If you've read this blog very long, you know that I violently dislike the RIAA and what they are doing to music. I've got a healthy dislike for the music industry in general -- one of the reasons I podcast is so that bands that haven't been signed to a label get attention and can possibly make some money without having to sell their souls to corporate music. And I'm picky about the labels I do play -- Centricity is a great bunch of people, and they're not RIAA.

One of the things RIAA keeps saying is that music downloads, especially free ones, are hurting artists. People downloading music for free don't buy music, they say. And if that were true, the music industry would have died a rather well-deserved death several years ago. Artists would survive -- people support musicians they like, and without the overhead inherent in supporting the recording industry bureaucracy they could actually make a living.

The sad thing is, it's not necessarily true. more...

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 04:31 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 543 words, total size 3 kb.

I haven't jumped into this discussion, for a lot of reasons -- mainly because I see a lot of people talking past each other. But I want to discuss it today, simply because I've got a MySpace page (for the podcast, not for myself).

The biggest problem I see with MySpace is not something that the people who set it up have control over. We aren't teaching our kids how to deal with the Internet. When I was little, we all learned about why we don't talk to strangers. We talked about it, we read about it, it was on TV. But we don't do that anymore.

Maybe we think of the Internet as being this vast, anonymous place. We can talk to anyone we wnat to, because nobody really is who they are online. We're all strangers, and all friends, all at the same time. When something bad happens, it has to be because the people running the place let some bad people in -- it can't be our fault.

Bad things have happened because of MySpace. Myspace has some rules in place (though many would say not enough) to try to prevent bad things from happening, but they can't do it all themselves.

We tend to think of kids being so much more advanced than we are when it comes to computers. I've taught computer applications to high school students, and I can tell you that it isn't always true. Kids really think they can hide behind a screen name, or a blog page, and nobody can find anything out about them at all. That's not true, and we need to emphasise that to our kids.

Back in the old days, when I was 20-something, there was a big concern about privacy and identity theft. So the Washington Post conducted an experement. With the permission of Vice President Dan Quayle and the Secret Service, they decided to see how much information they could get on him. Not dirt -- just basic information.

They called the DMV of the state he was licensed in, and got his drivers license number with very little effort. With many states, that is your Social Security number, and we all know what kinds of things you can find out with THAT information. I think they had two more steps to get his SS number, but they got it pretty quickly. With very little effort, they were able to find out all kinds of indormation about the Vice President of the United States.

How hard do you really think it is to find out information about you? Or your kids?

Parents need to do their job -- protect and educate your kids. Make sure they know about the lack of real privacy on the Internet. Make sure they know how to be careful. Make sure they know better than to give personal information out to someone they've never seen before. And know what they're doing online.

If your kid has a MySpace page, you should, too. And you should be on your kid's "My Friends" list. Make that a condition of them having the account to begin with. You'll have access to their blogs. You'll know who they "hang out" with online. Don't act like the Secret Police, but make sure they know you're doing it out of conern for them -- not because you have to know everything they're doing at all times.

MySpace, Facebook, Blogger -- those aren't the problem. The problem is parents who have given up their responsibilities to their kids.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 11:14 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 599 words, total size 3 kb.

A while back, I started using Blingo as my default search engine. It works well -- it's essentially Google, but with a major difference.

You can win stuff. Example:

As I was getting ready to record the Pewcast, I was looking for info on one of the bands I was going to play. I won a $50 gift card for something I was going to do anyway. And the person whose site I found Blingo through (who I don't even know) also got $50. For doing nothing. Just because someone he referred to Blingo won something.

A year and five days ago, I won something else from them. My choice of a Sony PSP or $249. I took the money.

Real people actually win stuff from these things. Click the link over there to the left and sign up for Blingo. And go win something.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 05:37 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

The title of this book is a bit misleading, at least it was for me. I was expecting a complete diatribe about why good Christians should never, ever vote for Democrats, and why those who DO are actually not Christians at all. I was expecting a lot of venom, and I was, quite frankly, expecting to not like the book very much. And I was very wrong.

