These are a few of the things I've recently found interesting, but don't have the time to properly blog on. I don't necessarily like or agree with the links here, I just think they're interesting. And just in case you do, too, enjoy.

(You can view past Del.icio.us links here or subscribe to my Del.icio.us feed here. )

I submit for your consideration two apparently unrelated questions:

• Is the Assemblies of God a cult?
• Is Wikipedia an authoritative encyclopedia?

I submit that the Assemblies of God is as much like a cult as the Wikipedia is authoritative. We are, instead, a movement.

A Word on Wikipedia
Over the last few months Wikipedia has taken much heat over its collaborative form of public authoring and editing. Nearly anyone can post an article, make an edit, or undo edits. This is good, and not-so-good: The good of it is that Wikipedia benefits from the collective mind of many editors. Where one editor may have it wrong, several others can guide an article to incremental perfection (in theory). On the other hand, one misinformed or biased "editor" can make subtle or egregious changes, and it may not come to the attention of those best armed to correct it. Thus, Wikipedia's

Updated 01/09/2006: See my reference to Dan Edelen’s recent post, below.

Last Tuesday, I was asleep at the wheel when Eric Reed over at Out of Ur invited Dr. Craig L. Blomberg to post a thoughtful article on blogging and the Evangelical blogosphere. I finally saw the post today, and thought it worth sharing.

It’s easy to read Blomberg’s post as entirely critical. It’s not. But he does ask some hard questions worthy of consideration. His post, indeed, may be a sort of litmus test for motives: if you see it as overly critical, perhaps you’re the inspiration for his questions? I quote, below, a few excerpts, but the whole post is worth reading. My response, posted to the site, follows.

If Marshall McLuhan was even partly right that “the medium is the message,” then what message does the medium of blogging send?