UPDATE: June 2, 2009

UPDATE: June 1, 2009:

My most recent comment

I may have further updates.

Check it out:

One of the Top Bloggers in the World is a Christian
Posted by mister2mike on Thursday May 21st, 2009 at 14:28
Remove mister2mike From Friends [That's link-text provided to all users on all BlogCatalog Broadcasts. It doesn't mean that I deleted Mikes as a friend on BlogCatalog. I just pasted it as text and not as the link BlogCatalog offered me on Mikes's Broadcast.]

Read it here from my favorite blogs:

Praise the Lord!

6 Responses

5/21/09 8:00 PM
A person blogging who is fairly privately (Internetwise) professing Christianity — not a "Christian" blog, per se

Of course, your title, "One of the Top Bloggers in the World is a Christian," doesn't claim the blog is "Christian."

Why though does anyone have to figure out that he's a Christian? Why doesn't he proclaim it right on his front page? Would traffic fall off and revenue decrease? What are his priorities?

These are real questions and not condemnations.

As you know Mikes, I have a problem with people posing as one thing and claiming something else — I AM referring to a certain atheist we both "know."

I did not (yet) leave a comment on the churchcrunch site post.

Peace, Brother

P.S. Why did you not do a post on this?

5/21/09 8:30 PM
I added the following comment over on the churchcrunch post:

Hello All,

Pardon me if this ends up a duplicate comment post since my first effort didn't seem to go through properly.

A person blogging who is fairly privately (Internet-wise) professing Christianity — not a "Christian" blog, per se

Why does anyone have to figure out that he's a Christian? Why doesn't he proclaim it right on his front page? Would traffic fall off and revenue decrease? What are his priorities? These are real questions and not condemnations.

I have a problem with people posing as one thing and claiming something else. I had a huge run-in with a certain atheist over it and was banned from Entrecard on account of it. Please don't take it that I'm putting this fellow, Darren Rowse, into the same category.

What does Arianna Huffington profess? Her blog is rated number 1 by Technorati.

For: The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project
Tom [last name deleted due to BlogCatalog TOS]

5/21/09 10:30 PM
Hi Tom,

you are dear to me. You're one Christian Brother that i respect in this blogosphere. But here's my take on this. We have gifting. We have skills and talents where God can use us mightily. Business owners handle their businesses, celebrities do their stuff, singers sing and they remain to be Christians and they praise the Lord with their talents. I have written something similar about this here: darren's gift is in helping other bloggers and that's what he's doing and that's his way of being a blessing.

5/22/09 10:36 PM
I love how Darren expresses his Christianity. He is very clear. He is a Christian. His business is based on Christian values yet he has a business to run.

He doesnt use Christianity as a business tool which I respect.

5/24/09 9:05 PM
Hi Mikes,

Well, Mikes, I did write, "These are real questions and not condemnations." I also wrote, "Please don't take it that I'm putting this fellow, Darren Rowse, into the same category [as the atheist]." Now, how were my comment and questions received?

Rather than honest responses to flesh out the post author's positions, they were received with censorship (twice). Obviously, is for those who will not raise questions. If you hold with them, so be it. I don't. I don't close the door on you in saying it either. I leave it to you to ponder with the Holy Spirit of truth.

Also, my question about Arianna Huffington was to suggest that one would have to actually ask all the higher-ranked bloggers on Technorati before ruling them out for purposes of making the statement made by the post.

Frankly my friend, there's much more going on here than is meeting your eye.


5/24/09 9:19 PM
Hello All,

By the way, I still haven't received an answer to my specific questions. Was it a conscious decision to keep his profession of Christianity separate from his business? Where I wanted to go with it is, "Why?" My knowledge includes that people who are against Christianity are out to marginalize it in a huge way and would definitely stop visiting his site if he even remotely were to suggest his faith in the open there. I would also not consider such a suggestion as necessarily "using" his Christianity to gain the business of others professing Christianity. So you see, by censoring me, Church Crunch has actually worked against what is best for Christianity and itself, unless it has another agenda and is not simply confused in the mundane on this issue.

Still Peace,

Update June 2, 2009:

Okay, as the author wrote, this gets curiouser and curiouser.

Mikes knows John of Church Crunch. How well he knows him only Mikes and John can say in the mundane (God knows). I don't know their history or connections. Mikes has been acting a bit as an arbiter you might say.

Now John has made clear that he is dropping this issue, which is his prerogative. He did that before explaining why my comment showed and then disappeared. Now, the same thing has happened on Mikes's site, which also happens to be using Intense Debate.

In keeping with my comment below that I would endeavor to make contact where my comments don't show up or disappear or whatever (which I have often done — I won't belabor it here), I contacted Mikes as follows:

Hey Mikes,

I followed your post to:

I left a comment there and then duplicated it on your post:

It showed up.

Then, I discovered that my impression that Perez Hilton was a female was incorrect. When I went to return to add a clarification, I saw that my comment was no longer on your post.

Now, considering what I just went through with Church Crunch, did you delete my comment or what? If you did delete it, was it because of referring to Perez as "she"? Anyway, I'd like to know why the comment isn't there.

Here's the comment less the little intro language I had added:

Hi Marlo and All,

I was led here by Mikes of "Your Daily Word." I see he's already provided a link above, so I won't duplicate it here.

First, I don't have a TV and haven't seen the "surfing" photos. Whether that adds to my objectivity or not, I leave to you. I will say that if she posed in a way she shouldn't have, that was an unchristian moment. It doesn't resign her to everlasting damnation, especially provided she has repented. God is merciful and forgiving. So we are to be also. Now, that also applies to Perez Hilton.

Perez though has yet to repent. She's busy creating a different world from the kingdom, and she knows it full well. Even still, we are to forgive her as well but in a qualified sense, meaning we aren't to condone her errors but be always ready to receive her into the body if she comes in earnest.

The whole culture puts pressure on both of them to look and act a certain way: to be sexy to some but sluttish to others. I like wholesomeness. I wish I had never been introduced to contrivance. Where's that leave me vis-a-vis the Miss California spectacle? Not interested is the real answer.

If the young woman is heterosexual and believes that homosexuality is an error, harmful, and unchristian and says so, how can she be held up to the purest standard before even knowing what that is? The contest contains others who don't even hold that homosexuality is harmful at all but rather a great thing? The purest of the pure won't even be in such a contest. Let's be honest.

The whole thing is surreal. It's all make believe. It's a fake world.

Society needs to stop promoting the fake. We need people to be real.

Tom Usher
Real Liberal Christian Church



Now, I won't duplicate Mikes's reply since I didn't ask him if that would be alright. I will say though that he says he doesn't know why the comment is gone. I have asked him some more questions and commented as follows:

Hello Mikes,

I'm going to add this info to the Church Crunch post for the sake of openness and getting to the bottom of things.

Did you know that I had submitted the comment and that it was there on your post for a while?

Of course, I assume you've checked, or are going to check, on your end concerning Intense Debate.

I can't see much on my side of the issue. When I log in at Intense Debate, I can't even see or access my comments anywhere that I can tell. Maybe I'm missing something. It seems weak that they don't show a history of a users comments including those that were deleted or sent to spam or whatever.

The timing of this, what with what happened over on Church Crunch, seems to indicate that it's possible there's something about me such that my comments are being handle by Intense Debate in a different manner than the comments of at least the vast majority of other Intense Debate users. Whether that's deliberate on Intense Debates' part remains to be seen.

It's not the only possibility though.

This reminds me of when I was apparently the only (or one of just a few) on Entrecard whose ads weren't running. I never did receive an explanation from them before I was banned.

What are the odds concerning all of this — including all the other places where my comments and articles, etc., have been censored and/or banned (dozens)?

You and I both know that there is spirit at work. Things don't just happen.

Some will say I'm being paranoid, but they are naive about the lengths some souls will go to, to suppress the options I put forth: Total pacifism, giving and sharing all as one fold, and sexual harmlessness.

There are definitely people who conspire to suppress and persecute on account of their opposition to the Christian Commons Project.



The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Interesting discussion:

      a few thoughts:

      1. I don't hide my faith. In fact in my book (by the same name as my blog 'ProBlogger) I tell my story of becoming a blogger and talk quite openly about how I started with a blog focussing upon issues of faith, spirituality, culture and church planting. I also talk about my background as a minister. While I don't talk about my faith in every post I have talked about it on my blog numerous times in different ways - it's by no means a secret or private.

      2. Having said that - my blog and business is not about my faith - it's about blogging and so it's not really appropriate to always be twisting my posts to the topic of faith. The times I do mention it are always as an illustration or story behind another point I'm making - ie I keep my posts on topic and relevant to the topic of the blog.

