I think this actually describes the Reformed presence on the Web from 1995 to 2010

The original idea of the site was to gather a diverse group of writers and guest contributors who would then write about the “intersection of theology and life”. This could find its expression in art, poetry, prose, meditation, short fiction, or more typical non-fiction theological fare. But in the end, I wanted it to be the expression of hearts whose affections had been inflamed by the deeper truths of who God is.

And I think we greatly succeeded in this. The vast majority of writings on the site certainly constituted this calibre of expression. It was exciting. But then people, due to life and such, stopped writing. Eventually, in my desperation to get somebody–anybody–to consistently write, I let the quality of the posts at times slip. The site’s readership, for one reason another (probably because it had the word “Reform” in it) began to appeal and primarily lead towards the … groupies and wanna-be’s; the “TR’s” as we would call them at my seminary (the “Totally Reformed!”). It just wasn’t fun and fruitful anymore when the hyper-Calvinistic theology police came to town, and it all went downhill from there, until no one was writing anything, and the only other person that had written as much as I had on the site deleted all of her stuff off the site, on the off-chance that someone would find her name attached to it someday.

via Reform & Revive: officially shutting down | the long way home.

[Note: I edited out a couple of specific names because they have nothing to do with why this description appealed to me. In my experience, the “wanna-be’s” of people whom I respect are still destructive. It is not the teacher’s fault as far as I can tell. In any case, I have no experience with such specific people and they are not really the issue of why I thought it was worth quoting this description.]

1 thought on “I think this actually describes the Reformed presence on the Web from 1995 to 2010

  1. Daniel

    I foresaw this in 1999. It’s why I use a pseudonym for that stuff. Not because of unwillingness to stand behind my opinions (as is sometimes supposed by those not writing under a nom de plume) but so that I could, in fact, write what I really thought.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *