'Cause I'm a Fool, A Foool for You

Blogging is not face to face communication. The nuances of tone, the hundreds of words said in a guesture or body languge are most difficult if not impossible to convey in words.

That's not my exact point really, it's just that I think we should look at the words we put down in our blogs or in our comments and ask ourselves if this is the sorta statement I'd make to the person's face?

I do see sides in this whole discussion, if anything, it seems like we've got 15+ different folks chiming in to a discussion, some with simple observations, others with attempts at humor, and some with real frustration about an emotion or feeling that may or may not have been conveyed by a person in an earlier comment. I'm not sure who's "wrong," or even if there is somebody or some group that could be declared in the black on some distinct moral divide.

What I do wish is that sides, all sides, would actually give thought to the feelings/ideas expressed by everyone, instead of angrily or flippantly criticizing one another or Doug Wilson.

If I ever get the opportunity, I would express the same feelings and thoughts I've expressed on this blog to Rev. Wilson in person. What I'd like to know, with all of you, before that situation every occurs, is if you think I'm completely out of wack in my thoughts and concerns with Rev. Wilsons tenor, tone, and/or style?

Okay, I've tried to stay out of this discussion, but I'm going to add my two cents. Pastor Wilson was my pastor for five years and I learned a ton from him, for which I'm very grateful. It does seem however, that this statement was similar to a little kid whacking a beehive with a stick, just to see what happens. The thing is, Mr. Wilson has a column in Credenda that is nothing more than a blog in print: it includes his book recommendations, what he's been listening to and a few other miscellaneous thoughts. I could be wrong, but I imagine that's where this debated quote originally appeared. Irony.
All that is to say, I'm puzzled at the reasoning behind the statement. I feel like it was disrespectful and unhelpful. Of course what he said is true of some people, but so what? Some people are attention seekers. I imagine people who are attention seekers on the internet are attention seekers elsewhere. That's not a problem inherent to bloggers.
However, I wish that everyone who is commenting on this topic would be more respectful to Pastor Wilson. Even if you're offended, don't respond hastily. Don't criticize him for being uncharitable, and respond with a lack of charity.

funny you thought i was angry. i was nothing of the sort. i was probably just annoyed that mesh was equating pastor wilson with royal tenenbaum:) i guess this reiterates the weaknesses in blogging. i by no means agree with pastor wilson on the blogging issue, but i do agree that it's easy to blog something that you would never say to someone's face. that's the problem. also, i absolutely understood the point y'all were making, josiah. to flippantly accuse someone of missing the point is the always-ready, easy cop-out of blogging. it's weak. "he made a good argument! he must have missed my point!" the only thing i was trying to do (and i probably did it poorly, that is granted) was to defend pastor wilson from people who know nothing of him, save his writing, criticizing him as a man, and as a minister of the gospel. i disagree with pastor wilson on a good number of points, but that does not mean that i go around bashing him for the whole world to see.

Well, I don't think I'm in any of the categories of people Josiah listed.

::adds another notch to his belt of righteousness::

So... I think that the content of your concerns, Josiah, is not out of whack. They are justifiable. If one were only exposed to the sarcastic writings of Wilson, then I would think they would be even less out of whack, and more justified.

But, like (I think) you said earlier, you're sarcastic sometimes, too. And if someone only read your sarcastic blog entires, or had one conversation when you were mocking something, or whatever, it would give a skewed impression of you. Perhaps the person would have reason for concern.

They may or may not be right, though. And -maybe- if they got to know you, they would find out that, "hey, he's not so bad". (Of course, not knowing you I can't really say one would come to that conclusion, though :) )

So anyhow... Wilson has plenty of really, really good books. Reforming Marriage is possibly one of the best books out there on marriage, and the roles of husbands and wives. His sermons are good, sometimes superb. I'd say most of his articles in magazines are also quite good. Overall, the sarcasm that he's so often criticized for is a small part of what he says publicly.

I think we ought to recognize that when thinking through the concerns you, and others, brought up.

And, just so you know, in the comments on my blog (where you got the quote) I also disagreed with Wilson's quote, primarily because it is an incorrect generalization. I'd say there are a lot of blogs that aren't worth reading. But most of the blogs that I've come across don't fit into that category, and probably even fewer fit in that category because the owner is a proud git.

So there.

Oh, and Christin's right... the quote comes from the Meanderer (i.e. Wilson's printblog) column in issue 15-3 of Credenda.

But Josh, your argument was beside the point. Whether or not people know Doug Wilson In Person in neither here nor there in a discussion of Doug Wilson In Print. Also, allow me to cut and paste a lengthy comment I left on Rick's "Respecting your elders" post; I initially wrote an earlier version of it as a comment to you, here, but I accidentally lost it. Anyway, here it is:

I expect that many here will say that you should never think or speak ill of your elders, and in an important sense, they're right. But in another, perhaps equally important sense, they're wrong, or at least inconsistent. We're often plagued with fallacies when we try to answer these questions. Our reasoning tends to be circular, affirming the consequent: "Elders are to be above reproach; this person is an elder; therefore, we must not reproach him." But how do we think and speak of other God-ordained ministers - say, pop dispies and liberal feminists? We bash them all to hell for their unfaithfulness, despite the fact that they're just as God-ordained (at least providentially) and church-ordained as our elders.

So, what are we to do? We are to evaluate officers and prospective officers by God's standards. In 1 Tim 3 we learn that being an overseer doesn't automatically make one wise, above reproach, well thought of by outsiders, etc; rather, one must be all of these things to become and remain an overseer. In other words, there's a sense in which an elder isn't entitled to honor; he earns it. Or, as long as he earns it, he's entitled to it, and as soon as he quits earning it, he's no longer entitled to it.

Authority and authoritarianism are not one and the same.

-------

Please understand: I'm not saying Mr Wilson is unqualified. I'm just saying that your argument, Josh, commits an all-too-common fallacy.

Btw, Josiah, I guess I posted my comment too late to make your list. But it's probably better that way.

Why is it that people who know Doug will defend him (to some degree) and people who don't know him are the ones who take the most offense? I think not knowing him has kept me unbiased. I read his work objectively, and will support or not support him based on his written word, not on how charismatic his personality is, or what loyalties I feel as his student, church member, etc. (no offense to his defenders intended). I think we all got defensive, rightly so, because we had someone pointing fingers at us. Whether the charge is true for each individual or not, we have a right to respond and discuss such a generalization made by a public figure on a public forum. I'll agree, that it can get heated and probably lines get crossed. We're all still on the same team, and we need to remember that. ALL of us need to, D.W. included.

This will, by my count, be the 43rd comment on Douglas Wilson and the blogosphere, and I'd like to use it for a tangential question.

Is there a distinction to be made between a person's writing voice and that person him/herself? In literary theory, it's a given that the narrative voice is different than the authoral voice: even when a writer sticks to an objective third person, we presume that said narrator is a fictional creation of the author. But what distinction is there between the authorial voice and the actual author, particularly when the authorial voice is one a critic strongly dislikes?

I ask this because looking back over this often rancorous strand, I tend to agree with Shannon: those who've only read Doug Wilson's writing tend to be very critical of him, while those who have been pastored by him or have befriended him are, as one might expect, quick to his defense. And when I look at my criticisms of Wilson (well, really all the "criticism" I've done is to compare him to Royal Tenenbaum), I realize that I'm really criticizing his authorial voice. But can you fairly separate the author (a pastor in good standing, a devoted father) from the voice (which is kind of a... well, you know)?

This may all be completely academic, but I don't think so. If Josiah were to meet with Doug Wilson, would it even be possible for him to criticize the man's writings while saying "none of this should reflect on who I think you are as a person"? As a developing writer, I find it hard to separate the two. But I wonder if it is important to do so.

