On Writing for a Blog

That is a terrible article…truly immature and a rather poor critique. I know that Chad Hall “started it,” but I didn’t think that Tony Jones response was much more gracious. Both show the sad state of where we are at…evangelicals and emergents taking shots at each other and talking around each other when in truth they agree on the vast majority of issues. Truly sad. I never thought I’d say this, but I feel that Mark Driscoll actually came across as the classiest of the bunch with his response.

I agree. This guy need a Scot McKnight injection and two Michael Spencer pills.

josenmiami,
I am not so sure it is a wonderful example of the power of digital communication in the church – because I am not sure that there is any real communication – or at least much real communication in the mix.
The acerbic edge is disturbing (as it is in the reformers and many of the post-nicene church writers).
And I say this as one who thinks that there is great value in digital communication.

you might be right … maybe I was influenced by Stackhouse in his book on Christian Realism to lower my expectations…
RJS, are you familiar with Jurgen Habermas and his theory regarding communicative ethics and the ideal speech situation?

I was really impressed with the way Mark Driscoll responded. It seemed that the humility that Hall mentioned was very present in Driscoll’s response. I struggle to comment on an article like Hall’s because it makes me want to respond like Tony Jones did, which I don’t feel is the best way to do it. Eh.

Chad,
I cannot say how grateful I am for you to write in and apologize for the review. From this point on, I will admit to this post only comments that are appreciative of this response of yours.
Again, it is gracious of you to respond as you have.

RJS: he is pretty hard to read. I just finished his Legitimation Crisis and, although I was fascinated and drawn to it, I didn’t really understand it until I heard my prof. lecture on it. I do believe he has something to say to us about seeking consensus on ethical issues through honest and thorough communications (something this blog is good at, although I occasionally fall short) with a diverse group of actors.
Habermas believes that the communication will become more essential in the future… and must needs include as diverse a group as possible.
Something that disturbs me is the tendency in many of my friends (this blog excluded) to only talk to those who think the same way as themselves…and only to read that which confirms what they only believe. This contributes to the further polarization of our society and ingrown thinking.
One of the things I have come to appreciate about my graduate studies in a secular, public university is that I have been forced to read all kinds of stuff that I would never have chosen to read. I have had to grapple with issues that I would never have chosen to think about, and it has changed me.
I am currently reading a book by Nicholas Adams, prof. of Theology and Ethics at the U. of Edinburgh, which analyzes the potential contribution of Habermas to theology and some of the pitfalls; Habermas and Theology Cambridge University Press, 2006.
For a brief and clear intro to Habermas, check out Habermas: a Very Short Introduction by Gordon Finlayson.
Chad: thanks for showing up in here to respond. Don’t be dismayed when things backfire…keep trying to stir up communication. It is easy to get discouraged and to just want to quit and let the world go to hell. I feel that way pretty often!

I thought the review somewhat antagonistic, but nothing extraordinarily improper. I thought Jones’ review in the same regard, whereas Driscoll took the criticism in stride and admitted it was one to be expected from one in Hall’s position.
This reminds of the charges of “going negative” in the Obama and Clinton campaigns. Bill Clinton’s response that having such a tough debate was a good thing, to be expected. In my opinion, Hall’s review (and Jones’ response) is edgier than others one might read, but at least I know where he stood.

Scott,
Rather than piling on, I actually would like to defend the Chad’s original review. His review is actually the type of book review I’d like to see more of. I’ve not read either book, but if a reviewer finds a book boring and/or uninsightful, I want to know about it before I spend money on it. It’s a lot more helpful than the vast majority of reviewers out there who just fawn over their favorite theologians. A case in point is all the talk I heard about Moltmann’s “Theology of Hope.” I was really excited about the book from all the glowing reviews, but I after reading it, I was disappointed and feel the author didn’t say anything as insightful as everybody claimed he had and it frankly bored me. I think that everybody should know that. And I think it’s right that Chad gave his honest opinion. May there be more reviews just like Chad’s!
Furthermore, if he feels Jones is being arrogant and pompous and is charging money for the privelege of reading it in text form, I want to know about it! It’s one thing to confront someone in your church privately about their arrogance. That is the proper way to do it. But when someone is charging money for their theology? That’s where people should receive full disclosure about a reader’s experience with the product.
Chad, maybe you can blend your penchant for honesty, i.e. calling a spade a spade with Scott’s important emphasis on empathy, which is much needed in today’s theological conversation, and become the ultimate reviewer! Honesty & Empathy, the keys to book reviewing.

