A Peck of Gold

A man far smarter than I once said that solipsism isn't inherent to the medium of blogging, its a natural product of the sinful nature of man, regardless of where or what medium it finds it's voice.

What's sad about the Doug Wilson quote is a couple things:

First, its indicative to me of what I've always felt is an immature, and un-Christlike approach to culture, namely one of antagonism and spitballs, like a little kid in the class-room who thinks himself smarter than the teacher.

Secondly, it's pretty much par for the course for Doug Wilson. With a guy that has so, so much edifying stuff to say, the malaise of the snide, the snotty, and the snooty that pervades his work alienates him to all but a sadly un-aware few (but growing).

As a former student and congregation member of Mr.
Wilson's I have a longstanding and undying respect for
him, but it does seem that he has painted with
garage-door sized brush.

I'm not ashamed of things I've blogged in the past,
and I don't plan on having to be ashamed of it in the
future. I obviously don't know every blogger in the
world, but the blog circles I move in (some of the
authors I know well, while others I've never met)
don't seem to fall under the "misunderstood teenager"
label with which we seem to have been tagged.

On one hand, Wilson does allow for the possibility of
interesting blogs, so there is a sense in which we
should just have an If-the-shoe-fits attitude about
it. On the other hand, his argument does contain a
tinge of rhetorical trickery that makes our responses
to his comment an opportunity for him to say, "See,
they are absorbed with themselves."

Obviously, the comment has prompted me to respond, but
I don't care that much if he thinks we're silly, at
least as it pertains to blogging. If there is nothing
more to Mr. Wilson's comment than this sweeping
generalization, then I am content to keep blogging as
I have, to enjoy the blogs of others, and to generally
not care if he wants to keep making jabs.
Shannon, I do share your curiosity about the context
of his comment.

Finally, I personally have opposed attacks upon Mr.
Wilson that have appeared on various blogs, feeling
that this is really not a very good forum to be
challenging a man of Mr. Wilson's position. I think it
is silly to engage him in discussions of serious
theological issues via the blog, however, I don't see
that it's at all problematic to defend ourselves and
our hobby. Mr. Wilson knew what he was doing when he
made his comment, and I'm sure he is not the least bit
surprised to see people commenting on it. My dad used
to say (regarding clearing our dinner plates), "You
don't have to like; you just have to eat it." Playing
on that, I say to Mr. Wilson, "You don't have to like
it, and you don't have to read it."

it seems as if those who are irked about his remarks might view themselves as uninteresting or unchallenging? he does concede that some blogs are interesting, after all.

you gotta admit there are some out there who fit into his second category.

For one, I think it's relative what may be considered "interesting" or "challenging" - his opinion on what's interesting will vary from mine, yet that doesn't necessarily make his superior! My main problem is that after reading his quote- I felt that he was saying that bloggers are self serving, ego stroking, and basically, sinful. He didn't use those words, and maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that's the effect that it had on me. What did he hope to accomplish with those words? If he has a problem with individual blogs, he should address them privately, and not make a generalization about something that matters to a lot of people, many of them who have looked up to him and are fellow Christians. I realize it's not one of the pressing issues facing the Church, but it left me with a sour taste, and I hate to feel that way.

I'm not starting a "Bash Doug Wilson" party - I recognize that he has said and done lots of good things for the church. I just don't think this was one of them.

If we follow Doug Wilson's principle of those who read blogs desire their own to be read, perhaps then Doug Wilson wishes he had a blog and someone would care to read it... *grin* Or maybe that's why he gives interviews, because he needs to be heard. Much in the same way some bloggers, write things just to get it out.

I think he's jealous that we're all paying attention to each other.

This was printed in the most recent issue of Credenda. My dad found it and thought it was "interesting" and read it to us. I find it quite interesting that a man who publishes most of his thoughts and also has a magazine- has a problem with blogging. There is very little difference in the two outlets in my opinion. He has a wide influence on a lot of people. How many people, who don't know anything about blogging- are now going to view it as something sinfull because of what Wilson has said? I know he can't protect himself against everything that people do as a result of his commments- but it sounds to me like he has set people up for this.

