Earlier this year, Eric over at Evangelical Underground presented the 1st Annual Evangelical Blog Awards. He gave recognition to some of the leading sites in the Christian blogosphere. Sadly, he did not recognize those bloggers who deserve demerit. That is what I intend to do today through the 1st Annual Christian Blogosphere Awards of Demerit. You can find the list of awards and winners right here, right now.

RSS Aggravation

This is awarded to the blogger who most often edits his or her posts, causing people with RSS Readers to scream in frustration at being notified multiple times about the same post.

And the winner is! Phil Johnson, the Pyromaniac. His obsession with detail may make him a fantastic book editor, but it is not so wonderful in blogging. Hey Phil! How about proofreading before you post an article? We don’t all want to be notified every time a comma becomes a semicolon!

Honorable mentions in this category go to:

• Amy of Amy’s Humble Musings who recently edited a post 11 times, possibly the record for a single post. In her defense, the post was announcing some pretty special news and she may have been a bit giddy. I’m willing to forgive her if you are.
• Centurion who likes to tamper with posts two or three days after they are first written.

Most In Need of a Template Change

This is awarded to the blogger who is most in need of a template change. This year’s award go to:

James White and his crew at Alpha & Omega Ministries. I am thankful that they fixed the most pressing of the Firefox problems (there are a few remaining!) and actually added some margins to the permalink pages, I think it’s time to upgrade. How many copies of Scripture Alone (great book, by the way) do we need to buy to convince you to find a new template?

Honorable mention goes to the Blogger or WordPress users who have the same template as any of 250,000 other bloggers (you know who you are). A quick Google search will turn up hundreds of free templates available to you. Why not try something new?

Blogroll Bloat

This is awarded to the blogger with the most bloated blogroll. These people do not seem to realize that each link they add to their blogroll decreases the value of every other link. While linking to some other blogs is expected and perhaps even necessary, blogrolling is a bit like drinking: it’s important to know when to draw the line.

This award goes to Dory at Wittenberg Gate. She has a whole lot of linking going on. I’m guessing that if she actually read even a tenth of those blogs she wouldn’t have time to do much else.

Honorable mentions go to the seperated-at-birth-brothers Jollyblogger and Adrian Warnock both of whom must feel obligated to post the full list of users associated with the aggregators they manage.

Worst Use of A Foreign Language

Using foreign languages in the title of a site is all the rage in the blogosphere. This award is given to the blogger who displays the worst use of foreign language.

And the winner is Schadenfreude. Because of people can’t pronounce it and can’t spell it, they can’t visit it.

Honorable mention goes to Echo Zoe. The name necessitates the use of special characters which appear on blogrolls as this gibberish - . Okay, then.

Design Discontentment

This is awarded to the blogger who shows the greatest discontent with the current state of his site’s template, no matter what the current state may be.

And the winner is…Tim Irvin of The Irvins. Tim constantly fiddles with his design (though usually for the better) and as this is being awarded, is transitioning from WordPress to Movabletype and starting with a whole new template. Again.

Honorable mention goes to What Is This. James is a web designer and so I feel his pain. But sooner or later you’ve got to just let it rest! I can’t think of any of his templates that have been bad, yet he rolls out a new design every couple of months.

Comment Ratio

This is awarded to the blog with the lowest ratio of comments to posts. It seems we have a tie in this category. This years co-winners are:

Boar’s Head Tavern and Alpha & Omega which each average precisely 0 comments per post. Coincidence? I think not!

Special Achievement in Demerit

This award goes to a blogger who shows special achievement in the blogosphere.

This year’s award goes to Hugh Hewitt, who, despite writing a book about the subject, does not offer many of the staples of effective blogging. His site has no RSS feed and features archives that are nearly impossible to negotiate. And yet he managed to figure out how to add a tip jar. Come on, Hugh, email me and I’ll get you all fixed up! It’s time to walk the talk here and get back on the cutting edge. How many copies of Blog do we need to…ah, never mind.

