Julie R. Neidlinger: Lone Prairie Art Works

I've been blogrolled.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 2 comments link this post

I appreciate this post.

After all the hassle of the past three weeks, both the supportive and the negative comments on blogs and in email, I appreciated what was written. I got to the point where I couldn't handle either the supportive comments and the kind of mantle that was placed on what I wrote ("we are using it in our small groups!" or "I posted it up at church!" or "we've been talking about it for weeks!") as well as the negative attacks (which tended toward the personal "you're old, bitter, and too ugly to date" to the "you're not a real Christian").

Imagine my surprise to find the above blog post, then. Instead of using my words to further a particular pet battle, I instead found a fairly concise summation of the whole mess and a paragraph I can live with:

What is most amazing about all this is that her post was very simple, and simple to understand. Yet many took even second hand comments on remote blogs and painted life pictures of her, like being bitter and dateless, maybe not even a Christian. It's amazing how sketchy misinformation can be used to create such wacky versions of the universe and dismiss people as meaningless.

And of course, my friend Naomi leaving a comment doesn't hurt. Let's face it: it's nice to know someone has your back. I may sound tough on "paper" but I'm pretty soft and easily mashed inside.

Labels: blogging, links

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

A perfect coalescence.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 1 comments link this post

Two blog posts that linked to a recent Lone Prairie Studies blog post have made me inwardly chortle*:

1. "One reason Julie walked out of the church was the man shortage."

2. "I'll marry you, Julie!!!!"

Who wouldn't want to be a blogger in such times like these?

* A chortle is a more mature version of a chuckle.

Labels: blogging

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

I neither agree nor disagree.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 8 comments link this post

One of the more humorous things I've noted about the furor over my recent post on walking out church is what the people say who link to it.

I've noticed a startling number of younger-generation bloggers who tend to link but say "some things I agree with, and some I don't" and do not enumerate those specifics. Perhaps this is a way to do things now.

Whatever it is, it is a very handy caveat.

"I neither agree, nor disagree."

Well. Congratulations. You stand for nothing.

That probably comes off as a wee bit harsh. I understand what the blogger is trying to do: provide linkage for readers who may be interested in a topic that the blogger doesn't want to deal with just yet. In those cases, perhaps "here's an interesting link" would be a better selection of words.

I used to be like that, just a few years ago, a little too prone to covering all bases and not getting involved in reader reaction (and, consequently, writing bland posts that were anything but memorable or life-changing). I still do it, though not as much. Mainly because I blogged about the issue for myself as much as others.

Yes, I used to write like that as a matter of habit because I thought it made me sound less reactionary and more erudite and intelligent -- look at me, and how magnanimous I am, for I can see the validity of both sides! Plus, I had an easy escape route if the discussion got hot and heavy. Then I got old(er) and decided I didn't really care to see both sides because I realized that there are far more than two sides and I didn't have time to empathize with all of them, but by neither agreeing or disagreeing with anything meant...nothing. I could just as well shut up, as a blogger.

Frankly. Call it a link, and leave it at that. Don't waste your reader's time trying to appear even-handed while saying nothing.

No one is ever going to write something that everyone agrees with and, to be honest, if you did, it would probably end up being a chocolate chip cookie recipe. Write something that matters, even if it gets you in hot water and you wish you'd been more careful with your wording, especially when it comes to your faith. There's enough ad copy out there already. You may end up being wrong, but at least you did it with style.

Go ahead. Stick your foot in your mouth. It keeps you flexible, and keeps you from getting stiff in your writing and in your beliefs.

I'm very flexible.

Think of it like this: you're not going to hit the nail on the head if you refuse to pick up the hammer.

(You'll hit your thumb many times.)

Labels: blogging, christianity

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

I swear, I wonder.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 1 comments link this post

I wonder at the number of Christians upset by the crude words, and not the message.

I wonder at the number of Christians willing to tally up the uncouthness and use that as an excuse to close their ears to the rest. They fail the test, maybe.

I wonder at the externals we're willing to use as a reason for avoiding anything internal.

I wonder at the Christians demanding a personal version of the Nicene creed on this site, or else assuming all is lost and that I believe in nothing. Because surely, if I believe, I want it hammered out into a neat list, all the foibles of humanness pounded into oblivion with that hammering.

