Blogging can be a good thing -- sharing pictures, exploring rhetoric, posting links to interesting reading, an occasional joke or story, etc.
The latest 'dia-blog' between Clark and Wilson is not such a good thing. It proves my point that 'genuine debate' can't take place in a medium given over to what I call, 'sound bite theology.' [How many people have chimed in on this debate? Far too many...and I don't much advise you trying to follow it all!]
Some of the rhetoric went from polemically interesting to unabashedly vitriolic.....and how are all those (300+?) 'comments' suppose to help?
Sound bites may work when commenting about a photo....but blogging is no way to do theology! [The sarcasm doesn't help either!]
Can you imagine the Westminster Divines trying to argue out the implications of the 'obedience of Christ' on.....Myspace? Maybe it's just me...but I don't find it terribly inviting to discuss Robert Baille and Richard Vines with someone named....'HypezAznTmboySrfGrl'! I rest my case....
This is not to say the issues are moot. Mai Genoita! Take up Turretin's Institutio Theologiae Elencticae (by way of example), and note the precise nuances when discussing faith (fide). You just can't get that kind of precision on a blog. And at the end of the day, I think Wilson is off the mark here...but that's a matter left for another day.
As my buddy Dave (aka the 'Hebrew Hammer') has quipped numerous times (in various versions): "All the good stuff worth reading is published in journals and books, not someone's blog!"
There is much wisdom here from 'the Hammer' worth pondering. And one of the things that concerns me about 'Theoblogging.' To publish in a journal and/or book is no small thing. It requires careful writing, editing, re-editing, peer reviews, final drafts, etc....sometimes taking months, even years! Often times with people that strongly disagree with you! But the process is there for a reason -- (a) it cleans up rhetoric; (b) it helps weed out bad argumentation; and (c) it encourages sober reflection and self-criticism.
Of course, journals and books don't perfectly suceed in doing these things, especially now that you can self-publish just about anything you want for relatively little cost. But when an article/book comes out in a significant quarterly/publishing house, there's a much better chance you are reading something that is actually worth reading.
So I hearby resolve.....to never let this blog become some massive theological outpost, attempting to solve all of the rumblings going on in the Reformed world! This is blog, not a theological journal. And if it ever becomes a Clark-Wilson burned-over district, I give Lu-O permission to take her Liddel-Scott dictionary and beat me over the head with it!
The latest 'dia-blog' between Clark and Wilson is not such a good thing. It proves my point that 'genuine debate' can't take place in a medium given over to what I call, 'sound bite theology.' [How many people have chimed in on this debate? Far too many...and I don't much advise you trying to follow it all!]
Some of the rhetoric went from polemically interesting to unabashedly vitriolic.....and how are all those (300+?) 'comments' suppose to help?
Sound bites may work when commenting about a photo....but blogging is no way to do theology! [The sarcasm doesn't help either!]
Can you imagine the Westminster Divines trying to argue out the implications of the 'obedience of Christ' on.....Myspace? Maybe it's just me...but I don't find it terribly inviting to discuss Robert Baille and Richard Vines with someone named....'HypezAznTmboySrfGrl'! I rest my case....
This is not to say the issues are moot. Mai Genoita! Take up Turretin's Institutio Theologiae Elencticae (by way of example), and note the precise nuances when discussing faith (fide). You just can't get that kind of precision on a blog. And at the end of the day, I think Wilson is off the mark here...but that's a matter left for another day.
As my buddy Dave (aka the 'Hebrew Hammer') has quipped numerous times (in various versions): "All the good stuff worth reading is published in journals and books, not someone's blog!"
There is much wisdom here from 'the Hammer' worth pondering. And one of the things that concerns me about 'Theoblogging.' To publish in a journal and/or book is no small thing. It requires careful writing, editing, re-editing, peer reviews, final drafts, etc....sometimes taking months, even years! Often times with people that strongly disagree with you! But the process is there for a reason -- (a) it cleans up rhetoric; (b) it helps weed out bad argumentation; and (c) it encourages sober reflection and self-criticism.
Of course, journals and books don't perfectly suceed in doing these things, especially now that you can self-publish just about anything you want for relatively little cost. But when an article/book comes out in a significant quarterly/publishing house, there's a much better chance you are reading something that is actually worth reading.
So I hearby resolve.....to never let this blog become some massive theological outpost, attempting to solve all of the rumblings going on in the Reformed world! This is blog, not a theological journal. And if it ever becomes a Clark-Wilson burned-over district, I give Lu-O permission to take her Liddel-Scott dictionary and beat me over the head with it!
Posts