And that wraps up this year’s Christian Blogosphere Awards of Demerit. I hope you’ll join us again next year, when we once again poke fun at the best and worst of Christian blogging.

(Please take these awards in the spirit they are intended - a spirit of humor and deliberate exaggeration. It’s supposed to be funny. I take full responsibility for any lack of humor.)

Have you ever stopped to consider just how strange prayer is? Have you considered the implications of the fact that we, through our prayers, have the ability to interact with the God who is sovereign over all of the universe? It is a profound thought that God even changes the future (so to speak) based on our prayers.

Of course God does not need our prayers to accomplish His will, does He? He could rule this universe perfectly well without any input from the beings He created to inhabit it. Yet in His sovereignty He decided that this is how the world would operate. In some way He operates in such a way that He takes into consideration the needs and desires of His people. God does not answer every prayer. It is strange to think that in many cases godly men and women are praying for things that are exactly opposite. While the farmer prays for rain to water his crops, a pastor prays for sun during the church picnic.

Let’s stop for just a moment to consider how the world might be different if God answered every prayer, if indeed such a thing were possible. Imagine, for a moment, that you were present when Joseph was being assaulted by his brothers. There is little doubt that you would drop to your knees and ask that God would save him; that God would send someone to rescue Joseph and return him to his father. Or imagine that you were present with Mary and Martha when they were praying for their brother, Lazarus. You would have been beside them, praying over the inert form of Lazarus as he drew his last breath, begging that God would restore his health. Or what if you were present at the cross? Would you not have been praying for God to send the legion of angels to deliver the King from His cross?

What if God had answered your prayers? In each of these cases God knew exactly what had to happen in order for Him to accomplish His eternal purposes. As mere humans our ability to pray effectively is always limited by our limited knowledge.

Do you ever wish that you were better at praying? Or do you ever find yourself wishing that you had more confidence in your prayers? This lack of confidence seems to be especially difficult in my life. I often find that I really have no confidence that my prayers really make a difference or that God is even interested in hearing them. I sometimes feel like I am praying only for my own benefit and really am almost praying to myself rather than to God. I pray selfishly, even considering my own needs and comfort when praying for others.

In recent days I have been reading Praying Backwards by Bryan Chapell. It has a snappy title that refers to something I discovered not so long ago: while we often end our prayers “in Jesus name,” in reality we need to begin our prayers in His name, acknowledging that it is only through the blood of Christ that we have the ability and privilege to approach God.

The fourth chapter of this book discusses “Praying in the Spirit.” This is a topic I have studied in the past and have even written about, but for some reason it has not been absorbed into my heart the way it should. One of the clearest teachings of the Spirit’s role in prayer is found in Romans 8:26-28, where Paul writes, “Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.”

Last year I wrote about the final part of this passage, “for the good.” I wrote:

God’s desire for His children is that they more and more become conformed to the image of His Son. So when God tells us that He will work all things for our good, He indicates that all things work to make us more like Jesus. Those who have been believers for many years will know that this is not always a gentle or fun process. Sometimes God has to use radical, terrifying or even sorrowful measures to help us change. Sometimes we work in concert with God in our sanctification, but other times He has to reach down and force the issue. My pastor is fond of saying that “God is less concerned with your comfort than your character” and this is exactly what Romans 8:28 tells us. God will work for the good of His purposes, not necessarily our purposes.

In reading Chappel’s book, and his explanation of these verses, God spoke directly to my heart (not a phrase I use often or lightly) about the words that precede those ones. When I feel weak in prayer, the Holy Spirit is there, helping me. Even when I do not know how or what to pray, the Spirit knows, and stands between myself and the Father, presenting to Him prayers that express what is best. Where I am limited by limited knowledge, the Spirit is not. He takes my prayers and conforms them to the Father’s will before bringing them before the Throne of Grace. When I pray in Jesus’ name, humbling myself before His sovereignty, I offer my will and desires to Him, and truly seek “the good” that Paul speaks of. I acknowledge that in my humanness I would make a mess of even the most trivial decisions, and trust that God knows best.

