Skip to main content

The Best Blog on Wilson, GC and all that jazz

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.


  1. 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.

    The 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. ;)

  2. 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."

  3. Sounds as though you don't think it's such a storm in a teacup, if that's your view.

    What 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.

  4. That last line from my last comment should be scrubbed.

  5. Hi 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!

    Something 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.

  6. 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.

    I 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?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ANZABS 2018 program and abstracts

6-7 December, 2018

Venue: Wesley Hall, Trinity Methodist College,

202A St Johns Rd, Meadowbank, Auckland 1072

Thursday 6 December
10.00-10.10 – mihi
10.10-11.00 – Keynote speaker: Robert Myles – Fishing for Eyewitnesses in the Fourth Gospel
11.00-11.30 – Morning tea
11.30-12.00 – Lyndon Drake – Economic Capital in the Hebrew Bible
12.00-12.30 – Anne Aalbers – Resurrection and Celibacy: Two Sides of the Same Coin?
12.30-1.00 – Jonathan Robinson – "And he was with the beasts," (Mark 1:13): Ambiguity,
Interpretation and Mark as a Jewish Author
1.00-2.00 – Lunch
2.00-2.30 – Ben Hudson – Ethical Exhortation and the Decalogue in Ephesians
2.30-3.00 – Csilla Saysell – The Servant as 'a covenant of/for people' in Deutero-Isaiah
3.00-3.30 – Afternoon tea
3.30-4.00 – Jacqueline Lloyd – Did Jesus minister in Gaulanitis?
4.00-4.30 – Mark Keown – Jesus as the New Joshua
4.30 – AGM
Friday 7 December
9.30-10.00 – Ben Ong – Pākehā Readin…

Updated Current Research and Book Reviews

So, my PhD must be going well because I have just spent the morning updating my blog pages for Current Research and brand spanking new Book Reviews page. But it is not just procrastination, it is good to stop and and get an overview.

I had totally forgotten about half the book reviews I had done on this blog, they go back to 2009! I am still working on writing the sort of reviews I really enjoy reading, but now that I'm regularly doing reviews for journals it is great to also review books on this blog where I have stylistic freedom and no space limitations. I had always hoped this blog would be a good source of free books, but while it was a source of free books they were not good ones. Reviewing for journals (as a PhD student) has been much better and is helping me keep my broader education going even as I delve deep into my PhD subject. Looking at my old book reviews helps me realise how far I have come. Hopefully, much growth as a blogger, scholar and human being (perhaps not i…

Again, on Mark 2:23-28

I think this is different enough to the "solutions" shared earlier to be worth a post. I'm afraid I haven't had a chance to absorb it yet, been reading too much today, so I can't say if I think he is on to something or not, but do let me know what you think :-)

James M. Hamilton Jr. in "The Typology of David's Rise to Power: Messianic Patterns in the Book of Samuel" JSBT 16, 2012, 4-25, at p13 writes,

Considering the way that Jesus appeals to the Davidic type in Mark 2:23-28, Goppelt draws attention to the way that Jesus not only makes a connection between himself and David in Mark 2:25, he also links his disciples to “those who were with [David].”70 This would seem to invite Mark’s audience to make other connections between those involved in these two events. Much discussion has been generated by the fact that Mark 2:26 portrays Jesus referring to “the time of Abiathar the high priest,” when it appears that at the time, Ahimelech would have been the…