      3. For me blogging has become many things. It is of course how I pay my bills/mortgage but it's also something that opens up all kinds of possibilities to have conversations with people and share in God's kingdom building activities. While there's certainly no 'preaching' going on on my blogs it's been amazing to see God at work in and around what I do.

      A few thoughts on my take on 'mission':

      - My take on mission is that 'we' join 'God' in his work - God's at work around us and it's our role to spot what he's doing and join in. I see God at work everyday on the web - particularly in the blogosphere - I feel strongly that I'm in the right place interacting in these places.

      - I also take seriously the call to 'Go' into the world. In my mind this means we need to be going into the places where people are gathering and build relationships there rather than always expecting them to come to us. I guess this is part of the reason that I decided to switch from having a 'Christian Blog' (I always find that term humerous.... my blog never responded to an alter call, prayed 'the prayer', was baptised yet it was always called 'Christian) to having blogs that were more focused upon other topics that were more accessible to others.

      By no means am I anti blogs focused upon issues of Christian faith - I guess I just feel it's right for me to be taking another approach at this time.

      Hope that clarifies where I'm coming from.

      Darren Rowse

      • Hi Darren,

        I'm glad you did this for all concerned. Last night, I was moved to think about people asking me why I hadn't gone to your site to put the questions directly to you. My thoughts ran to how since your site is not geared to that, it would be even more misunderstood (offensive at least to some) than my comment I left on Church Crunch (deleted twice).

        I did understand that you don't "hide" your faith in the sense you mean it else the Church Crunch author would not have known of your professing Christianity. As you know, there is only so much groundwork one is able to do in a short comment.

        In addition, perhaps that author understates your openness about Christianity. I don't want to assign too much in the way of error to that author, as I require some benefit of the doubt, especially at first, else I'd be banned and censored more often than I already am, which is all too often.

        I fully understand not writing about "faith," per se (using the term or something similar) in every blog post. I don't do it either. My question was heading to whether or not Christianity is being marginalized and stigmatized by antichrists and whether you made a conscious decision to avoid putting "Christian" somehow right up front (prominent — cant' miss it) on your blog for fear of reduced traffic or profits.

        Now, let me say that I am not one for chasing people down the street with Christian tracts in hand. When people see me, they aren't going to know my religious persuasion by any outwards signs other than my actions. I wear no cross or vestments or pronouncements on my shirts, etc. I'm might in future but certainly not to be seen of men, so to speak.

        As for the rest of your comment and consistent with what I've already written above, it is certainly a judgment call as to where one starts and stops placing Christianity front and center. My desire in commenting was absolutely not to offend but rather end up in a position of encouraging others not to shrink back for commercial reasons from taking a stand for the message of Jesus, which is even anti-commercial in the end. I don't mask my position that the current worldly system has people stuck (unless we do something together about it) in the commercial cycle. I do offer the alternative, which is the Christian Commons Project.

        I appreciate your approach here. You don't come across as having been threatened by my questions but took them as an opportunity to express how in a more layman's environment, you feel able to touch even more lives.

        I still see the marginalization efforts in full swing and want Christians not to succumb. Of course, those who do and don't turn back and repent really weren't part of the fold afterall, as we know.

        Thank you for stopping in and commenting. I was looking forward to it. Please return. Read more about my theological take. Comment further.

        Peace, Darren,

        Tom Usher

    • Thanks for the followup - hope my comment above didn't come across as defensive on rereading it I wonder if I rushed it a little - I had my boys buzzing around me at the time :-)

      Your question about whether Christianity is being marginalized and stigmatized is an interesting one. I personally don't feel any marginalization really. In the 7 years I've been blogging I can only think of one occasion when a reader made any kind of negative comment/attack on my faith - and even in that instance it was a comment in passing and not the real point of his attack.

      Perhaps I would have had more if I'd been more prominent with my declarations of faith (as I say I don't hide it but don't proclaim it regularly) but if anything I suspect that talking about my background as a minister perhaps could have even made me seem a more trustworthy person in some people's eyes.

      Anyway - the long and short of it - my less than forthright declarations of faith probably have more to do with my personality and views on mission than any fear that it'd impact business due to people marginalizing me.

      And lastly - no, I'm not threatened or offended at all by your post. I actually enjoy grappling with it as it helps me to make sense of this crazy journey that I've been on over the last 10 years of moving from a paid minister who only ever really 'ministered' to Christians to a paid blogger who sees opportunities to participate in the building of the Kingdom (rarely within Christian circles).