I wonder at our efforts to water-witch for possible entrants into the Lamb's Book of Life on this side of heaven.

Sheep are very, very stupid animals. I know it from experience.

Jesus made good use of his comparisons.

Here, then, are posts of proof and posts of ammunition -- both of which are found in the life of a human struggling to understand how to follow Christ -- which will never be enough:

Poster Myths
Taking up the cross
The way is not in me
He sees we do not see
Lone Prairie Blog: "religion" category
Lone Prairie Blog: "personal" category
Searching this blog with the term "Christ" for those saying I do not use it enough. (I did not know of any quota)

These are but a few. It's late and I'm tired. You can do the rest of the work yourself. I have a search page; use it.

Labels: blogging, christianity

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Bitter and whining.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 8 comments link this post

Of all the things I thought, when I wrote a wordy, meandering post about a recent experience where I found myself walking out of a church service, I did not think I would find myself -- me personally -- the topic of debate on various blogs.

As often happens, the particular issue at hand that I was trying to make (regardless of whether or not I handled the topic and words well) was somewhat obfuscated in questions as to whether I was:

The frustration here is not just that such conversation does nothing to address the issue at hand, but that it can only devolve into forcing people -- me -- to respond defensively and outside of the realm intended.

In the past, when I've pointed out in many futile discussions on other Christian websites, that I do take issue with the knee-jerk reaction of men throwing emotional thermometers into conversations involving women, I have been told I am:

playing the woman card
bitter
looking for validation
a bunch of other crap

So, I quit wasting my time on such sites, and stopped my activities there. What, I wondered, was the point of even entering into any discussion where I knew that, if I wasn't some kind of emotion-less, logical Vulcan, I would sooner or later have someone throw out questions on my emotions, stability, and other personal aspects of my life? What is the point of writing a long essay with varied points when, in the end, you just end up with lazy cut-and-paste fiskers?

I do not believe I am bitter -- disappointed in the church at times, maybe, but not bitter. If I were bitter, I wouldn't really care so much about finding a church home, nor would I waste the time trying to ferret out what I see are the causes behind a growing problem. I would use my bitterness as an excuse to shun the church and leave it for good. That is not what I am doing.

Nor do I think that anyone who would reads this entire web site on a regular basis would think I fall into the rut of seeing time as having passed me by. On the contrary; I believe I've made good use of the time in my life so far and have no plan on slumping back in my chair and crying into my hanky at "what should have been."

Yet here I am, defending personal nonsense from random (and, may I point out, male, strangers) when the real issue has nothing to do with me as a person. Am I bitter? Am I an emotional wreck? Did I make claims of Christian perfection and my cracks have surreptitiously been revealed? Am I secretly weeping for having been left in the wilderness of time to forage for myself? Am I looking for validation? Am I a harpie? Am I am I am I?

What does it matter to the discussion at hand? How would you, a stranger, possibly know? And, since you can't possibly know, shouldn't that mean you ought to leave that alone and focus on discussing the actual issue, instead of the writer, instead?

Do you know why God uses the imperfect -- the stutter, the meek, the lying, the deceitful, the imperfect, the adulterer, the murderer, the "bitter" woman, the jars of clay -- to do His work? Do you know why?

Generally we would probably agree that it gives Him the glory, so that the world will know it was done through His power and not that of the obviously insufficiently skilled or non-gifted person He used. In our weakness, He is made strong. I would agree to that.

However, consider that it also functions very well for weeding purposes.

Why might God use a messenger with personal flaws? With or without emotion hanging out all over? With alleged bitterness or disappointment edging all the words? With hurts, past and present, not at all hidden in the writing?

So the self-assured idiots out there who can't see the forest for the trees can focus on the imperfections of the messenger and totally miss the message and go home and pat themselves on the back for their astute judgment on a complete stranger and remain safely ignorant and without a hope of grasping something bigger outside of their own understanding and not realize what a complete moron they are.

Yes.

Labels: blogging, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Guise in disguise.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 0 comments link this post

It is impossible.

After a long absence, while cleaning out my bookmark folders, I wound up back on an old site I'd said goodbye to. I read with disinterest; the edge had long worn off in absence, I found. Despite that, all else seemed the same; same writers, mostly, and same commenters (plus a few new ones who had adapted to the nature of the beast). Same tone, same arguments, same jabs, same ploys. I went to the page that outlined the challenge, for the challenge was there, indeed.