Interesting point, Mesh. One I was thinking about yesterday. For instance, I can't stand the writings of Gene Edward Veith...my exposure to him being in cultural "columns" in WORLD magazine and _Postmodern Times_. Now, granted it's more content than tone in those cases that I think is terrible. But once I met him at Cov, and had dinner with him. He was SOO nice and humble and friendly, it completely changed the way I read his writing...wh. I actually try to avoid because it gets on my nerves...content, that is. But I think better of him as an author.

for the record...I have TWO n's in my name

all this blogging about blogging is making me ill.

nevertheless, I think it's much harder to separate the author from the voice in the context of non-fiction, which we usually assume blogs to be.

True, true. But I'm not really asking about blogging as such. I guess I'm wondering about the role of authorial voice in works of commentary and scholarship. Can a writer "invent" a voice for non-fiction? Should we consider that distinction before we criticize the person behind the writings? Bob, I think your observation still holds here as well, but I'd love to start hacking at the question of how we make the distinction, and what practical applications arise out of it. Has anyone read any articles on this point? (Calling all English majors...)

I don't want to be considered one of those people who defend Wilson blindly. Like I said, I disagree with Wilson's comment. He certainly makes it hard for someone like me to defend his character sometimes. I'm not trying to separate what he says from who he is. I'm sure he thought about what he said and it's ramifications before he said it.
But, Wilson is the pastor of a large, faithful church. He's a member of a board of elders (15-20 other respectable men). That being the case, I don't think it's appropriate for a bunch of twenty-somethings to harshly criticize him or question his status as a pastor. Again, I'm not saying we are obligated to like what he says, how he says it, or even him as a person. I'm suggesting that we try to be more respectful in how we respond.

In case it wasn't clear: the reason I mention his congregation and board of elders is to point out that he's got real accountability elsewhere.

I'm not an english major, but here's a shallow stab at mesh's challenge: which is simply that what a person believes, or says he believes, is not the sum total of the character of that person. Maybe I'm simply restating what Mesh said earlier, but it seems that, at least when examining someone's character, remembering that a person's speech/wriiting is simply one of many areas that God may be working on in that person. A person may be very weak spiritually in what he says, but an excellent husband. Or, one could spout forth great theology and also beat his wife.

"Whether or not people know Doug Wilson In Person in neither here nor there in a discussion of Doug Wilson In Print.

No, Jon, no. I don't believe this conversation started out as (when I commented first) JUST discussing DW in print. Making blanket statements like calling him an SOB and saying he lacks in charity, love, etc., as well as questioning his Godliness means that there is attack on Pastor Wilson the person/elder/pastor. And that is where I jumped in, because (whether they meant to or not) I think harmless criticisms jumped over the line there. If they were merely commenting on his sarcastic attitude in print, then fine, comment away for all I care (but maybe be more careful to do it in a more private manner). However, when it turns to, as Christin put it, "a bunch of twenty-somethings harshly criticizing him or questioning his status as a pastor", that is what I don't agree with. I guess I probably got more annoyed than I should have, especially with the "idiot" comment (I apologize, Mesh, your point about separating the author/narrator from the person is excellent), but my Dad is a pastor, so I've had to deal a lot with people slandering him and our family when they know nothing of the circumstances. Ok, now I've said way too much. the end.

Well, I did a review of everything I've put down about Doug Wilson, in particular the things I said concerning "love, grace, and charity", which is from a quote I made here and reiterated over on Shannon's blog,

...and no-where, and it'd even be a stretch to say that I implied, did I say Doug Wilson the pastor lacks grace, charity, and love. What I did say was that I feel in his writings he oft times lacks these characteristics, and as a pastor it is of the utmost importance to manifest these characteristics.

Perhaps I havent' been good and drawing out these distinctions. I feel they're there and feel I made them, but call me on it if you feel I haven't done it well enough.

And Mesh brings up some great points and really gets me thinking, and I'm thankful for his input and everyone elses. It's nice to see the discussion turning away from name calling toward's something resembling Christian civility.

Josiah, I agree that the conversation does seem to be moving in a more appropriate direction.