      Hope that rambling makes some kind of sense - this time while my kids are in bed it's approaching bed time here in Australia so again I wonder if I'm making a lot of sense :-)

      • Hey Darren,

        I'm sorry for the delay in "approving" comments. I'll whitelist you now. I was out running errands and do have to earn the dreaded, unrighteous, deceitful mammon to keep the bankers somewhat un-offended.

        Thanks for returning and further clarifying. I sense you are in earnest in your self-appraisal efforts.

        I didn't take your post as being unduly explanatory (if you want to read "defensive" there, it still wouldn't be casting stones at you). Frankly, Christians can be defensive without falling prey to the mundane use of the concept. I defend Jesus. So do you, I'm sure. We don't do it with swords to harm but rather truth to help. That's how I'm reading you at least in your general direction since I don't know you well enough to say much more on it.

        There is no doubt that fervency in declaration will bring on the opposition. More importantly though as I've discovered and expected is the message itself: One's theological positions. Mine are decidedly nonconformist. I have yet to run into anyone who actually agrees with all of even my (I say Jesus's) most general tenets. A few are close and perhaps closing in on it. I don't say I'm the one and only in the world. I just have yet to meet up with anyone.

        Anyway, this invites attackers from many quarters, as I'm a total pacifist, anti-capitalist (a Christian communists — not a Marxists at all), and for sexual harmlessness (stating openly that homosexuality is not harmless). It invites even more attacks because I take it other places on purpose to spread that word. Some may call it trolling. I don't look at my style or level of proselytizing or evangelizing as trolling though.

        Getting to the heart of your comment though, will you please expound on "building of the Kingdom (rarely within Christian circles)"? How do you build the Kingdom unbeknownst to the members of the circle, or do you actually reveal what's moving you? Do you just set an example? I don't say "just" as if setting the right example is insignificant. I ask this because I don't really believe in the clergy versus laity. I'm not a Protestant, per se, but I truly agree with the priesthood of all believers, including females. I also believe that Christianity is a whole way of life.

        Lastly, about marginalization, per se, I'm being regularly censored and even banned for standing up. Here in the States, there seems to be a big push on by the atheists to remove all things religious not just from government or public property but also from society as a whole. The attacks are particularly aimed at Fundamentalists (I'm not one of them as they see themselves) who fight "science." Freedom of religion is to give total way to "freedom from religion." A term I personally coined (it was original with me), but I may not have been the first to use it — likely I was not. I had used it back in my twenties concerning the secular government only. My father immediately used it in a statewide radio debate. After that, I started hearing it nationally. Now it has taken on societal-wide atheist adherents. My vision has evolved since then to where I now see that the separation of the real church and state is impossible to sustain. The American Founding Fathers had it wrong. That statement gains me many enemies here who hold up those founders as demigods.

        Anyway, I'm glad to have made contact with you. I hope your efforts are truly blessed. There's nothing wrong with helping people in their blogging needs, per se. Some people will put it to evil uses, but that's not something that can be laid at your doorstep just for having shared some technical or other facts with them. I too have put things on this blog when I thought it would be helpful. If a saint or demon uses the info, I can't control that. Jesus did say to do good to those who hate you though; so the demon may hate me, but I'm still not precluding setting the openly sharing example.

        Peace to You, Darren,


    • Thanks for pointing me to this post and I'm glad that Darren really left a comment to explain himself. Not to defend but to clarify things. I also appreciate your fight and efforts in really lifting up Jesus in every way we can and I praise the Lord for that. At the end of the day, let's just be christians who support each other in this blogosphere and who lifts up God and spread his Word in our unique ways as led by the Holy Spirit.

      • Dear brother Mikes,

        I know you realize that we come from different backgrounds in terms of our views as to what is and isn't Christian. I am positive that Jesus doesn't close the door on people who have a burning desire for truth no matter what. So long as someone is earnestly seeking truth, I'm fine with that one. However, there are people who are calling themselves Christians who obviously aren't interested in the implications of Jesus's words and deeds. I am not fine with that and will stand up against it for cause. I am equally positive that Jesus doesn't have a problem with my doing that and, in fact, supports it.