Why Christians Don't Vote For Democrats should be read by every Democratic strategist. Richard Miller is giving them the keys -- he's telling them exactly what they need to change to get the support of evangelical Christians. He's telling them why, for the most part, evangelical Christians don't vote for Democrats. There's no venom -- how could there be, when two of Miller's own daughters are registered Democrats?

This is not a long book -- it's really not hard to show why evangelicals are not voting for Democrats. But the material is presented in a way that a Democrat could read it and, rather than being offended, realize the gulf that separates them from evangelicals.

Miller makes a lot of statements in the book, though, that I would have liked to have seen expanded. We read that "secular Democrats" want to lower the age of consent, don't believe that the teachings of Jesus or Moses have any value, don't want Christians to be able to afford to send their kids to Christian schools, etc. I would have liked to have seen these generalities detailed a bit more -- specific quotes from specific Democratic leaders, for example. A Christian Democrat reading this would of course say "No I don't." Specific examples would have been a welcome addition to the book in these cases.

Miller's purpose in writing this books seems to have been to make people think -- both Democrats and Republicans. He's achieved that goal; there's a lot of material presented in the book that should make people think. As I said, he's provided Democratic leadership with a rough guide to gaining the trust of evangelical Christian voters, if they will read it and listen.

Why Christians Don't Vote For Democrats by Richard Miller, published by Xulon Press. 4 out of 5 stars.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 12:47 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 2 kb.

Inspired by the link in the previoius post, I'd like to present the official View From the Pew Arguement Clinic.

This is actually how most message board arguements sound.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 03:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm a sucker for Monty Python related links anyway, but when they come from Dr. Michael Haykin, they're especially enjoyed. AND, it's one of my favorite sketches. TheInternational Philosophy Football Match: Germany vs. Greece.

Now all we need are the Bruces!

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 03:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

Donatism was the error taught by Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae that the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister. In other words, if a minister who was involved in a serious enough sin were to baptize a person, that baptism would be considered invalid.

It has been alleged that the Baptist practice of extending church membership only to those who have been baptised as believers is Donatism. Anyone who has followed the debate can see that it has nothing to do with the person who administers the baptism; rather, it has to do with the appropriate subject for baptism.

The question was raised as to whether Dr. Al Mohler's stance on baptism as a requisite of church membership makes him a Donatist. Ironically, the commentor who disputed this defines Donatism much as CARM does: "donatism was concerned with the validity of the sacraments administered by people who supposedly did not have the right to administer them. It viewed the sacraments not in an objective way, but as intrinsically dependent upon the qualities of the one administering them. It did not necessarily question the Christianity of those whom they denied could administer it, and it certainly did not question the Christianity of those receiving the sacrament." Compare this to Dr. Mohler's actual statement:

baptism has been understood by all major branches of Christianity, throughout the centuries of Christian experience, to be a requirement for church membership and the fellowship of the LordÂ’s table. Thus, for Baptists to receive into the membership of a Baptist church (or to invite to the LordÂ’s Supper) any believer who lacks such baptism, is to receive non-baptized persons as if they were baptized.

Any compromise of Baptist conviction concerning the requirement of believerÂ’s baptism by immersion amounts to a redefinition of Baptist identity. More importantly, it raises the most basic questions of ecclesiology. We must give those questions intent attention in these days. Otherwise, will there be any Baptists in the next generation?

Baptist ecclesiology defines the proper subject for baptism as one who has been regenerated -- thus, believer's baptism. Anything else is thus not considered scriptural baptism. The conflict we have, then, is whether scriptural baptism is required before someone is admitted into the fellowship of a local church. As the pastor of Henderson Hills reminds us, Baptist churches are autonomous, so the decision is made by that church. And the rest of us can agree, or disagree.

I happen to disagree.

Now, on anonymous comments. I don't allow them here. I don't care if you don't leave your name, but you have to leave a valid email address. Why? The main reason is accountability. The Internet is a place where we can shoot our mouths off without a thought of the implications of what we're saying. If a name is attached, the post or comment becomes our thoughts, and we have to face the consequences. Without that name, we can say whatever we want, portray ourselves however we want, and behave however we want without having to be concerned about what our actions say about ourselves.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 12:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 529 words, total size 4 kb.