Shannon has corectly observed that the critics seem to only know Mr. Wilson in print while his defenders seem to have had experience with Mr. Wilson, the pastor, the teacher, or the guitar player on Friday nights. I cannot grant that a person that does not know him automatically gives that person an unbiased or objective opinion about his writings or works, just as I, having spent five years in Moscow cannot claim objectivity either. Anyway, in conversations with my wife (who does not know Mr. Wilson) and my neighbor (who very much does) we came to the same conclusion about the nature of Mr. Wilson's critics and defenders. Having acknowledged that fact, I still don't know what to make of it. But I do think it ties in nicely to the debate about the man in person and the man in print. As a Wilson defender, I realize that my positive personal experience with him is only a good argument to people who are willing to take my word for it. Therefore, it would be unreasonable for the former and current Moscow residents to expect his critics to draw a different conclusion than that which many seem to be drawing based entirely on his writing. As long as this discussion progresses in an honest and respectful way, I really don't think anybody is out of line. Mr. Wilson is a pastor and is worthy of respect as a faithful man and as a man of the cloth. However, he is still just a man, and therefore he is subject to the same standards we all are, if not more so. If your little brother's homie from around the way made these comments none of us would care, but Mr. Wilson's influence is like a big rock that makes big ripples when tossed into the lake. He writes a lot of things that are read by a lot of people who will never meet him, so in my opinion he cannot be separated from what he writes and he is subject to the criticisms of everyone who reads his work.

The ways in which Mr. Wilson has helped me and taught me will always be of tremendous value to me, but I do find it remarkable that so many people, from so many different circles, who don't know him, come to the same conclusions about his work independantly of one another.

Having made my feelings known about how to handle the discussion, I would like to return to the comment itself. I made a similar comment on Shannon's blog, but I think I've refined it a bit.

1) In the first part, Mr. Wilson essentially says some blogs are good (interesting) and some are not. This, when you think about it, is really not a profound statement. Some TV shows are good, and some are not. Some books are good, some are not. It doesn't take anyone special to make such a comment. If this is what we should take from the comment, it's really of no value whatever.

2) The other possibility is that the comment is designed as a rhetorical trick, so that anybody that objects will immediately be thrown into the category of a self-seeking, pretentious blogger. This is problematic because it assumes a lot about the motives of individual bloggers. Furthermore, it puts us under a negative label (almost unconditionally) to anybody we meet that finds out we blog. Ultimately, this is just a trap.

So, either the comment is of no value, or it's a trap. Either way, the comment is at the very least unhelpful and potentially harmful, and all of it for no apparent reason.

You're right Josiah. In the original discussion you posted, you made a good distinction between Wilson the PASTOR, and Wilson the WRITER. But that was AFTER you posted this, which leaves a lot of room for interpretation:

"Sooner or later you're gonna hafta own up to the fact that Wilson, while putting out some good stuff, is often times a real jerk, and it does a great disservice to the church. Your consistent defense of him is going to start to harm your reputation, especially when you head into the ministry where love, charity, and grace are far more important than wit, satire, and one line zingers."

All that to say, no one was immune from some kind of hostility (I post this, only because you asked), yet I too am glad to see the discussion approaching Christian brotherhood once again, and I apologize from my part in taking it elsewhere.

That comment was addressed to Nick and has alot of non-blogging context to it from many a discussion we've had over this issue. So it introduced elements that effected the clarity of my statement. My bad.

How Wilson was a jerk or lacking grace etc. is still delineated to his writing, even in that quote.

I think I'm what would be called a Wilson-defender, and I've never met him or been pastored by him.

I know him through what is in print, his sermons and lectures, and various stories about him from people that do know him.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Josh, Richard's last comment exemplifies my point (which, btw, applies as much to Shannon's and Mesh's comments as to yours). Who cares whether or not others know DW in person? It's neither here nor there. Mr Wilson has both detractors and defenders, many of whom have never met him. Besides, I've known him personally for years (he's been my teacher, pastor, etc, and I'm greatly indebted to him), but I'm as much (and sometimes more) one of his detractors as I am one of his defenders.