Chapell provides a helpful illustration. “I have enjoyed watching a baker decorate a cake with an icing pipe. The icing is globbed into the tube as a yucky, unformed mess. But that’s not the end of the process. Attached to the end of the pipe is a decorator tip. When the baker forces the icing through the tip, the mess gets shaped into intricate designs that make the cake beautiful. The Holy Spirit similarly helps my prayers. I glob my desires into my prayers. I do not intend to make a mess of things, but with my mixed motives and limited vision, I have no assurance that my prayers match God’s design. In fact, I would hesitate to pray at all if my prayers were God’s only direction for accomplishing his purposes. Were my prayers truly capable of binding God’s hands, I would be dangerous. My finite, fallible will cannot devise the best course for the universe. Still, I pray because I believe the Holy Spirit works like that decorator tip. He forms my prayers into God’s beautiful design for all things” (page 73).

That is a beautiful assurance and one I have long been seeking. While it does not remove my responsibility to seek to pray for things that truly are “for the good,” I also know that my limited vision and human selfishness will not interfere with presenting to the Father prayers that are powerful and sweet. A useful illustration for this is the power of water as it flows through a sluice, heading towards a dam. The water flows with greater and greater power. Where the water I send out is barely moving, the Spirit narrows it, presenting to God a stream that is able to cut through steel.

God has shown me, through His Word, that I can have confidence in my prayers, even when I feel like they are going nowhere and accomplishing nothing. I do not have confidence in my own earnestness or ability. I have confidence that before my prayers reach the Father, they are mediated by the Holy Spirit, whose groans and utterings are made in the full view of His sovereignty, eternity, and omniscience. The Holy Spirit presents prayers that are fully conformed to the will of God, even when I cannot.

I have not yet completed this book. I am reading it slowly (for me), savoring it. I should have a review in a few days. For now, you can check it out at Amazon. Praying Backwards

Every person knows the difference between pure light and pure darkness. But what is harder to discern is where the light ends and the darkness begins. Where is the point where the light has ended and dark has overtaken? To take this question to a spiritual realm, when has a Christian left the edge of the light of truth and entered the darkness of error? It is this daunting question that Ed Stetzer and Elmer Towns seek to explore in Perimeters of Light: Biblical Boundaries for the Emerging Church.

I had intended to post links to all of the great Father’s Day posts in the blogosphere. Unfortunately there didn’t seem to be as many as I had expected. So instead I want to post links leading to a few different articles.

UPDATE - JD Wetterling was kind enough to send me the link to his Father’s Day tribute to his dad. It’s just a wonderful piece of prose and pays homage to a man of God. Give it a read! You won’t be sorry.

First up, everybody’s favorite humble blogger has some exciting news to share. I give her 8/10 for originality in presenting it too. She probably gets the award for the best Father’s Day gift for her husband.

Paul Proctor, one of my favorite curmudgeons, has a thought-provoking article about hating church. “So, what's next? Well, let's see; we already have a preacher for people who hate preachers; that would be Rick Warren, of course. How about a Bible for people who hate the Bible? Oh yeah, Eugene Peterson already thought of that. OK - How about a Jesus for people who hate Jesus? Oh, that’s right - Opie Taylor is bringing us The Da Vinci Code movie next year, isn't he? I wonder if any of these former “churches” will host a special “Heresy Sunday” and show it on their big screens to help those addicted to false teaching?” Uh oh.

I’m going to wrap up with an article I found in my inbox yesterday. It was written by Bob Ross and addresses some of my frustrations with the U.S. Open - a great Father’s Day tradition. Within seconds of hitting the “Post” button I’ll be taking in the last couple of hours of the tournament. A Diet Coke, a book, and the U.S. Open: The makings of a great Father’s Day.

It’s that time of summer again. A time for my yearly “tribute” to the USGA. If you have no interest in professional golf, then don’t waste your time reading any further.