        Therefore, I will support the former (earnestly seeking truth) but not the latter, in the blogosphere or anywhere else. When I say support, I don't mean that I will ask that the Earth be opened to swallow the people who call themselves Christians but ignore and dodge the words of Jesus himself. That said, there will be a time and place where and when those who have had the starkest contrast put before them concerning right from wrong and still choose wrong will be "swallowed up." I put that in quotations to emphasize that the things that will befall them won't all be exactly alike. There are many, many paths to Hell.

        I hope this clarifies and meets with your approval.

        I did read your post about the American Idol contest and contestants. Frankly, I've never seen the show and have zero interest in it. One of the smartest moves the Holy Spirit ever put on me was getting rid of the TV. Not all the time I spent in front of it was wasted mind you, but it was time to outgrow it. Now I appreciate just seeing the occasional video that someone has saved that is attached to something highly relevant to the issue of right versus wrong.

        The difference between our approaches is the vision of what coming together in the Holy Spirit means. What does it look like in the final analysis? I see the Christian Commons. Are you inside or outside? What I mean by that is, does your work on your blog bring it or does it ultimately allow for American Idol and such, which of course doesn't fit in the Kingdom? I don't mean you're supposed to go into the studio with an axe. I'm opposed to violent, destructive coercion and using duress. Consequences for the secular world need to come out from the spirit rather than from the people professing Christianity. We aren't to be the punishers. We aren't to be the tormentors or torturers, hence my open stand against torture and my call to you to do likewise on your blog even if it means offending the torture-supporters. That's what I mean.

        I'm still dialoguing with you here because I believe you haven't considered it and probably have the heart for the Commons. I believe you are working at being a nice guy. I'm not doing that anymore. There are times I worked at being a bad guy (mundane rebel) and times I worked at being a nice guy. Now I just want the truth, which I know is the real "nice" for there's no hypocrisy in it.

        I don't say these things to be confrontational for the sake of confrontation. I say these things for the sake of running into like-minded/like-spirited souls (truth lovers) who will come together to bring forth.

        It appears to me that the main difference concerns depth of bringing forth. Is it enough just to profess and to be nice and friendly in the typical American senses of the terms? I say it is not. I say that nice and friendly means what Jesus would consider them as truly requiring in action/deeds (done in faith, yes, and done under the grace of God, yes). It's not nice and friendly to say that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality for instance seeing as how there are so many negative consequences aside from social. There are negative physical/mental/spiritual ramifications that arise with or without social reactions. We also aren't to mince words or avoid them about war or greed.

        Now, why did Church Crunch censor me and where do you stand on it? If you were to let them know that you don't think they should have done it, would you too be censored there? If so, so what? Would traffic to your blog fall off, or would you really be helping to enlighten souls about the issue? I say the latter. I say Jesus didn't conform for that very reason. This is the issue of what is and isn't supportive of Christianity. Church Crunch censoring me wasn't supportive.

        This is exactly the same issue as when Matt Oxley came here on behalf of Entrecard and threw the first punch and was decked by logic and truth but I was still banned. They did it to EuroYank, and I didn't let that die. Others however let things die and continue on with the worldly ones as if doing that will work.

        If we are to be Christians and still of, by, and for the antichrist world, I don't want it. I say that that vision is falsehood. To be Christian is to bring forth a different world not of, by, or for American Idol or anything like it, which supports the wrong spirit that is competitive rather than serving and cooperative.

        Let me know your deep, inner thoughts and feelings about it all.



    • Your comments were never deleted and your accusastions are false. Your comments were caught in a spam filter because you posted teh same thing twice: see image here:

      Please correct your statements.

      • John and All,

        This will be long of necessity.

        First, the comment showed up when I submitted it and not just to me. I Googled an expression from my submission wondering about what had happened. Google returned the phrase verbatim and indicated your post as the one and only place on the web were the expression (phrase) occurred. It was cached by Google until Google re-indexed the post after it had changed. The comment was definitively there to more than the submitter (me) to see. It was available to the general public and then disappeared. I checked it that way to rule out that it had shown up only to me.