Our challenge in fighting this spirit is to refrain from stooping to the same levels, to refrain from employing the same tactics.

Can you refrain from the same tactics if you forget what they are? Can I answer the critics, the wet blankets, the naysayers, the attackers, without becoming one myself? Can I use sarcasm and satire to successfully respond without stopping, using nothing but asterisks and hash marks and the hope that readers won't take it wrong? Should I even try to be witty and get some kind of verbal upper hand if my goal is to avoid employing those same tactics?

This morning I had an interesting discussion with a couple of friends over the concept of distance learning, and how, despite the very best possibilities and even degree to which it may seem successful, it is always inferior to being there in person with the teacher.

Online discussion, particularly in the religious realm, is inferior. It is impersonal.

You can tell me all you want about the valuable information and educational element, but there is no way around it: it has nothing to do with the person.

Jesus was personal. He was about the person.

Touching. Speaking aloud. Looking. Crying. Writing in the sand in the moment, surrounded in person by the angry mob he was writing to. Remaining silent.

Blogs and forums, and the wicked sharp comment zingers and blog-off-shoots, are not about the person. They are not about love. By their very nature and requisite replies, they have nothing to do with humility. They are only answering back, in a kind of echo, and nothing more.

Silence is not the weakness people think it is. Giving no answer is a strong answer; it forces the clamor to die down and the yapping dogs to starve. Remaining quiet in the midst of attack or accusation has a great precedent. There is no need to defend beyond simple statement. No rejoinder. No need for verbal coup d'etat.

Our challenge is to find that middle ground where holiness, humility and grace meet.

What if the middle ground does not hold those qualities? Who longs for the middle ground but the middler-grounder?

Is it possible for humility exist in responding to critics or those I disagree with? Can humility exist in the clamor and rancor? So often humility exists in the silence of not having the last word, the silence of restraint, the silence of allowing the other person the triumphant moment and trusting that in time, God will do His work.

Can holiness exist in sarcasm and verbal barbs? Is it enough to extol grace while using the excuse that because Jesus went after the Pharisees, I ought to, too? Can I be anything but a mirror image of those I respond to, when my aim is very much to respond?

Time away from all of these blogs has given me fresh eyes, and I don't doubt that someone -- perhaps a late night web surfer interested in the person of Jesus Christ -- stumbling upon either variety of blog would turn away disgusted.

The idea is noble, the desire may be true, but the medium's effect on the message can't be disguised.

Less words, more faith. Less words, more works. Less words.

I continued to clear out my bookmarks and blogroll. I am not yet fully decided on the value of online religious debate and discussion, but I think I am getting close.

Labels: blogging, christianity

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Right click, copy, paste in the address bar. Beware!!!

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 4 comments link this post

::The title contains the instructions to see any of the following links.::

Oh, to be taken so seriously to have your own warning label. Chris Lyons, from CRN.info (a blog I contribute to) has his own "beware!" page. Oh, to be the subject of a blog post with cherry-picked proof*.

Wanna read all the mess? You can sift through this post (this link you can click on like you normally would) and its meandering topics on your day off.

Part of me just sort of sits here, mildly bewildered. Warning pages? Two-column bulleted warning pages with supporting (and, again, cherry-picked) "evidence"?

I think I'm going to make my own warning page, warning others about me. Nothing screams "obsessed!" and "insecure!" and "short-man syndrome!" like making over-kill warning pages about another blogger.

UPDATE: I made my own page. Yes I did.

----------------------------------------------

*Note the date on that post -- 2000 -- though it be new from 2007, which means it doesn't show up on the main blog page for general readers like a normal blog post but serves well as a sub-page for the beware page, which is all convoluted and infantile somewhat in keeping with deflecting incoming links, which is why you have the title instructions that you do. That, and the fact that the comments selected are highly...selective...denotes something a little less than transparency and indicates a less than strong case which can't withstand anything but supporting facts. There are comments from the actual blog writers (at CRN.info) in question, of which I am one, reprimanding or cautioning each other that would negate some of what is suggested in the warning post, comments that are not used in favor of using only comments of outsiders doing that. For example, a good chunk of comments from this post would do the trick, in which all of the writers of the blog do not agree and do take a person to task. Less than honest = lie.