I wrote on this subject quite a while ago, but recently there has been a lot of discussion and debate on the issue of believers baptism as a condition of church membership among Southern Baptist bloggers (I'll link to all the posts I've read at the bottom of this one, and will add more as I find them).

The cause of this round of discussion and debate is Henderson Hills Baptist Church. In short, they have decided not to require believer's baptism by immersion as a condition for membership in their church. From one of their supporting documents (HT to Wes Kenney):

We see that it would be a tragic mistake to exclude Christians from membership, solely on the basis of baptism, who may potentially have a great impact on the Kingdom of God. For example, under our current rules, great theologians such as John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Sinclair Ferguson, R.C. Sproul, and J.I. Packer would be considered unqualified for church membership

I'll have more on the Donatist comment later on, and will address the anonymous posters comments to me then. I think that part of the issue with believers baptism today stems from our lack of appreciation of what baptism is. If it really is just a symbol, then what difference does it make?

The very word sacrament that is used so often for baptism and communion is from a Latin word that was an oath of allegience. The oath that Roman soldiers took when they oined the army was a sacramentum -- they swore to obey orders and follow their commander. This is a perfect picture of what baptism is -- it is the oath of allegience that a believer makes to Christ. We are publically identifying with Him. Baptism is not salvific -- that's one thing that Baptists and Presbyterians can agree on. (I keep referring to Presbyterians since the main debate comes from conservative Presbyterians and conservative Baptists, who agree on most other things.) Throughout Acts, we read of those who received the word, and as a result of thier conversion were baptised, and as a result of these two things were received into the church. In the early church, baptism was immediate upon conversion -- so much so that the two seem to be one event. Membership in the church followed immediately thereafter, as much as a matter of survival as anything else. If someone wasn't committed enough to the faith to publically be baptised, to take that public stand, they weren't allowed into the church. They weren't committed.

Today, we look at baptism as something optional. It's pretty easy to be a Christian in the US, and our public stand isn't that hard to make. But if someone isn't willing to make that stand, that profession, should we let them join the church anyway? I think this touches on baptism as an act of obedience to Christ, a topic that has been covered in more depth by others.

Links: more...

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 10:44 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 709 words, total size 5 kb.

Once upon a time, people mocked bloggers. Yes, I know it's hard to believe, after we toppled the Rather regime and all, but it's true. Bloggers were wanna be journalists, hacks, or worse. Now, of course, many journalists are wanna be bloggers.

Then there was podcasting. People mocked podcasters, calling us wanna be DJs. They said the music we played was substandard. OR they said we were violating copyright. RIAA hates us. And now, of course, podcasting is mainstream -- just ask NPR.

Now they're going after vloggers -- video podcasters, that is. The Washington Post calls it "Amateur Hour on Video". Valleywag is calling them self-obsessed, self-righteous, awkward sell-outs.

Truth is, I'd be vlogging right now if my video camera would plug into my computer. I've had a few great ideas for shows. After hearing the negative feedback about vlogging, maybe I need to start saving for a new camera. After all, if trends continue, CBS will be vlogging in the first quarter of 2009.

{edit: oops -- too late. ABC's World News Now is available as a video podcast on iTunes now. Someone, quick -- what's the next big trend?

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 11:50 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

From Bowden McElroy at Interregnum:

"The only real power bloggers have is the power to make blissful ignorance more difficult to attain."

It's funny: there are bloggers who have tried to define this thing that is blogging, and have talked endlessly about the power of blogs -- have even written books about it! -- but in one sentance, 17 words, only two of which have more than three syllables, sums it all up. No matter how many people we have reading us, the only thing we can do is inform people. How they act on what they learn is up to them.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 02:48 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

There's a new PayPal scam out there that is slick enough that it almost fooled me. The email you get is a confirmation that you just sent $109.99 to someone for books. The main part of the body is a graphic, probably a screen capture of an actual payment that someone made via PayPal. Then at the very bottom, highlighted in a yellow rectangle, is the "Dispute this transaction" link. You click that and it takes you to a page that LOOKS like PayPal, but isn't. And you give them your info and they steal your money.

