Southern Baptists, Blogging and Reputable Dispensers of Sound Information

  I have now been blogging just a bit over three years.  The readership, for which I am very grateful, has been consistent (if the typepad blog-stats are accurate) even if somewhat erratic.  My readership peaked from May to July of this year, when I was averaging, at one point, almost a thousand page views per day.  Since, it has lessened considerably, and frankly, I am glad.  Well, not that the “numbers” are down per se; rather the comment thread is very lean and I, for one, like it that way. 

Some might say, as one did here, that my alleged arrogance runs people away (for the record, that is a lot nicer than it was put on the thread).  I can handle that.  I do not claim to be humble.  In fact, those--other than our Blessed Lord Jesus--who publicly claim humility have the strangest way of publicly demonstrating it. 

Nor am I above arrogance, and certainly not beyond arrogance.  My fallen yet redeemed flesh makes sure that I’m not.  The dreadful ghost of my dead-to-sin condition haunts me ever more than it did the Inspired Apostle, I assure (Romans 7).

Nor again is it because I do not like to chat or converse.  To the contrary, I like it very much.  But I simply got over the perpetual, contentless complaints and personal accusations leveled toward the interior life of others by many who logged on to SBCTomorrow.  I wrote a couple of posts, warned a few, deleted a few comments and the squatters finally pulled up their stakes and camped elsewhere.

Once again, it is not the disagreement to which I object.  Indeed the magic missing before the blogging revolution is the comment thread itself, which guaranteed disagreement would not only be possible but disagreement would also be inevitable.  If one cannot take disagreement, one should simply close the comment section and post away in a pre-revolutionary manner.

Rather, the chief objection I possess is the content of the disagreement itself.  Bloggers are, in many respects--especially in my own Baptist fellowship of contributors--oblivious to valid forms of argument, types of evidences, what actually constitutes evidence, credible sources, what constitutes credible sources, legitimately citing credible sources, and etc., and etc. In short, we are adrift on the sea of anti-intellectualism, placing more stock in rambling, misguided emotion than hard-earned, sober thinking.

I recently posted on a popular blog a half-dozen or more extended quotes from one of Southern Baptists’ most respected early theologians.  The discussion thread concerned whether a particular teaching from some current Baptist theologians was “new,” “Biblical,” and/or “heretical teaching.”  My citing of him was not to establish whether or not he was correct in teaching such.  Perhaps he was wrong to do so. 

Nor was it to rebuke valid discussion about the issue, citing an “authority” to end the debate.  One even queried since when did Baptists “canonize” one of their own, strangely missing the point even more!  The point was to contest whether the teaching was either "new" or, at least historically, "heretical," which was the chief assertion of the original post.

Out of a comment thread which racked up a whopping 333 comments--many of which were from the bloghost after my rehearsal of the quotes to demonstrate the historic nature of the view under question--not one comment engaged the quotes.  Not one. 

Indeed, the bloghost not only did not engage them, he did not so much as acknowledge them. The conversation went right on speaking around the issue at hand, many comments of which still chiseled out conspiratorial theories of massive corruption among the SBC leadership. 

To make things more complicated, when evidence is offered, so many times it comes not from standard references as one would expect in reasonable discourse.  Instead it comes from the blackhole of the internet.  Even worst still, it comes from other blogs! 

Allow me to be clear, lest someone wants to pinch the thin-skin on the back of my arm.  The Internet is a God-send for research.  Most likely, no one who knows anything about research at all--not to mention simply how to “google it”--desires to go back to rote research in the library.  No one.  Literally.

I personally have 2,226 books presently earmarked in my online library.  Believe me, that’s small.  There are tens of thousands of books from which to choose.  All free.  The disadvantage is their age.  The overwhelming majority are from a century or more ago.  Nonetheless, for me, I love it because I love the history of ideas!  Especially the history of theological ideas.

On the other hand, no one who knows anything about research at all--not to mention simply how to “google it”--desires to abandon rote research in the library.  No one.  Literally.  There are standard reference works that should be accessible at the fingertips of anyone who claims to be a teacher. 

It is at this juncture, I become skeptical of so many bloggers.  From my view, there is a basic ignorance of standard sources.  Ask them a reference and they will give you a link.  Go to the link and it’s another blogger.  That's so frustrating.

Not that bloggers cannot be scholars.  To the contrary, there are some bloggers who are academic scholars, though there are few, comparatively speaking.  There are also some bloggers who attempt to employ credible research and write credibly about the results.  These are, at minimum, aware of standard works in the specific field of inquiry and attempt to offer the fruit of their studies. 

Then, of course, there is the groupies that tend to quote each other:  “So and so has a five-part post on this.  You need to read him/her.”