Labels: blogging

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Spiritual astringent.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 6 comments link this post

Friday and today have become a huge, sucking vacuum. I have spent nigh unto ten hours at the computer, waging a word battle for nothing.

I never do this. I hate it when people do this. I did this.

First, I blogged here. Then I blogged there. Then, the comments sections exploded and I not only didn't get out of the way, I lit a few matches, too. Do you have many hours to waste? You might be able to read all the comments in the posts in question, including this one (you must right click, copy link, and paste in a new window -- the link won't work directly), which is what inspired me to blog the other two.

The experience has left me absolutely spiritually dry.

And also revealed something to me about the way people use scripture.

Some people use a specific verse or chapter method. They "apply" a specific verse as is, the words directly, little or no context, or sense of the entire Word of God and how the scripture fits into the whole. Ba-da-boom. Applied. Quick jabs and stabs.¹

Some people do not just see isolated chunks of scripture, divisions of non-relation between Old and New Testament, beginnings and ends -- some see the whole package and apply scripture as a whole.

When I read a book, I don't talk about it in parts. I talk about the entire package, all that I've learned and the entire message -- the whole thing. The parts are intentionally connected and therefore, rely upon each other and are all important. This is like the latter method of using scripture. It's not a cop out. It doesn't tremble at what seem like contradictions. It takes it all in as a whole instead of unrelated pieces and finds the message found within the similarities and contradictions. It's a working, living, book.

I made a comment about the contradictions that seem to exist in the Bible:

Do you think that the Bible isn't contradictory? What would it mean if it was?

I mean, really. I'm not saying that any contradictions would negate the Bible as authority and truth -- I often find that contradictions and paradoxes are only seen that way to humans with our limited viewpoint, but that paradoxes and contradictions actually create a deeper picture. You know, like death being life, the strong being weak...

I often wonder why people run from any hint that there might be contradictions in the Bible, as if that makes it untrue. I believe the Bible is wholly true and the inspired word of God and also contains what appear to us humans as "contradictions." That's a living, breathing book, the Bible. It exists in history and through time and out of time, being from the past now in the present and already mapping out the future in a sense -- it's the Word. Of course it is going to seem to contradict and confuse -- we are trapped in some kind of limited view in linear time.

I find the contradictions and impossibilities of agreement on interpretation exciting. You know, Joe, what you said about some Christians coming to one conclusion and others coming to a different conclusion, but both being Christians nonetheless… that would seem to be a contradiction. An impossibility. How could God tell his people different things? Oh, but we just don't know what God is doing, his larger plan, and why he could possibly want "soldiers" that aren't all marching the same way when that's how we think it should be. I think the contradictions strengthen the "truthiness" of the Bible, not weaken it.

In the second post I wrote, I was accused of not using scripture. I found this confusing, since all that I was trying to say has come from my Bible reading and study, and the notes I've taken over the years. My entire world view and thought process comes from that. To me, what I think and do and say is using scripture in the most broadest and intentional sense.

But, you see, I wasn't hacking out chunks of chapters, throwing out specific verses. I wasn't saying things like "according to Eph. 1:8" or "this situation should have 1 Corinthians 1:6 applied to it." So I wasn't using scripture, in their eyes. One reason I was wary to write for that blog, even when asked and assured it would be OK, is that I am not that kind of person, the one who bandies about words like "exegete" and "hermeneutics" -- I'm an average, plain Jane who reads her Bible with trust that the Spirit will reveal it to me, and I keep building on each reading to create the whole being I am in the Word.

I feel like I've taken a wee bit of a whopping because I'm not a Bible scholar in that traditional sense.

I was told by one young lady that she had no respect for arguments not based in scripture, which she seemed to be suggesting I was doing.

Interesting.

My whole existence is based in scripture. I just haven't divided it all up into compartments and verses and applications for specific areas of life. I would never whip out a verse and "apply" it to someone without considering as many more related bits of scripture as I could remember, and using them all together. I haven't relegated Old Testament to being Old and New testament to being relevant. They are part and parcel of the same story. The beginning and the end at once. Not a start and finish, but the entire Word. It's a whole. The Word of God lives, and it lives in me.

