raises the interesting question of what constitutes a ‘call’. The women in question seem to have wholly subjectivised the whole thing. Because of an inner feeling, they demand the right to be made priests/bishops etc. I listened to The Bishop of Fulham, John Broadhurst, on Channel Four News last night (who, on the whole, made a pretty ham-fisted job of opposing the motions, IMHO) argue that it was not for individuals to claim a calling but for the church to call. I agree with this. There needs to be both subjective and objective elements. Subjectively, a man (!!) must have a sense of call and purpose about what he is contemplating. But objectively, the broader church must check that he is gifted and qualified (though the guide for this is not tradition, but Scripture). For this reason, a woman can never be called to the ministry, no matter what feelings dwell within.
But this argument will never win the day amongst the liberals. They are only interested in the politics. So looking at it politically, as I see it, there will come a crisis. But it will happen when the liberals realise that the only reason the CofE is viable is because the conservatives financially shore it up. Then the liberals will come back from the brink. They will schmooze with the conservatives in order to preserve themselves. The question then is whether the conservative evangelicals will have the courage of their convictions to once and for all deal with the theological gangrene that they live with every day.
Loraine Boettner, in his The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, deals with the problem of evil, a problem with which all theists must come to terms with at some point. Calvinism gives the most adequate explanation, yet even the Calvinist must always bear in mind the following comment:
Our mental vision can no more comprehend His deep mysteries than our unaided physical eyes can endure the light of the sun. (p.251)
Originally uploaded by Dancers.
This is where it all happens – the study. Complete chaos. Not quite recovered from frantic exam work. In fact, not recovered at all. Believe me, you can’t see the full glory. Needs to be fixed, but WHEN?
Fan is highly necessary – it’s due to hit 28C this afternoon.
Keyboard looks crooked – poor photostitch software.