VERY slick scam. Most PayPal scams show up in the email I use for this blog -- which is NOT associated with my PayPal account. So I can spot the scams pretty easilly. THIS one, though, had me going until I clicked the dispute link.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 05:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

While I've been reading a lot (and blogging a little) about the SBC National Convention in Greensboro, a few other denominational bodies have been meeting. The PCA, according to David "Jollyblogger" Wayne, has been a pretty boring assembly. But the PCUSA has been trying to make up for that lack in Presby excitement. And, of course, the blogosphere has been watching.

One of my favorite quotes concerning the PCUSA has to come from GetReligion:

The name of the game is “local option,” meaning that officials in blue pews get to read the Bible (and the denomination’s own teachings) in a way that allows them to move foward on issues such as the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians and the creation — semi-officially, of course — of church rites to celebrate same-sex marriages. Meanwhile, people in red pews get to keep believing what they have believed for centuries and, of course, they get to keep sending in their pledge dollars to support national agencies that act as if basic points of doctrine and moral theology are moot, even if they remain on the books.

I've been reading Mark Roberts' reaction pieces. He's got a stake in the discussion, because he is PCUSA. And he's not ready to leave, even though he is, in his own words, "...tired of the battle."

I think this must be how many conservative Southern Baptists felt thirty years ago. So many conservatives pulled out that the fight must have seemed unwinnable. Many people wrote of the SBC as a lost cause. For a long time, I was one of those people -- not at the beginning, since I was eight thirty years ago. But as a teenager, and even in college, I thought that good, solid Southern Baptist churches were rare (even though I actually found one in Lynchburg. I figured they were an exception).

Now I'm reaping the benefits of the conservatives who stuck it out. People who fought for the heart and soul of an organization that was at one time committed to Biblical Christianity. People who prayed for a day when it would be once again.

So I'm going to agree with Mark Roberts. There are many, many people who are being led to leave the PCUSA, just as many were lead to leave the SBC years ago. The people who left the SBC went on to start great independent ministries, and had a tremendous impact on the world, so I can not and will not fault them for their decision. If God is leading people out of the PCUSA, then they should go.

My prayer is that my Presbyterian brothers and sisters will learn a little from Baptist history. The people who left the SBC condemned those conservatives who stayed. Even today, there are extreme fundamentalist Baptists who will have nothing to do with Southern Baptists, or anyone who hangs around with them. The man who baptized me is one of those people -- I will never share a platform with him, because I am a Southern Baptist. There is needless division between people who should be laboring together in the fields because of the attitudes of those who left the SBC.

Don't condemn those who are being led by God to stay in the PCUSA. Maybe God will use their influence to bring the denomination back to Him, and back to a Biblical understanding of these issues that divide you. And if you are staying, don't condemn those who have had enough and are leaving. If you are being led by God, you must do what He is telling you to do, and you must respect those who God has given a different mission. If you learn anything from your Baptist brothers, learn this much from our mistakes. Fight modernism, fight liberalism. But don't fight each other.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 04:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 699 words, total size 4 kb.

Centuri0n has a few great ideas for resolutions at the next SBC convention (next year in San Antonio -- hope I get to go this time!). My favorite one:

Resolved: Baptism is necessary in the life of the believer for the sake of the believer’s spiritual growth; it is a result of the Holy Spirit’s work in the second birth, not a cause. When we make Baptism into anything else – like a measure of the effectiveness of our evangelism, or a repeated ritual from which we derive pleasure or reassurance – we make baptism into a fraud and dishonor God.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 01:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

Rumor has it (and when something starts off that way, you know it's gotta be true) that Matt Damon is being considered for the role of ...... Captain James T. Kirk.