The only week of the year which is more harassing to the normal emotional life of a golf fan than the week of April 15 is the week of the U. S. Open Golf Championship.

In June each year, the “United States Golf Association,” which is the “ruling body” under the operation of amateur hackers, stages its Annual Ritual called the “U. S. Open.” This event primarily serves to demonstrate to the world how no one actually plays golf, yet the tourney still manages to have the distinction in the World of Sports of being a “Major tournament.” That must be some kind of Magic.

How they manage to work such Magic, no one has yet discerned. How the Magic all began, no one has yet revealed.

Would you believe that prior to 1965 the wiseacres of the “ruling body” of golfdom actually required 36 holes to be played on the very same hot summer day to come up with a winner? The primary “test” was one of endurance. Yet somehow it still managed to be called a “Major.”

After abandoning this 36-hole method which tested “endurance,” the USGA adopted other methods, such as hard-as-rock greens, fast-fast-fast putting surfaces, deep-deep-deep rough, extending the distances, narrowing the fairways, and other contrivances to abuse the normal conditions of the great courses on which the Open was staged. Yet it was still called a “Major” in contrast to what some thought of it as being, namely, an “Oddity.”

The Annual Ritual somehow still manages to come up with some very rare incidents, scores, and other surprising doozies. For example, today a Swede, who has had only one professional win on the European Tour, shot the lowest round ever in a U. S. Open at Pinehurst — a 4-under par 66. On the very same day, former Masters champion Phil Mickelson, a multi-tournament winner on the PGA Tour and ranked one of the best players in the world, could only manage a 7-over par 77. This contrast qualifies as a “doozie.”

Perhaps the most impressive doozie which I personally ever witnessed was the missed putt by the late and lamented Payne Stewart in 1998 at The Olympic Club, San Francisco. His slow-rolling putt only missed the hole by a hair and would have normally stopped no further than an inch or two from the hole. But this was the magical U. S. Open, where nothing ever seems to be normal. Stewart’s ball took a left turn and slowly, slowly, slowly tumbled downhill before finally, finally, finally halting several yards away from the hole. The frustrated Stewart, obviously weary from waiting for the ball to come to rest, proceeded to miss the next putt, bogeying the hole, and eventually losing the tourney by a stroke to Lee Janzen. It cost Stewart $220,000 to finish second.

The apparent intent of the USGA each year is to create a classic four days of DULL AND BORING “golf.”

The Ritual cannot seem to bear to have its Dull & Boring expectations disappointed by, say, the type of exciting golf which characterizes the Masters every year. Birdies at the Open are at a minimum and eagles are almost a veritable taboo. Par 5 holes reachable in two shots are few and far between, even with some players hitting tee shots 300 yards plus.

The Open is so Dull & Boring that there is more excitement in watching a Public TV fundraiser Intermission.

The Open is so Dull & Boring that the Shopping Channel has more potential for holding your attention.

The Open is so Dull & Boring that watching it is more likely to cause you go to sleep than the TV Guide Channel.

In my past yearly articles about the Open, I have usually tried to find some “redeeming element” of some description related to the tournament. For example, in 1992, I awarded the honor to BRUCE LIETZKE, a rare pro, who had the good sense, personal integrity, and respect for the true game of Golf to refuse to play in the tournament. Bruce refused to dignify the event by allowing it to delight itself in inflicting its travesties in the name of “Golf.”

On another occasion, I gave the “Trophy” to JOHN DALY, as Big John really gave the Open what it richly deserves. I always thought that Big John had more sense than his public image portends, and his withdrawal from the tournament demonstrated it. After surveying the first nine holes of the perverted yards of turf, he realized he was not on a playing-field commensurate to the word “Golf,” and John did the only thing that a wise and decent pro should do: he shook the weedy sprouts out of his cuffs (similar to the Biblical directive), and refused to cast his pearls into the trough of the swine (see Bible, Matthew 10:14; 7:6).

This year, perhaps I will find another worthy honoree who will give the Open its due. — Bob L. Ross