Let me be clear (and yes, this applies to me as a blogger): 

If I am recommended a blog series to read, I’ll usually check it out.  If the blogger is an accomplished scholar, I will read first and check the citations as I proceed.  If the blogger is, well, just a blogger, I’ll check the citations first before I read (assuming there are citations).  If the citations given reference standard works, I’ll consider reading it.  If there are an unusual amount of citations to either other bloggers or the black hole of the Internet, I look up on my tool bar and press “Home.” 

Obviously, there are variables depending on the subject, etc.  However, I mention this in a general way hoping to connect with this simple truth:  bloggers, like any other communicative pastime, are obligated to follow laws of integrity when it comes to serving out information. 

Unfortunately, I must lament the scorched beans we Baptists bring to the barbecue.  Too often, we’re interested more in sensational interpretations, divisive meandering, executing personalities based primarily on hearsay rather than established facts.  We tolerate comments explicitly naming our leaders as “hypocrites,” “idiots,” “child-abusers,” “woman-abusers,” and/or “power-mongers,” while at the same time ignore intellectual content that threatens our personal thesis.   

Our Lord Jesus spoke that not one word will pass from our lips for which we will not be held accountable.  His half-brother and apostolic author mentioned that those who would be teachers of the Church would be held to, if possible, a stricter measure than others would be.  That is, those called to teach possess a divine attachment to the call--a rigid, non-compromising reckoning for what they say is so, is actually so--and that, completely apart from whether they sincerely believe what they say is so.   

This alone should send shivers down our spine with every single word we peck out on the keyboard.  It also should make us stop and think before we make undeniably public fools of ourselves for putting in print--albeit digital print but print nonetheless--our unsalvageable ignorance in pretending reputable sources do not exist.

With that, I am…

Peter

Comments

[Steve]

Well said.
Without good study and godly scholarship its the blind leading the blind..and both fall into the ditch
Steve

[Byron]

Peter, I've started noticing something. I tend to only reply when I disagree with something. Lately, I have not replied much to any of your blogs (by my standards, anyway). I'm afraid I'm turning into a lurker. :)

Good post.

[Ron P.]

Peter,

I too have been lurking. Actually, I have been so busy with the addition of a foster baby that we are in the process of adopting (and church and work as well). I have missed the interactions on the blogs a lot.

You are correct that there are many bloggers (and commenter's), who lack the necessary skills at reasoned debate and critical thinking. Too many of them have gone to the Joe Biden school of speech: Make up or say things that support your position. Facts do not matter. The only issue that matters is the point being made. It also reminds me of the Dan Rather fiasco with the falsified papers about George W. Bush. Rather still insisted his story was true, even though his evidence was fabricated. This is the level that "critical thinking" has been lowered to.

I guess my question is what are we to do about it? I would suggest standing your ground and keep up the good fight. The Word of God is worth the fight!

By the way, in your last post in which you were called a derogatory and coarse (colorful) word, I would submit that it precisely proves my point. If the argument can not be answered with reason, then the attack will not be the logic, but towards the person making the argument.

God Bless,

Ron P.

[Chris]

thanks for the post

[Katie]

Hi Peter,

In my opinion, the "popular blog" you refer to is the blogging equivalent of the grocery store tabloid, with the ridiculous headlines, about UFOs, the world's fattest person or the latest gossip about Hollywood's bad boys and girls. So, it's not surprising that facts, research or deep discussion are avoided and even ridiculed. What's sad is that so many people seem willing to jump on the bandwagon. As preposterous as those headlines in the tabloids are, they haven't gone out of business yet. I guess there is always a market for the sensational.

[peter lumpkins]

Steve,

Thanks. And as for Wade asserting I "agreed" with his view in a round about way, I haven't a clue to what he refers. I think it demonstrates once again the sloppiness of the approach employed in using sources I so often opine pertaining to the posts at G&T2U...

Ron,

I understand, my brother. And I with you do not know what to do except continue to point out those inconsistencies. As for the bombastic image BDW created especially for my benefit, I have to say, that may be the most provocative he's ever been anywhere I've seen his footprint. Lawyers unfortunately gain a reputation for short fuses with the non-lawyerly types. Perhaps its the nature of their studies that drives such, who knows?

Katie,

Always my pleasure and I trust your & your husband's ministry is going particularly well. I have to say I agree fully: "there is always a market for the sensational."

Byron,

This is really freaking me out: you becoming a 'lurker' since my posts are more agreeable to you and Dave actually stating he agreed with me two times running. He said when he returned, he'd disagree regardless. Well, the reason he has not returned is obvious: he agrees with every doggone word in this post! Help! :^)

With that, I am...

Peter