Yes, you read that right. And it seems that J. J. Abrams has William Shatner's permission and blessing for the choice. Abrams is working on the new Star Trek movie, which shows Kirk and Spock as Starfleet Academy students, so obviously Shatner can't play Kirk. Having seen the Bourne movies, I can say that Damon has the chops to play the role, but can he hold a candle to Shatner's over-the-top dramatic acting that made Kirk so ... Kirk-like.

My fear is that this movie is going to end up very Enterprise-ish. They killed that show by trying to create a backstory for everything that ever happened in the Star Trek universe. The only season that was good in and of itself was season 3 (which I have on DVD, by the way), because it was a unique story with a unique set of opponents. If they don't get carried away with creating backstory for what's already been done, this will be a great movie.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't create a few "so THAT'S why they did that!" moments; those are going to happen, and will be expected by the fans who go see the movie. But the whole movie shouldn't be about establishing the future. The series and the movies have been done -- we all know how they go. We want to see something new. This should be the Batman Begins of the Star Trek franchise. If they can do that, the fans will be happy.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 07:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

I've always thought that the best ways to get to know someone was to find out what they read, what they listened to, and what kind of junk was in the trunk of their car. The Internet is a good place to figure out the first two, anyway.

First is LibraryThing. You can take a look at the reading habits of people all over the world (including many, many bloggers). My own catalog is pretty incomplete right now, even though I've almost exhausted the free account that I've been using. Before you ask, I'm not sure why the book covers don't show up in my catalog. They used to, then I changed some things around and they vanished. Oh, well -- some of the books didn't have cover graphics anyway. 1/4 of the books I've got listed are review copies that I've received, which is nice. Free books are always nice ....

Second is Last.fm. You can just listen to stuff on their player, or you can download a plug-in for iTunes that tells last.fm what you've been playing lately. They have a plug-in for iPods that works through iTunes, but I haven't been able to make it work yet. My profile is pretty up to date, though the weekly top artists chart hasn't been updated in over a week. The two tracks that show up with me as the artist are sermon recordings I copied, and then listened to. I burned one to CD to send to a church in West Virginia that's looking for a pastor -- more on that later on. There are quite a few bloggers on Last.fm as well.

If you're on either, leave us all a comment with a link to your profile, so we can get to know you, too!! And if you're not on either yet, what are you waiting for?

Now all I need to do is start cartrunk.com, where people talk about all the stuff in ther trunks. Then we'll all know each other REALLY well.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 03:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.

So I'm reading centuri0n's blog ('cause I always do, and I like the graphics) and notice that he's been given an award. The Blogroll Bloat Award from CoffeeSwirls.

And I'm jealous, because I've got some SERIOUS blogroll issues right here at the Pew. And I think I've got more links in my three blogrolls than he does, anyway.

But what really made me think was this statement, from CoffeeSwirls -- "If you link to everybody, nobody wins. You can quote me on that if you like." (And so I do quote you.)

I've got a ton of links to people all over the Blogosphere -- some more than once. Some of the blogs in my own blogroll (Views from Other Pews) I don't read anymore. I read maybe a third of the blogs in the LoRB list, and fewer than that in the Church Directory/Evangelical Outpost blogroll. Isn't the point of a blogroll to let people know what you read? So they can go there and read it too?

I've got a bunch of blogs that I actually read every day, thanks to RSS and Mozilla Thunderbird. Most are on theblogroll, but some aren't. So it seems that I need to do some updating and changing.

Here's what's going to happen: I'm going to export my personal blog list from Thunderbird to an OPML file. Then I'm going to import it into either Bloglines or Blogrolling (probably the former). Then I'm going to use that for my blogroll. That will be the top blogroll, the "Views From Other Pews." And you'll know that I actually read those blogs every day.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do about the other two blogrolls. I want to keep them, just because most of the sites listed ALSO have the list, and they link to me. But they're going to be lower profile on the page, more "below the fold" so to speak. And I'll keep the main blogroll updated weekly or so, for when I add new blogs, or delete old ones. This way, readers can tell exactly what blogs I really am reading, and which blogs are just there for the links. It's not a commentary on the quality or value of the blogs that aren't on the main list -- it's just an admission that I only have so much time each day, and I have to limit the number of people who I read.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 03:35 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 2 kb.

