Home > Jesus Creed > On Writing for a Blo...

« Help Question Main Index Archives Way to go Jonathan! »

On Writing for a Blog

Friday July 18, 2008

Categories: Blogging

If you're interested in my take, this is an example of how not to write for a blog. I don't know Chad Hall, and I'm sure if I met him in a different setting it would be different, but this post is like entering into a room and asking for a fight just for the sake of a fight. I see no attempt to understand, to sympathize, to empathize -- and out of understanding, sympathy and empathy, to engage in a critical conversation. Sorry, but this didn't do it for me. In my opinion, Hall was unfair both to Mark Driscoll and Tony Jones.

Comments (37)

posted by Scot McKnight @12:10am Permalink email icon

Email This

Comments

Scot McKnight

July 18, 2008 2:41 PM

http://www.JesusCreed.org

I've been following this conversation about how comments on blogs can degenerate. 3 years of blogging now has taught me one thing that I wish more would realize:

Blogs, as RJS has just commented, can set tone; the post sets the tone.

But, in addition to this -- and I don't set myself up here as perfect, the blog operator can teach the art of conversation by what is permitted and what is not. Many corporate blogs don't have time for that, so one sees those posts become name-calling and nastiness.

So, one of the things I'd like to see more blogs do is take responsibility for civility. If enough of us do this we can make a generalized impact at the grassroot level on how Christians can learn to converse with civility.

It takes time; I've done this quite a number of times in the last two weeks. Most people, and I would say close to 90%, take the constructive suggestions to heart. Some don't.

I feel a personal obligation to this because of the "Jesus Creed" itself.

Peggy

July 18, 2008 5:08 PM

http://abisomeone.blogspot.com/

That's right, Scot! The "Jesus Creed" itself drives what you do on this blog and is a great part of the reason why the "Jesus Creeders" come here to talk over this amazing variety of stuff we talk about.... 8)

I agree that the conversation at the "One T" here is just as much dependent on the folks who are patrons by as the owner who starts the conversations. Thanks for puttin' your cards on the table -- and callin' folks out from time to time.

So, Scot...are you saying that the Deputies who frequent the One T seem to be off on summer vacation or something? ;)

Ken

July 18, 2008 8:47 PM

I think we all need to remember the intent of what the original post was. If I stand as judge to judge another, accusing them of judging, then I should be judged more guilty than the judge I'm judging. Unfortunately, however, the 2D screen and its text don't allow me to see into the heart of the contributor, the one my judging mind is calling a judge. So I, like everyone else, needs to remember that, in reading a post and its responses, the reader presently interacts with the other's words apart from the text's author, who is a person. But I don't know that person and, again, can't see past the text, the screen, and into the heart. So I give the benefit of the doubt. I give the benefit that the words, though limited, have an intended purpose that I can not too quickly dismiss or condemn. And I will then extend that same generous attitude and charitable disposition to the printed page as well - particularly the two books discussed in the first place. And when I look into my heart - the only one I can truly see into - and if I find there a willing spirit to embark on such an enormous endeavor, then I can give the benefit of the doubt that the authors of the printed page and the text-on-screen blog might do the same. To me, that is conversation.

Bill Samuel

July 19, 2008 7:10 AM

http://blog.billsamuel.net/

The review article did read like he was having a bad time and he was going to take it out on whatever he read. His passion was really against Jones, and it sounded like he partly blasted Driscoll to show he wasn't taking sides. But the style is a dialogue closer not a dialogue opener.

Tony Jones has blogged about deciding how to respond. He considered responding in a more generous, Brian McLaren type manner, but decided against that in favor of the blow for blow approach. I think that was a bad choice. I think he let his anger get the better of him. Certainly his response was more cogent than the original, but the spirit of it wasn't markedly better. He could have done much better.

Scot, you're the model for blogging about serious things in a way that opens up dialogue. Jesus Creed is cited by many people as a model, and rightly so.

Nancy

July 19, 2008 8:32 AM

I find myself agreeing with John F. #11.

Read All Comments

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.

« Help Question Main Index Archives Way to go Jonathan! »

Search This Blog

About Jesus Creed

Scot McKnight is a widely-recognized authority on the New Testament, early Christianity, and the historical Jesus. He is the Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University (Chicago, Illinois). A popular and witty speaker, Dr. McKnight has given interviews on radios across the nation, has appeared on television, and is regularly asked to speak in local churches and educational events. Dr. McKnight obtained his Ph.D. at the University of Nottingham (1986). Click to continue reading Scot McKnight's Bio...

View Scot's Speaking Schedule

Contact Scot at Facebook