The fact that some people are detractors and some defenders doesn't mean the two aren't mutually exclusive. Honestly, I would probably like Douglas Wilson a lot if I got the feeling that he didn't just automatically dismiss all criticism of him made by detractors who don't know him as being the product of some kind of liberalism or whatever. I've read Wilson for close to six years - at first fairly religiously, and then over time, I've slowly tapered off, to where now, I don't like to read him anymore. But the thing I mainly don't like about him isn't that he is a jerk or whatever, but it's how I feel like he doesn't really seem to believe he's a jerk. I've heard people say, who know him, 'No, Pastor Wilson knows he a sinner," etc. And that may be true. But he strikes me as being far too unconcerned with how he comes across to people. If I was the kind of public personality that he is, having the kind of influence he has, and knowing that people really do "follow" him, it just seems to me like I would take criticisms about how I come across a lot more seriuosly than he does. That is what particularly bothers me. But this is well-beaten ground, I guess.

I can forgive anybody and be around anybody if they have even a marginal appreciation for their specific sins. But when I'm aruond someone who honestly does not see themselves - in those areas that seem to me so absolutely glaring - after a while, it starts to be incredibly aggravating. I have a couple of friends like that who are incredibly elitist and rude, and yet seem almost systemtically unable to see those specific sins. As such, it's hard for me to really be in their presence. Whereas I have another friend who really cannot get his shit toether at all, and yet knows it, and being around him is absolutely liberating.

So, for me, that's mainly what bugs me about Wilson, the man I know via every written word I've ever read by him. It's how he seems to just shrug off how he offends people, as though he's somehow justified to act that way. After awhile, when a lot of people who do not know each other start saying the exact same thing about you, it would seem to me to indicate, that there is some marginal degree of truth to what it is that is bothering them. I just wish, for once, Douglas Wilson would say to one of his critics, "I really want to understand why it is that what I say in my writings makes you think I'm X, Y, and Z." If I got the sense that he really did posture himself in that way towards people who were critical of him, then I honestly would probably not care any more.

But, as Mesh said somewhere else (I think he said this anyway), it doesn't really matter. Life goes on. I like reading chattablogs bloggers far more than I like reading anything that comes out of Canon Press. I don't mean that maliciously or anything. Usually, there's more edifying material on these blogs than there is in Credenda/Agenda. Maybe it's just a function of where I am. But, chattablogs is a very warm, inviting type of community. People seem to be overwhelming acceptive of strangers (like me), and it makes me feel good. I like reading Josiah's blog, and Mesh's blog, Jeannette's blog, and about a dozen other ones, because I think they're really interesting people, who make me think and laugh, and who are also really friendly. Wilson and company don't make me laugh anymore, don't say things which I find permanently interesting, and never make me feel like I could be friends with them. Even if that's not objectively an important metric, it's become the most important metric to me about what people I like to be around and what people i like to read.

Josiah,

Short version of what I think regarding your question at the end of this post: No. I thought that your answer to Richard concerning Doug Wilson's ministerial qualifications was well articulated and to the point. I can only say this regarding it as a defense of your own views on the matter. Whether Rev. Wilson really is uncharitable in his writings, I couldn't say. I have not read a sufficient amount to form an opinion. Figuring out his attitude strikes me as something for which a pattern would have to be established. Only you would know whether you've read enough of his work to see this pattern. Personally, I didn't find that much to be offended about in the blogging quote. If any one is to be offended, it would seem to be the Hollywood actors and Nashville recording artists. At least he gave bloggers an out. But back to the point. The only question I would have concerning the validity of your concerns about Rev. Wilson is related to your last paragraph to Richard. You wrote how you used to chalk up people's offences at things you had said to just being offended by the truth. Sometimes our own past indiscretions can give us insight into another person and sometimes they can just cloud the issue. Is there any sense in which you may be judging Rev. Wilson for your own sins when, in fact, he may not be guilty of them at all? I think if you can honestly give yourself an answer here, and if you have read enough of his work to establish a pattern, then you're more qulaified than most to bring your concerns to him in person.

