A Quick Note of NO - Thanks!
Mark Lamprecht of Here I Blog did not win the Blogging Scholarship. He did not come in second or third place. He came in sixth. Mark has graciously written "A Quick Note of Thanks" on his blog to those who voted for him and those- like James White, Frank Turk, and Tim Challies- who helped promote his cause on their respected, high-traffic blogs. This post is a corresponding NO - thanks, because I am disappointed that the Christian blog-o-sphere couldn't (or wouldn't) more effectively pull together to help a brother out. So NO thank you to those who did not take a couple of seconds out of your day to vote for Mark, and NO thank you to those who ignored my e-mail requests to place a link for Mark on your websites/blogs. Your verses for the day are: Luke 6:31 and James 2:16.
Labels: personal
posted by Andrew Lindsey | 4:28 PM
4 Comments:
I hope and trust that this post is intended to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, particularly because the verses quoted at the end are sorely misapplied to this context.
I voted for Mark just about every day I was near a computer, but I only did so because I know him personally and can attest to his gifts, desires, etc. If I had not known Mark and known him for many years, I probably would not have voted for him --and certainly not as frequently as I did.
Being a Christian does not make one more deserving of the scholarship than others, and its sad when people imply otherwise. The contest was a legitimate *contest*, and was NOT intended to be a mere popularity contest. A responsible Christian would do the research, consider the other contestants, and honestly judge whether or not the Christian actually is the "top blogger" in the list.
Furthermore, I can also attest to Mark's financial situation, and I realized that he could really use the funds. But if I had not known Mark, I would probably be more inclined to investigate the other bloggers to see if any where in a worse financial situation.
I fear that we are too quick to sinfully show partiality to some people simply because they are Christians. Faith in Christ is not a trump-card that nullifies our responsibility to be honest, just, and equal in secular matters and when unbelievers are involved.
All it said was "who should win the blogging scholarship" there were no objective criteria being circumvented by voting for someone simply because he is a Christian and going to use the money for an institution dedicated to kingdom purposes.
"All it said was "who should win the blogging scholarship" there were no objective criteria being circumvented by voting for someone simply because he is a Christian and going to use the money for an institution dedicated to kingdom purposes."
I kindly suggest that you misunderstood or misread the details of the contest, and perhaps the entire website itself. There were links to the blog of each contestant so that voters could read and judge who was most deserving. Again, this was not intended to be a mere popularity contest, even though that's what it ultimately boiled down to.
I am not suggesting that anyone was intentionally circumventing the criteria; one must vote from their own reasons, understandings, and convictions. I am suggesting that your reproof of 'NO - thanks', and most specifically, your use of scripture in this post, is misguided. I think one can find very good and sound reason for voting for someone else in the contest, or not voting at all, and should not be reproved for that.
That being said - I am thankful for your efforts in promoting Mark. He is a dear brother and I was sad that he didn't win the scholarship.
Whereas you might make some good points in regard to a hypothetical Christian reading this post, I believe the "NO-thanks" and the use of Scripture were legitimate in regards to the intended audience: i.e., those who are actually likely to read this post.
Because I would be shocked if there were any actual Christian who followed the link to the contest from HIB or here or Challies or AOMin or Pyros, and then, upon examining the blogs, decided to vote for the Shark blog or the Sports blog, etc. every day. Instead, it seems likely that there were many people who glanced at the links just mentioned, and then did not bother to vote at all, although the process only took a couple of seconds out of the day. In this case, the admonition of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" does apply.
Post a Comment
<< Home