        When I wrote,"...didn't seem to go through properly," I was not referring to spam filtering but perhaps some behind the scenes hiccup or manual error. When the second submission wasn't allowed (didn't even show up to me, contrary to the first showing up and then disappearing), I figured someone there had manually sent my first to spam after it had already shown up on the post or something. Of course, there are other ways to make the same thing happen, such as blacklisting for one. Regardless, the first comment submission showed up to the world and subsequently disappeared. It did not get filtered when first submitted, and I would not have submitted the second had the first remained visible. Comments that automatically go to spam don't show up on the post for the world to see, right? They go right to spam. Isn't that right? Submissions sent to moderation, depending upon the plugin or comment platform, are sometimes returned for the submitters eyes only with the statement that the comment is pending approval, during which time the blogger can manually send it to spam. Google doesn't see those, right? Google though had indexed my comment on your post.

        The point though is that the spam filter did not filter on account of a duplicate submission within a short period of time. It didn't happen for the reason that the first showed up and not just to me. Also, if memory serves, it was not just 10 minutes between submission attempts but much longer. I can't speak to Intense Debate (your platform) hiccups/bugs.

        I see that Mikes visited your blog earlier today and left you a question about this (raising it with you yet a second time). Your response is that you "delete only spam and bots." I see also that you have approved the second comment submission and have made the same claim on the post that you have made here.

        I not trying to have a "flaming" war with anyone. I'm just being censored and banned around the Internet and saying so openly. Since your spam explanation doesn't work, how do you explain what happened? You are asking for proof. Why in the world would I say these things happened if they didn't? I'm prepared to take a lie-detector test concerning all of the above. I would pass with flying colors. It's a shame I have to even write that.

        The comment was there and then disappeared. That's a fact. Spam filters don't do that, unless you are allowing all comments and then manually or somehow scheduling a spam review. Regardless, the first submission showed up and then disappeared before I submitted the second (thinking I had said nothing to merit being censored, I thought it might have been a scripting error/bug).

        Why was the second treated differently from the first? Why did the second not show up at all? Anyway, your explanation doesn't answer how the first comment showed up to the general public before disappearing.

        Furthermore, is it your habit not to check spam for days and days on end, especially when someone, Mikes, raises this issue and provides a link and I write so much about it where Mikes linked and I linked further to the RLCC site? That question is actually a distraction since the comment had shown on the post to the general public. It is more than strange that you wouldn't have checked when Mikes first raised the issue last week, with a link and all.

        John, if you can explain all of the above, I will gladly write and post a retraction.

        It is very peculiar that you waited so many days to address this issue. Mikes brought it to your attention very early on.

        As it now stands, I can't see how anyone would expect me to buy the explanation you've offered. I wish it weren't this way. I would love for this to be a simple misunderstanding. As Mikes knows very well, I'm "fighting" censorship and banning for standing up for the full-context message of Jesus against those who refuse it. I want you to be on the same side I'm on. This situation has given me pause. I have cause for that, as I've explained above.

        If I have it wrong, please accept my sincere apology for being stupid and ignorant in this case. If I am not wrong, and so far I can't see how I am, please offer up your own such apology.

        If it is beyond your ability to figure out what happened and you stand by that you didn't deliberately delete either submission and feel it was some complex comment-configuration issue, bug, or something, I will accept that and allow God to know your heart. Please do the same for me. I am not the enemy of truth.


    • I just posted a comment submission on the applicable ChurchCrunch post. It showed up immediately, just as my very first submission had:



      • 3 minutes ago



      • John Saddington has emailed me about this issue. He prefers that the content of the emails not be made public. I'm not one for publishing sensitive emails with names attached. The need to do that hasn't arisen.

        I will say that John's position remains that my first comment was spam. I don't understand how the comment showed and then disappeared in that case. I can only take it that John's position is that something happened that is beyond his ability to explain.

        Now, I've thought about this situation and in conjunction with John's communications with me, I've concluded the following:

        I will endeavor to make direct contact where a comment doesn't show before concluding that I've necessarily been censored. I have done that before (made contact). I didn't think it was warranted in this case, but it wouldn't have hurt.

        Secondly, I've been moved to realize that banning and censorship come with the territory: Christianity. Since I'm in it for the long haul (eternity) and since such banning and censorship has been happening for centuries and since I've been raising the issue as much as reasonably possible and since I haven't been met with much support, I must realize that the general population doesn't really give a damn relative to the other things that preoccupy them. So be it.

        I will continue to note when I'm banned or censored but not expect much from those who were never, and are not now, members of the fold (who care deeply about such things for the implications those things have for the many). Afterall, if I'm calling for peace and calling for giving and sharing all and calling for sexual harmlessness and yet being censored and banned for it, which I am, then the non-supportive people get what they deserve. They reap what they sow.