Saturday, March 19, 2005
Agree And Disagree
Challies has stirred up quite the conversation with his review of Hugh Hewitt's book Blog. Tim Challies, who is a fellow Warnie Winner, was ambivalent towards Hugh's book. To his credit, Hugh links to the review and remains quite complimentary of Tim's site design. I must say that I think Hugh's magnanimity helps explain why Hugh's blog gets hits in the thousands and tens of thousands daily while Tim and I are in the hundreds.
Tim's cirticisms of the book are largely literary, which is fine, but I have to be honest -- I never heard Hugh claim to be a literary writer -- He's a communicator.
But enough about Tim, I really wanted to write about Jollyblogger's comments on the book as inspired by Tim. (HT SmartChristian) Jollyblogger does a good job of tackling Hugh's primary assertion that blogging will result in the "next reformation." I think David's points are well taken, if a bit territorial.
When it comes to the church, David is dead nuts on. Blogging cannot and will not produce a reformation -- that will require some new and appealing idea. I for one am not hoping for nor desire a reformation in the church, most of what I see developing in the church that is "new" is the kind of stuff the the reformation of the 16th century came about to combat.
However, on a purely political level, Hugh's analogy is not so unsound. the 16th century reformation changed politics forever, both in governments and in the ecclesiastical circles. The political potency of Rome prior to the reformation cannot be understated. Every king and potentate in the western world drew their authority from Rome. The reformation changed all that.
During the last era of American history, particularly since the rise of television, all who wished to exercise political power have had in some sense to draw that power from the MSM. Blogs can change and are changing all that.
I have yet to meet the perfect analogy. When pushed they all break down. Hugh's is no exception, but that does not invaildate its usefulness. In this case Hugh is right and David is right. Both of them should keep writing, and I am going to keep reading.
Tim's cirticisms of the book are largely literary, which is fine, but I have to be honest -- I never heard Hugh claim to be a literary writer -- He's a communicator.
Another reviewer commented that, "The book reads like it was cranked out over a few long weekends." I suspect that may be the case.Of course it was the case, it is so by Hugh's own admission! Hugh's goal here was twofold (I think)
- Sell books. Hot topic. He's on the forefront of the topic. Great opportunity. Self-serving? Perhaps, but that is how it works in America. This would, I think, be a valid criticism of a popular Chritian book selling the latest theological (more likely psuedo-theological) concept; God knows there are enough of them. But this is a book about blogging
- Inspire more people to blog. Why? Now here Hugh is, I think, a true believer. He believes in the "democratization" of information. I think the roots of his desire for this lie in his early training in the Nixon fold, someone who knew a great deal about the power of a vicious and idealogical press. That is purely supposition on my part, but seems valid.
Which brings up another criticism that Tim leveled:
I also wonder how plausible it is that MSM will die off. After all, bloggers do not usually create the news. Instead, they interpret the news that the MSM has already reported. Without the MSM, what will bloggers use for source material?This belies some ignorance on Tim's part about how the MSM works. The public face of the MSM, NYTimes, WaPo, CNN, et. al., is pretty much just the distribution channel, not the producers of news. Yes they have some reporters in the field, but much of their content comes from wire and news services. It is this distribution of news that Hugh discusses, not its collection. Though bloggers have and can do that as well.
But enough about Tim, I really wanted to write about Jollyblogger's comments on the book as inspired by Tim. (HT SmartChristian) Jollyblogger does a good job of tackling Hugh's primary assertion that blogging will result in the "next reformation." I think David's points are well taken, if a bit territorial.
When it comes to the church, David is dead nuts on. Blogging cannot and will not produce a reformation -- that will require some new and appealing idea. I for one am not hoping for nor desire a reformation in the church, most of what I see developing in the church that is "new" is the kind of stuff the the reformation of the 16th century came about to combat.
However, on a purely political level, Hugh's analogy is not so unsound. the 16th century reformation changed politics forever, both in governments and in the ecclesiastical circles. The political potency of Rome prior to the reformation cannot be understated. Every king and potentate in the western world drew their authority from Rome. The reformation changed all that.
During the last era of American history, particularly since the rise of television, all who wished to exercise political power have had in some sense to draw that power from the MSM. Blogs can change and are changing all that.
I have yet to meet the perfect analogy. When pushed they all break down. Hugh's is no exception, but that does not invaildate its usefulness. In this case Hugh is right and David is right. Both of them should keep writing, and I am going to keep reading.