Jon, you are assuming that knowing DW is irrelevant when bashing him as a pastor. do you really think this? Sure, you know him and are a detractor of him...and that's why your concerns have more validity. and then there is richard, who doesn't know him and defends him. but sheesh, do you really think that knowing the person doesn't matter at ALL? i guess we just disagree on this. and really, that wasn't even the point i was trying to make. what i was concerned about was the fact that people were taking DW's writings and making (what i thought...perhaps i was wrong) blanket statements about him as a minister, and man.

Wahoo! I'm the cheering section.

Josh, I'm not assuming anything. You know what they say, when you ASSume, you make an ASS out of U and ME. Seriously, there's a nuance to what I'm saying that apparently I can't communicate via this medium. We can talk about it later.

I would like to echo Scotts sentiments above. It would be interesting to see how DW would react to the stir caused by a flippant comment. Knowing him only from his writings, I would have to say that his attitude would be something like "they just can't handle the truth" rather than "have I unjustly offended a brother?"
It seems as though the whole credenda theme is to present a person with their sin in the most offensive way and if they do not respond humbly, well, thats their fault. That may be a blanket statement, but it seems like those are okay to make now.

For evidence of Patrick's statement, see LucyZoe.

Here is my question:

How many people who really dislike Pastor Wilson and just know him through his writings have read much of his works? Seriously.

Nobody reads Persuasions and says, "What a jerk."

Nobody reads Her Hand In Marriage and asks, "Who is this megalomaniac?"

Nobody reads his "Husbandry" article and thinks, "Who does this pompous jerk think he is?"

Some people skim two or three pages in the Credenda and work themselves into a tizzy about how this big-headed nutcase didn't speak quite as nice as he (the reader) thinks a Pastor should.

I think this is the root of the problem. Some people read a few snips here and there and then start screaming about it (often on their blog). Then other people, who have read no more than the first person (and often less), begin their proverbial backslapping. Then they start prodding each other on to get more and more bitter, thinking they know the man because they know someone who read a response to a letter in issue 6 of Credenda that showed his "true character."

That's my guess as to why, in large part, there is a divide among the people who have never met him. Some read a lot of his stuff, and form a fairly well-informed opinion. Others are a bit more hasty.

That being said, I must make sure that nobody thinks I am pointing at anyone in particular in my remarks about blogs and bitterness. It is just a general example with no particular instance in mind.

Christin, thanks for that link. I think that does make my point fairly well.

I started reading Credenda and other various things by Doug Wilson back around 95, maybe even a bit earlier. Since then, even in recent months, I've read every issue from cover to cover, including most I think of what's been put online.

In terms of books, I've read a great many of them, from "Reforming Marriage" to "Untune the Sky." I know I haven't read as much of his stuff as some, and I certainly haven't read all of his work, but I'd like to think my relationship with Wilson's writings, approaching a decade, gives a little weight to my concerns.

On a side note: I always thought "Untune the Sky" sounded like really bad highschool poetry or the title to a bad Emo song by Further Seems Forever or Dashboard Confessional.

C'mon, everyone sing along now... "Your hair is, evvvverywhere, screaming infidelities, untuuune the skyyyy!"

Now you've left me to sit here and cry
Knowing every sweet kiss was a lie;
We used to hear music in every sad star
But you're gone, and they've untuned the sky.

"pack of snarling dogs" would be a great name for a blog.

Or a thrash metal band.

Just a question. Why do you think that what I said was just flippant criticism?

I read Credenda from the time it mysteriously started showing up in my Covenant mailbox the beginning of my freshman year through the time it stopped showing up in my box partway through my sophomore year, and continued to read it from time to time in the library up till I graduated, and while I appreciate good satire as much as the next person, I just never was terribly impressed that it was good satire. If I thought that his satire was really good, I'd probably fall over to the side of the Wilson defenders but as it is, I see his writings as just snarky and uncharitable.

