Jonathan Martin, apart from having a cool first name, writes really interesting stuff. Annoyingly he is stuck in web 1.0 and so one finds oneself unable to comment on his otherwise marvelous blogging. Oh well, maybe he is just too good looking for comments, maybe he needs no comments,
anyway, he is absolutely right about the incredible irrelevance of the storm-in-a-teacup that a certain misogynistic collection of Calvinists drum up with their constant blogging. no one really cares, they are all just fighting over the same piece of slowly shrinking pie, flavoured raspberry and belligerence. So read it for yourself.
PS Kiwis looking for a post on the other GC will be disappointed, but not much.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
James McGrath's blog really is a mighty blog. He is single handedly responsible for sending over 80 readers to this weeks carnival. If y...
-
I know it has been a lean year for my long suffering blog readers, but as a sign i still love you, and that the rivers of xenos have not yet...
-
One of the great fears of a PhD student (speaking for myself at least) is that someone will publish your original ideas before you do. It ca...
Sorry, Jonathan, not sure I understand. The "storm" was not drummed up by TGC, it began when one of the bloggers hosted on their site wrote one post where he made a point quoting Doug Wilson. It was a bad quote to use in that context, but if no one had reacted, it would have passed into obscurity. As it was, the original blogger was not trying to keep it going, but trying to clarify and bring it to an end.
ReplyDeleteThe drumming was not done by "a certain misogynistic collection of Calvinists", or even one; it was done by a number of other people who just wouldn't let it go.
J. Martin may or may not be right about the irrelecance of the dust up, but it would be beneficial to get the main actors and their roles right if you are going to make a comment on it. ;)
Hi Ali, nah, if you say something offensive it is a bit disingenuous to complain, "if everyone had just ignored me it would have just passed into obscurity."
ReplyDeleteSounds as though you don't think it's such a storm in a teacup, if that's your view.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm saying is that it's difficult to square what you said:
...the storm-in-a-teacup that a certain misogynistic collection of Calvinists drum up with their constant blogging
with one person putting up a blog post that many other people considered offensive and who then drummed up your "storm-in-a-teacup" by their constantly blogging - which is what happened.
Seems as though you're wanting to place the blame for absolutely everything at the feet of the people whose views you hate.
That last line from my last comment should be scrubbed.
ReplyDeleteHi Ali, I do appreciate your desire to hold me accountable, but that GC post was merely the apex of a consistent stream of blogging in which a certain reading of scripture which is offensive to women is upheld from a group who claim to be united only by "the gospel". Any storm in a tea cup is a big deal if you happen to be a sugar lump in that cup, but for the rest of tea party it may as well not be happening, what they preach is damaging to the church and to those they offend, but in the grand scheme of things, it isn't really all that important. In that grand scheme of things, this little blog is even less so!
ReplyDeleteSomething is generally considered offensive because of the reaction other people have to it rather than whether or not the perpetrator considers it offensive. Some people need to be offended, e.g. complacent christians, greedy capitalists, and american televangelists, etc, victims of rape and women in general are not such a group.
I appreciate your willingness to listen to me "trying to keep you accountable". I guess it's more a matter of wanting to see accuracy, because I consider your voice an important one - to me, at least.
ReplyDeleteI am interested in your assertion that there is "a stream of blogging in which a certain reading of scripture which is offensive to women is upheld". Is that merely the complementarian position, or is there something more specific you are referring to? I ask this not to antagonise, but out of genuine curiosity. Is it just the fact that the complementarian position does not allow women to be pastors or elders and speaks of different and unchangable roles within a marriage that you consider offensive to women, or something else?