But, all in all, I can say that the entire experience has left me really, really, really wanting to avoid these kinds of Christians. And not sure if I'll take the time to write another post like that. For, being the only woman writer at that blog, I was called "emotional" (by another of the male writers, no less) while I've never seen the male writers called that. Apparently, I have to overcompensate and become dispassionate, removed or almost disinterested so as to avoid being seen as another "emotional" female.

Exhausting. Sucked the life right out of my spirit. I'm glad tomorrow is Sunday. I need it. Thank God for church. I mean that. Good Christian people who love and know me -- I'm barely able to wait.

Moral of the story: Are you spiritually dry? Stop blogging. Get to church!

-----------------------------

¹ This cut-and-slice vs. as-a-whole method that I believe creates some of the argument over the topic at hand, which is, essentially, the position of women in the church, specifically as pastor. I would try to include OT examples, while being told to use NT scripture only. Since I do not see why there should be some kind of disconnect, but that both OT and NT teachings, examples and stories of women should be considered, the argument went on interminably. The strictest adherents on what a woman is not allowed to do feverishly quote select verses written by Paul. They are not to be discounted, those verses, but should be added into th whole, which includes OT examples, the example of Jesus and how he treated women, and Paul's own references to people like Phoebe who was a leader (some say deacon) in a church.

But the slice-and-dicers insist on Paul only. NT only. And Phoebe doesn't count because you're misinterpreting that. It is a strangely partitioned way of looking at scripture, and I don't understand how they are comfortable with that.

Labels: bible, blogging, christianity, guest blogging

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

I know more than my pastor.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 0 comments link this post

I want to first state that I, personally, DO NOT know more than my pastor, nor do I know more than just about any other Christian.

The title is a reference to an article written on blogging and Christians. While I may write more about it in the future, I'm going to provide the links to the article, and reactions to it, only. Let me know what you think.

We know more than our pastors. (PDF)
Jolly Blogger responds: Tim Bednar's Paper - "We Know More Than Our Pastors"
Adrian Warnock talks about blogging, discernment and a new book by Tim Challies.
Wikipedia entry - Cyerchurch

Hat Tip: CRN.info

Labels: blogging, christianity

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

The Great Commission and the Internet.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 2 comments link this post

::This is the "theory" I have about blogs and Christians, that I mentioned in this post.::

The Internet should be a marvelous tool to spread the message of Christ. And it is. There are so many web sites and ministries and charitable organizations that have used it to do amazing things. I'm not even going to attempt to highlight that aspect of it. Just the ease at which it has made charitable giving and organizational updates alone...

This isn't a post about that.

It's about blogs, Christians, and what gets magnified when the two meet.

Blogging's strength is in giving a voice to anyone who has an internet connection. It shares and spreads and breaks news. It opens up discussions and thoughts that previously were reserved for universities or published authors or coffee shops. It breaks down geographic barriers and allows people to no longer limit their connections based on interests within geographic boundaries.

Oh, but the weaknesses. The weakness that is "free speech", which is why I have the comments rules section that I have.

In a post that really had nothing to do with the topic at hand here, a comment was left that stated "...I find most of the anti-discernment bloggers-discernment bloggers also the ecm, to be excessively religious and prideful, to the point of elitism."

I left a comment, because something struck me in a kind of "new idea taking root in my mind" way that often happens:

If this had been phrased "anti-discernment bloggers, discernment bloggers, and ecm bloggers" I could have easily pointed out the clear problem: they’re bloggers.

It takes a certain kind of pride and elitism to blog, since you assume anyone wants to read what you’ve written.

But back to the original…if these three are such, then which kind of Christian blog/blogger isn’t in danger of being "excessively religious and prideful"?

I have a theory that part of the problem is the blog itself, that when a writer decides something like "my blog is going to be about Rick Warren leading the world astray!" or "my blog is about truth in discernment!" it becomes incredibly limited and makes the blogger create mountains out of molehills just to keep the blog fresh. (Example: Apprising Ministries)

If the focus, however, isn’t one of such limiting format (maybe like "my blog is about living the Christian life" which opens it to a lot of stuff), the blogger does not have to always look for trouble and turn themselves into a complainer or nit-picker or some such thing.