And I promise that I'll post something non-SBC related here tomorrow. I NEED to get back to my "This Week in Church History" posting that I've neglected for so long...

Day One saw an historic presidential election. Three men, all conservative, committed to Biblical inerrancy, ran a good race. One man, supported by many outside of the normal "sphere of influence" won over 50% of the votes on the first ballot, which many doubted would happen. Frank Page defeated "establishment" candidate Ronnie Floyd and Jerry Sutton, who many thought was intended to draw votes away from Page. Sutton and Floyd split half the vote, and Page went on to win.

It's refreshing for me as a Southern Baptist to have an election where there is more than one option -- and more than one option that I would have been happy with. The days of "conservaitve candidate vs. moderate candidate" are gone, for now at least. We can fine-tune the direction we want the SBC to go in, and that is a very healthy thing.

One vote that didn't get a lot of blogging attention today was the WMU issue. The Executive Committee, as I understand it, wanted the WMU to become a Southern Baptist entity, similar to Lifeway and Guidestone, rather than an auxiliary as it is now. I'm not sure why that was brought forward -- the WMU is doing wonderful things for the SBC as it is, and there would be no real benefit to it becoming an official entity. It would also have caused some problems internally with the WMU, as they would have had to drastically change the way they operate. I'm not sure that anyone at the convention outside of the Executive Committee was in favor of the motion, and it went down in flames pretty quickly. If anyone understands the rational behind the motion, please leave a comment, or email me (address is on the right sidebar).

This promises to be an exciting year for the SBC. I'm hoping that after Greensboro we can all unite and purpose to reach the world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 09:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.

... I know, who really cares about the first VP position, anyway? I've been in the SBC for close to ten years, and I still have no clue what anyone after the president actually does.

But I've been interested in this race, just because one of the candidates is someone who I'd love to have seen run for president, but who chose not to. I really think Mark Dever would have made an outstanding president.

But he's not going to be Veep, either. Dever and pastor Jimmy Jackson advanced to a second ballot, where Jackson edged Dever by just a few votes (1107-1030).

Tip o' the hat to Thoughts and Adventures for the update on this vote. I'll be referencing them a lot during the convention, as they seem to be pretty reliably live-blogging, and their posts are coming through the RSS feed. For some reason, I'm not getting Marty Duren's blog in my RSS reader -- have to check on that one.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 09:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

Dr. Frank Page of South Carolina with 50.48% of the vote. Dr. Ronnie Floyd and Dr. Jerry Sutton split the remaining vote pretty evenly.

Bobby Welch reminded everyone present that Dr. Page is the president of the entire convention, not just his 50.48%, and that we are striving for unity among Southern Baptists even as we celebrate our diversity.

I'll have more about the blogging reaction to Dr. Page's election later this evening. I head out in about twenty minutes and will be out with my pastor on visitation this evening until probably 8 or so.

Congratulations to Dr. Page.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 03:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

I REALLY wish I could be there.

The one breakout session that has garnered the most blogging attention so far has been (duh!) the Mohler/Patterson "debate" on Calvinism. Agent Tim has a really good outline, as does Scott Lamb. Dr. Mohler participated just one day after emergency surgery on his eyes -- he told us in Systematic Theology that he has an eye disorder that requires him to wear two contacts in each eye, so I'm sure that the surgery was somehow related to that. Word from Ryan DeBarr (who isn't blogging the convention, but called me to fill me in on the Pastor's Conference) is that Dr. Mohler arrived wearing dark sunglasses which the doctors told him he had to wear all the time. He removed them on the platform. Someone needs to tell Dr. Mohler to take care of himself, and listen to the doctors!

Others who are blogging the convention are Wade Burleson (of course), Joe Thorn, Steve Weaver, Marty Duren, and Steve McCoy. As I find others, I'll post 'em here. If you find some I missed, let me know!

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 09:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 2 kb.