Kathryn, I don't see how you can say "... I see his writings as just snarky and uncharitable." 95% of Credenda and 97% of Pastor Wilson's writings are not satirical.

As a response to Josiah's actual question as to Mr. Wilson's style, I propose that:

a) Mr. Wilson and Christ Kirk's response to the RPCUS charge of heresy is much more informative and important than an offhand generalization of bloggers, since the charge is much more serious and many times people show their true colors when coming under serious attack.

b) Mr. Wilson and Christ Kirk's response is actually as gracious as can be expected, or at least more gracious that I would give, considering such statements as:

"Brothers, do you know that we want to be at peace with you? Do you know that any of you are welcome to partake of the Lord’s Supper together with us at any of our churches? Do you understand that we have no desire to be in this controversy with you?" (link)

"I believe that in a particular kind of religious controversy the central point is to accomplish reconciliation, and that to fail in this task is to fail in maintaining the spirit of unity in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:2-6). We are to receive one another but not into disputes about debatable things. "

"I believe we must be careful not to let strong language and supposedly-righteous anger be a substitute for good arguments, to be employed when we feel threatened. Strong language must be weighed and measured, and must always have a point." (link)

If I am wrong, please show me how and why.

I see Wilson's comments on bloggers to be a largely fruitless springboard for a wider - and necessary - discussion of the broader issues relating to Wilson and his work. Except for the fact that he seems prone to offering advice on subjects of which he is largely ignorant. But an offhand comment made about the blogging community is no basis for discussing the merits of Wilson in other areas.

Speaking for myself, I used to freebase Wilson up until I graduated college. I read everything I could get my hands on by him. When he started putting archives of his C/A online, I read all of those. I have a few tapes. His stuff on classical education made me want to become a classical school teacher. I've not read any of his stuff on marriage or parenting, though, because I more or less started to lose interest in him once my wife and I married. The last thing I read by him was his book on baptism, which I liked.

Anyway, the point being, it sounds to me like the majority of the criticism on here is from people who have some sustained exposure to Wilson's writings. Not just people who happened to find a random Credenda/Agenda in the john or whatever.

Maphet: as reasoned and moderate as the respose to the RPCUS debacle sounds, I'd really appreciate it if they took their own advice. I've read a lot of Wilson in my time, and his most common response to those with whom he disagrees is mockery. I used to think this was necessary and pointed critique, but now I'm just not down with that. I'm starting to think that it's simply a way of not having to deal seriously with critics.

Ryan: I think agree with what you said. However, its really hard to understand what you mean when you also say stuff like "What I think is that I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys what Doug Wilson thinks about technology or the effects it has upon human interaction. " and "Is Wilson right about anything? Frankly, I can't be bothered to find out."

Saying that, and then criticizing Wilson for mocking his critics, comes across in this limited medium of blogging as hypocrisy. Please be aware of that.

Josiah, perhaps you should start snarlingdogsblogs.com next. :)

Heh Jon. I think these blogs are doing their best to showcase the best and the worst of us. The dual inability to give criticism in a Christ-like way, and to receive criticism in a humble fashion, is kinda depressing.

I probably sound all holier than though right now, but anybody who knows me knows I'm a bigger prick than most, and it's something I feel deep sorrow for and pray that the Lord will convict it in me more and more everyday.

Augh, I guess I'm getting a bit preachy. I just read that post from LucyZoe about everyone being cursed bla bla bla. It's fairly depressing that any Christian would write something like that. If I lived in the same town, I'd be calling her to do coffee. There seems to be some serious issues there.

Anyways, I'm fairly happy that this whole Wilson discussion is drawing to a close. I do feel, despite some discrepancies on both sides, or in everyone's case, that it was profitable if only to raise consciousness. Heck, I even think the tension is a good thing. Great sanctification and growth comes out of tension and struggle. Or mebbe I've just read too much SK.