I have started to think that the narrower the focus of the blog/blog ministry, the more detrimental it is to the Gospel of Christ.

Do you know how many blogs out there have "ministry" in the title, let alone how many blogs are by writers considering their blog a "ministry" but not putting it in the title? A random and completely lazy Technorati search for "blogs about ministry" turns up a mere 4,000+, but I know that's not even close.

Let's imagine you're a person deciding to start a blog and consider it your official ministry, your duty to God to blog. If you're serious, you're going to start digging, and then you'll find yourself digging when there's no more dirt left to dig. After all, you need to keep people coming, need to keep people sending money to support your ministry. Again, the best example I can use here is Apprising Ministries' infamous appeals for funding, thought I'm not trying to beat a dead horse.

If the world of Christianity isn't as bad as you've made it out to be, why would anyone send money? You have to tell them that it is. People pay for bad and alarming news because it's a kind of tension that we enjoy and can milk for negativity. It's a spur in the side, it keeps us going. People don't tenaciously support ministries of Good News and Glad Tidings of Great Joy like they do ministries about Apostasy! and Come Lord Jesus and Save Us, The Remnant.

The first thing I decided that I would have to do is consider myself. I am a Christian, and I blog. I made a kind of question check-list to see if I'm going off the deep-end into yappy kick-dog land over on my main Lone Prairie Blog:

Do I have a list of targets that I keep taking pot shots at continually?
Do I have a list of topics that I can't let go?
Have I made grandiose statements about how certain I am of something due to God telling me it was so?
Do I sound like a rabid foil to Christopher Hitchens?
Am I using my past posts as proof of being right in new posts?

Let's see how I fared.

I would say no. I've gotten better. For a while there were a lot of posts about a certain defunct-now-reborn web site which ended up with me making a category out of it as a euphemism for "ministries" that I find revolting. In the past, there were a few weeks where I was clearly upset with that particular site, but I think I've managed to balance that out now.

I write a lot about how we treat each other, and about relationships, communication, caring and so on with other people. Stuff like that. But I don't think it seems disproportionate. I have a lot under the "my life" category, which sort of serves as my "miscellaneous" category; I don't think that would count as obsessing over a specific topic.

Never. In fact, if I am honest, I allow too much self-deprecation and self-loathing to surface.

No. I don't think I come off as a die-hard anything, absolutely-sure of everything kind of person.

I do reference past posts a lot, but not as "proofs" since I rarely try to prove anything on the blog. I don't consider it to be like Geometry, but I do use past posts to avoid explaining something I've already said to new readers or those who may have forgotten.

I don't consider any of my blogs to be official "ministries", though I've gotten enough emails from people responding to things I've written to know that God can use what I've written. I wonder, then, if the problem isn't like that of the concept of "ministry" in the first place, one I've often commented to others about.

Ministry, as a Christian, is your life. Aren't we all called to the ministry? To separate it out as something that must not be polluted with a regular job and life and interaction with people makes it into the blog version of Mountains and Molehills. The focus shouldn't be the ministry, but Christ. It's easy to lose sight of that in a daily press for new content and funds to raise.

There is no Lone Prairie Ministry. That doesn't mean there is no Lone Prairie ministry.

Blogs live or die on fresh, updated content. They are the opposite of static communication. Small-focus "ministry" blogs combine with this fact and magnify the worst aspects of forced new-ness while turning the strength of blogging (a voice for everyone, read by everyone) into a huge harming blow for the Gospel of Christ.

What do you think? Did I accurately assess my own blog? The situation? Thoughts?

Labels: blogging, christianity, critique, discussion

SECTIONS

TODAY'S HEADLINES

TOPICS

LINKS

I've been blogrolled.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

A perfect coalescence.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

I neither agree nor disagree.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

I swear, I wonder.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Bitter and whining.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Guise in disguise.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Right click, copy, paste in the address bar. Beware!!!

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Spiritual astringent.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

I know more than my pastor.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

The Great Commission and the Internet.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

LONE PRAIRIE STUDIES LINKS

Get Lone Prairie Studies on your cell phone!

HELP

SUBSCRIPTIONS

ABOUT THIS BLOG

PREVIOUS POSTS

ARCHIVES

MISC. STUFF