Bob- If someone calls me a jerk and I take offense to it, it doesn't make me a jerk.

I've joked that it was only a matter of time before Wilson took a shot at blogging in Credenda. I haven't picked up a copy of the latest Credenda at church; I've been avoiding it for my own sanctification. And not to take too much credit (or too much offense), but it's hard for me to believe that Mr Wilson has interacted on any blog more than my own, where I haven't hesitated to criticize him, and where, no sooner than I have posted something about him, he has responded.

Here's a little additional anecdote: One night, a few months ago, John Barah was in town and a group of us (John, Peter Leithart, Doug Wilson, and myself) were standing around after our Evensong service, talking about blogs. Near the end of the conversation, Mr Wilson said he had often thought about starting a blog of his own. Hm, says I.

That should be BaraCH (which btw is pronounced "BEAR-itch," really fast).

It's hard to see how having a blog wouldn't fit in with Wilson's scheme of things: it's one more place to get a drink of all things Wilson. Not I'm being a bit cynical there, but you could put it anothe way that it's another source for a taste of the "movement" as he would call it.

But again, it too would be consistent Wilson to poke fun at it, good or bad, without revealing what he really thinks about blogging. I can totally see him, knowing that there are so many Wilsonian bloggers out there (and those who aren't but pay attention), making a quip just to get us all riled up, and we're just playing along.

He might find that funny. Me, I just think we're being sincere, something that Wilson hasn't, doesn't, and odds are wont ever respect.

I'm not as smart as many of you that blog here, so I make this statement realizing I'm just a sinner saved by Grace...no pride in this so don't read into it.

Don't get offended by everything people say, especially when it "appears" to attack something dear to you. Mr. Wilson left an out for everyone of us and I think most of you fall into the category of interesting in his statement. Even if you don't, Pastor Wilson isn't trying to please everybody, and neither should you.

Blog on.

We need to consider the fact that Wilson's point here seems to be that some blogs are this way and some are not (viz. interesting and challenging). As was posted before (from Shannon and Aaron) I agree that the context is important here. I certainly would want to confirm the source before I concluded that Wilson is (to paraphrase several of the above comments) an {immature, snooty, snotty, snide and jealous man who hasn't, doesn't and odds won't ever respect sincerity.} I have several reasons to not like Douglas Wilson, but none of them are legitimate. Are yours?

I didn't say I didn't like the man, I just didn't like what he said, or how he said it. Even if he did find my site interesting and wasn't referring to me, (I doubt he even knows I exist, though) I would still have a problem with his statement. What difference does it make (how interesting he finds a site) to the morality of having a blog? I mean, I know he's a well known church leader, but this seems a bit out of his jurisdiction. If it's an academic, witty, and challenging blog, it's not a sin, and the rest of them are just self serving? Please. I'm not trying to put words in his mouth- I'm just saying I have a problem with the attitude that goes along with a statement like that. Sigh. I think it's just another thing to get us riled up about, so I'm not going to give it any more of my energy. Besides, I sound so furious, but I'm really not - it just comes out that way in text.

I have been a defender of Mr. Wilson's views on satire, sarcasm, and the like. I realize that this is not the exact same thing, however, I am at a loss when I ask myself, "Of what value are Mr. Wilson's comments?" It seems that all he's done is poke a stick in the eye of a largely harmless crowd.

To reiterate from my earlier comment, I recognize Mr. Wilson's comment allows for "interesting" blogs (whatever that means). I also understand that some are more interesting than others (mine being among the less interesting, unless you like baseball), but I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Since all of us know and read blogs that are sometimes less interesting than others, I can't see how Mr. Wilson's comment was designed to do anything but rile all of us. And again I wonder why? I simply do not see any value in that comment. No one has been built up. No one has been edified. But all of us will be pigeon-holed as silly bloggers for no other reason than Mr. Wilson said so.

Anyway, I have to go. I'm tired of this conversation. Besides that I have a pressing desire to read the diaries of George Grant and John Barach. I really, really hope they'll read mine too!!!!!