Comments on: A Better Writer Gets A Turn

By: Joel

Joel — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:58:00 +0000

Carl Olson irritates me, even though I usually agree with him. You educate me, most of all when I disagree with you. I know which I’d rather read.

(And I apologize for my prediction on an earlier post that you would eventually end up poping. Especially now that so many twits from both sides of the Tiber have ripped into you. Keep serving the Lord on whichever side, and we’ll all sort out the theology in heaven.)

By: Chuck Warnock

Chuck Warnock — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:35:56 +0000

Michael, I am learning that there are those who like to fight for intellectual turf. I’m not one of them. Thich Nhat Hahn, Buddhist monk and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, says that giving up all notions and intellectual positions is the path to peace. I am beginning to understand the truth of that. Which doesn’t mean you don’t have notions, just that you refuse to turn them into ammunition. Read Nhat Hahn’s book, Being Peace. It did more for me than most Christian books I’ve read lately. Of course, then they’ll call you a RC/Buddhist sympathizer, but who cares. Keep the faith because nothing else matters. — Chuck

By: ChrisB

ChrisB — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:57:40 +0000

“I have now been taken down and apart by Phil Johnson, Frank Turk, James White, Steve Hays, Ken Silva and Carl Olson.”
If you’ve ed off such a wide variety of people, you’re probably doing fine.

By: Grizmo

Grizmo — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:32:15 +0000

love your blog, keep it up, but the negative responses affirms that I made the right decision years ago to leave theological wranglings and pursue my gifts as a craftsman and woodworker. much easier on the soul and heart than being accused of heresy. Here’s to dust and the smell of crisp shavings in the morning.

By: dan

dan — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:04:55 +0000

I’ve read you for a while now, always good to see counterpoints, open frank discussion etc. Sometimes maybe it gets personal for those writing, but walk the walk etc. You have no reason to back down, to change your view, or your tact. Be blunt, call a spade a spade etc. Ok a bit heavy on the cliches, but brother we need more voices like yours, not less. The statement that “a prophet is not accepted in his hometown” kept running through my head as I read your piece. Maybe a visionary is not accepted in his own areana applies. Let the Spirit lead, not your own feelings. God bless you continually.

By: Evan Donovan

Evan Donovan — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 03:28:41 +0000

Why are our labels so important to us anyway?

(Most) blogs are toxic. Keep providing an alternative.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:24:48 +0000

While, I think Olson’s response is a tightly reasoned and well-written response that amount to some fraternal correction, it bears noting that we are brothers by virtue of our faith in Christ and our common Baptism, as well as our longing for unity among all the baptized who believe in Jesus Christ.

So, I am glad that Olson’s so-called “fisk” and the resulting fall-out, or shark-like feeding frenzy, didn’t stop you from continuing to blog. I’ll give you one good reason why: “Dumb Up, Brother: A Spirituality of Ignorance.” This is one of the best things I’ve read on discipleship in a long while.

By: Anono

Anono — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:35:49 +0000

Michael, I understand that you can’t afford to publish my latest comments. I wish you well.

By: Michael Spencer

Michael Spencer — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:24:43 +0000

Point well made. Diagnose at will. Thanks.

By: Caine

Caine — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:43:51 +0000

MIchael,

Now I am more confused at your reaction to the comments than from your original post. You have gotten 64 and counting comments on this post, most offering support and only a few “dissolve” type reviews. You even had Olson, your critic, come in and give his respect for you.

64 comments! Most bloggers would give their left eye socket to get that much response to an article they wrote. They would take even 64 comments of the “dissolve” quality to at least know they weren’t speaking to themselves in a vacuum.

But then, you waxed sarcastic at your respondents as follows:

“I’ve been reading mail and comments all day. It never fails to amaze me what bloggers will conclude from reading ONE post. We have some of the world’s greatest psychologists out there. House has nothing on you people who read one post and can describe my entire inner person in detail. Whence cometh such knowledge?”

Most of your responders are not one time readers. From what I gather, most have read you awhile and were trying to give you support during what appeared to be an emotional and painful reaction in your post. Yet you lump them as “the worlds greatest psychologists”. To quote you, “WT…”

I know you have said in the past that we make a mistake if we assume we know you just from reading your posts. Well, to some extent I disagree. You said right in this post that you will continue to be “confessional, honest side.” You’re “still going to advocate what’s important” to you.

Well you can’t have it both ways. If you are honest and confessional then you are revealing who you are. If you are telling us what is important to us, you are telling us who you are. We don’t know you as someone in your family, but if your writing is honest and confessional, in some ways we should know you better than at least some members of your family..second cousins at least.

We who read this blog like the Michael that is being revealed to us. We travel with his honest pains and victories. We like this guy. Otherwise we wouldn’t hang around so much. We don’t know him comprehensively. Only God does that. We don’t know him like his wife. But if he is honest in these posts, we at least know that small portion of his personality and we know that portion truly.

And again, we like this guy that is confessional and honest. We tried to give support and now it feels like we got slapped for it. Something more like “thanks for the support, but some of you misunderstood me” would have been nice.

Like the Olson issue, it appears you have fixated on the few negative (and incomprehensible) comments. Why? I won’t try to figure that out. That is up to you.

I am not House. But if I was, at least I could say one thing truly. It’s not lupus.