Alex #18, maybe the people that said Moltmann’s book was insightful actually believed it was? One’s insight is another’s boredom. Just a thought.

I think whether in reviews, or review of reviews, incarnational dialogue is limited in digital communication. Yes, if we were face to face with each other in conversation about our understanding of the faith, we might be more apt to get into a playground fight but we also get to see the non verbal, the tone and heart expressed through face to face encounter. We get to ask questions of the person and not just the print. This is not to say we should never have digital dialogue but we should always qualify or temper our responses with it’s limitations.

Mick (22): Spot-on. I reread Chad’s review, and he interspersed some important observations about the content of both books. Regrettably, his disappointment with Driscoll and Jones elicited some tough rhetoric that cuts off some analysis of the books.
One example would be where Chad critiques Jones’ description of an emerging church in Seattle. The response (reaction?) is so strong, that I found myself checking out of the review. When I got a second pass, Chad found another voice in the paragraph that follows:
“More than the condescension and contradiction, what I found most disturbing was that emergents’ thinking process seems self-sealing.”
Now, the analysis of the “thinking process” was actually very good and when compared to other parts of the review it was free of the harsh labels: he held back from further expression of his disappointment. Mind you, I did not catch this until a second reading of the review, again that was because the language prior really made me think: “Chad is not going to analyze anything more than he has already.”
So, yeah, digital communications has severe limitations, especially in “incarnational dialogue.”
Moving this conversation forward, then, what of Tony’s omission in his reply to Chad on this very matter of the “self-sealing thinking process”? I wonder-in the real sense of needing conversation, understanding, and inquiry- I wonder about this depiction that Chad has made and that Tony did not reply to it.

Scot,
I appreciate this post and Chad’s response and your response to that.
I read the review and responses. Chad made a claim that touches something I have wondered about before. He used the term, “self-sealing process” and claimed, “Nothing self-critical here.”
Do you think there is merit to this concern that Chad stated? In general, do you sense a willingness in emerging believers to be self-critical and/or to accept criticism from outside, including from evangelicals who disagree with them?
I realize the question is tangential to your point here and I suppressed the urge to post it the first time, but now that something of a coner has been turned in the comments (per Chad’s appearance), I thought I would risk asking you.

MatthewS at #26,
There is merit to Chad’s concern but thre is also willingness in emerging to be self-critical and to accept criticism, just as I think there is concern with critics not to read well and listen well and a willingness on their part to change their views. Maybe another way of putting this is that I simply don’t think humans, as a rule, are much in for changing their minds. And mind changes are not very often the result of logic but of confidence in another person who holds a different view that gives someone the confidence to reconsider.

Much Love To Mark Driscoll « Missio Dei

[...] But recently Chad Hall wrote what, from my perspective and others, to be a callous and almost absurd critique of both Tony Jones’ book The New Christians and Mark Driscoll’s Vintage Jesus.� Other’s agreed with me.� The review reminded me of Mark’s diatribe against those in the emerging church. It looked like a knife fight masked as a book review.� And to be honest, I thought Tony got sucked in with his response.� Defending one’s point to someone who is not listening doesn’t really work.� But maybe that’s what Chad wanted.� Who knows? [...]

Rob in #20. I agree with your thought. But I would have liked to have heard two sides of the story, instead of just the positive. Now I realize that when someone does give a critical even scathing review, they get lambasted. A book is a product, not a person. There is nothing uncharitable about Chad’s review. Let’s remember that he is not reviewing a person here. He is reviewing a commercial product, a product that is sold for profit by the likes of Amazon.com and the respective publishers. If Chad was reviewing a person’s life, than that would be extremely judgemental and horribly uncharitable. But Chad is warning us not to spend our money and when that’s what’s on the line, I want a reaction from the gut, not a sales pitch where we try not to step on toes.

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.

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.

I find myself agreeing with John F. #11.