Tweet

EMAIL

PRINT

Comments (14)

Related articles and links |  1 of 3

Nearly three years ago, Alan Jacobs wrote in Books and Culture, "Right now, and for the foreseeable future, the blogosphere is the friend of information but the enemy of thought." First drawn to blogs for news, Jacobs hoped the blogosphere could become a forum for developing and exchanging ideas. Yet like so many bloggers who start with big hopes, his enthusiasm waned after he became better acquainted with the medium.

Every other week, this column aims to introduce you to theology stories and theological angles on stories in the news. Thus, I regularly scour theology blogs to see what professors, pastors, students, and laypeople are saying about the latest books and current events. I value the indispensable work of bloggers who direct readers to good content and theologians who popularize work that otherwise would never have escaped libraries. Two blogs, Out of Ur and Christian History, even allow me to share my thoughts on pastoral ministry and the great cloud of witnesses.

But when friends ask me about blogging, I usually discourage them from taking on this responsibility. If you run your own blog, there is constant pressure to post so you won't lose regular readers. The Internet never shuts off. Then when you post, you frequently check the comments, worried what "Bob" thinks of you. And you better believe Bob won't hold back. He doesn't know you, and you don't know him, so anonymity emboldens him to state opinions, however uninformed, boldly. Afterward you wonder why, again, you care what Bob thinks. If this is the future of theological discourse, then we have entered the worst of times. Can you imagine Martin Luther hiding in Wartburg Castle, distracted from translating the Bible because "Chuck5" didn't like his post on the virtues of ale-aided exegesis?

On second thought, Luther was exactly the kind of personality who might have thrived on the Internet. He wasn't afraid to wield his wit against theological opponents in popular writing. The closest comparison I can conjure today is Douglas Wilson's Blog and Mablog. To pull off a blog like this, you need guts, smarts, and a wicked sense of humor. All three are on display in his recent series of posts about N. T. Wright's forthcoming response to John Piper on justification. Wilson even manages to moderate an insightful comments section.

"Just as we don't have stopwatches that are up to nanosecond justification timing, so we don't have minds that can follow all the logical issues involved," Wilson recently reminded his blog's readers. "So discussion of these issues should always be characterized by us walking through these discussions in all humility. Do justice, love mercy, and walk gingerly."

Another example of gracious if pointed critique came in 2007 when Asbury Seminary's Ben Witherington questioned Rob Bell's hermeneutical approach following an appearance in Lexington. The comments unfortunately devolved into a predictable debate over homosexuality. But it's not just anonymous readers who bear the blame for blogs' limited utility. Due to their personal nature, blogs facilitate the literary genre of ranting. One week after his article criticizing worship bands for playing too loudly generated 156 comments on Christianity Today's site, Regent College professor John Stackhouse took on worship superstar Chris Tomlin. Stackhouse's critique of Tomlin has merit both musically and lyrically. Indeed, who can disagree Stackhouse's observation that "we are the most educated Christians in history, and yet our lyrics are considerably stupider than our much less educated Christian forebears—the people who sang lyrics by Fanny Crosby or Charles Wesley or Isaac Watts"? The body of Christ can and must exhort one another to pursue quality in all areas of life, especially in the language we use to honor God.

next page... |  1 of 3

March (Web-only) 2009, Vol. 53

Displaying 1–5 of 14 comments

See all comments