2008 In Review

This last year has been another fun blog for me. Of course, that may have been all it was -- fun for me -- but I hope some of you enjoyed it and, better yet, benefited from it.

I had a couple of personal plans I hoped to satisfy in the last year. As far as I can tell, I met my goal of at least one blog a day. I can't find any days I missed. I kept Sundays as an entry intended to inspire worship. I hope that was of use to some of you. And I tried to maintain an atmosphere of discussion and dialog rather than acrimony and assault. I think I did that, too. And I blogged about a couple of personal events. I told you about my father on Father's Day. I took you to my son's graduation in May and his wedding in June. I included a tribute to my mother-in-law who passed away in October. I tend to leave personal stuff out most of the time, but you got these little glimpses.

I had several entries on a subject near and dear to my heart. Reformed Theology is a valuable topic to me. I had 20 articles on that subject specifically. Of course, it came up more than 20 times in the year. A few that I thought stood out included a piece entitled Princess Bride Theology, comparing the "mostly dead" of that movie with the "mostly dead" of Arminian's "dead in sin." In another entry I talked about an error that we too often assume is true, that we choose to believe. We don't. One of the more fun articles on the subject (fun to me) was inspired by a paper my son wrote in college. I took it further and shared it with my readers. I called it St. John, the Calvinist, where I drew all the five points linked with Reformed Theology straight from the Gospel of John. And in TULI, I answered the basic questions that lead me to be a Calvinist not from Calvin or some other writer, but purely and simply from Scripture. (I left off "P" because it's not as hotly contested.)

I like Apologetics, but, frankly, I didn't do a whole lot on that topic this year. Well, not a whole lot specifically. I had four dedicated articles on the topic. I think it's of value, but also think that its primary value is to believers, to bolster their faith. Unbelievers are not going to be swayed by arguments, no matter how well stated they are or how valid they are. I still favor them; I just don't rely on them.

I had some 13 entries specifically aimed at humor. I'm not sure that's an accurate representation. I see humor in a lot of places. Sometimes I aim at it. Sometimes I just see it.

Of course, perhaps my two biggest topics this past year were obvious. First, there was politics. I mean, it was an election year. What would you expect? I didn't endorse any candidates. I didn't find one I could. I did bring up some serious concerns about Senator Obama. There was the issue of the pastor he was under for 20 years. There was my concern about exactly what the change was that he would bring. I was and continue to be concerned about the approach of "rob from the rich" that prevails. I find it hard to distinguish from socialism. And I am still concerned about his pro-abortion stand. Thankfully, I dropped the political discussion right after the election. The problem is in God's hands now.

I went to a couple of conferences this year and did some blogging of both. The first was in Orlando, Florida. The topic was Evangelism According to Jesus. I did summary entries for Thursday, Friday morning, Friday afternoon, and Saturday. In September I went to another Ligonier conference, this time here in Arizona. I did a few scattered entries on that one, too. (They were scattered because Ligonier's bloggers are much more thorough than I.) The topic this time was "Tough Questions Christians Face." You can find my articles here, here, here, and here. In these entries and their subsequent comments, I managed to convince an atheist that he was wrong. (Okay, that's not even remotely true. I was just throwing that out there to rib Dagoods if he's still reading this stuff.)

One recurring theme in my posts this year was on the topic of "same-sex marriage". It was thrust upon us in May when the California Supreme Court decided to strike down the vote of the people that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. My position from the first has been the same. While most people are concerned about the morality, I've been trying to point out the illogic. "Same-sex" cannot be "marriage" any more than "square" can be "round". It's not a matter of morality. It's a matter of definition. (And it is in that definition that the primary difference is found between "civil rights" and "gay rights" on the topic.) I argued more than once that Christians are largely at fault for failing to properly define marriage ourselves. The first, in fact, was over an Arizona proposition that made the ballot. The last was just this month. I tried to illustrate using Ted, a fictitious biker. I tried a more humorous approach using my son's wedding to explain it. I used a hypothetical conversation at a party to explain what happens when common definitions change.

I also approached the "cherished" perceptions. I questioned the "born that way" argument. I questioned the "civil rights" aspect of the argument. I disagreed with the position that this is an issue of freedom. I even questioned the perception of many Christians who argue "Homosexuality is a sin." Then there was a series on "what does it matter?" You know, the argument -- "Why should you care if the definition changes?" I explained what was at stake, why it was important to me as a Christian, and the bottom line problem -- if government and God don't count ... what makes marriage at all? There were actually more entries on the topic. Feel free to find them yourself.

There was more, lots more. I like the topic of marriage and hit it more than once. I did a couple on biblical elders, a few on global warming, and some on worship. I did a series on biblical manhood with an emphasis on fathers and husbands. I enjoyed the blog this year. I never seemed to run out of something to write about, thanks to current events, the blogosphere, and people and conversations. My readership has stayed even -- around 300 to 400 visits a week -- and I can't complain about that. (I don't know most of those 300 to 400 people.) And I'm very pleased that, even when my articles approached "controversial," I didn't experience any of the vitriol that so many others do. Maybe I'm doing something right. Or maybe -- perhaps more likely -- I'm flying under the radar. Who knows?

I wish for all my readers that you would enjoy a happy new year with, first and foremost, the blessings of a growing relationship with Christ.