michael spencer @ internet monk has a fab post on why he doesn’t read my blog.. this really hit home though michael.

3. Your level of knowledge regarding the subjects you write about is
so low that a discussion isn’t moved forward by what you write. This is why I don’t blog very much on baseball- which I love. I don’t know enough to make it worth someone’s time to read what I write. Many
bloggers aspire to be pundits, theologians and culture commentators, but they simply haven’t done their homework. They don’t know the subject, they haven’t read the books. They don’t have a freshman major’s level of understanding. If you don’t believe me, read 95% of what’s written about philosophical topics like “postmodernism.” The blind leading the blind, to much applause. Unlike what appears to be
the case with some famous bloggers, most bloggers don’t have a staff paid for by denominational funds to do their research.

Even though I am a seminary grad with post grad hours and extensive reading, and even though I teach Bible professionally, I know the difference between myself and Ben Witherington III, which some bloggers
clearly do not. Reading some rookie blogger tear into a guy with three Ph.d’s is, at the least, unlikely to yield any real insights.

dang, i claim my stupidity, all the time. you should see the email exchange i had with dr. aj levine on a part in her book "the misunderstood jew." her response to my question, or maybe more a clarification..

Thank you for your note.

I think the sentence to which you are referring is this:

" The
occasional king who burns down a city or bridegroom who shuts the door
in the face of five virgins who have run out of oil — that is, the
parables in which the difficult readings cannot be swept away — tends
not to get much sermon time, especially in liberal Christian settings. "

I’m sorry if I was unclear — my pint is that is, parables of judgment tend not to be the focus of sermons in liberal settings, and by liberal I mean the type of church is which the focus is more on social justice,
inclusivity, the condemnation of the ills of society, etc. (all splendid concerns, of course)  than on personal soteriology, divine judgment, eschatological punishment and reward, etc. (i.e.,  I am defining ‘conservative’ along the lines of Missouri Synod Lutheran, most of the leaders of the SBL, the PCA, Churches of Christ, etc., noting that there are exceptions to any label and that all generalities are inexact.

Does this make sense?

my response back

thanks dr. levine,

that is the sentence and no need for apologies. i think being the decently read, but not formally schooled lay/staff person i get myself in places where i have to interpret to my capabilities and something of what i thought just didn’t jive. so i asked

thanks for the clarification. it is certainly different from the assumptions i was coming too, so i am glad i asked and grateful for your time in responding. i cannot honestly say, "sure it all makes sense".. but let me consult my harvey’s theological terms book to remind myself of the "big words" that, i know i know but could never tell you exactly what they mean. does that make sense? 

&:~D 

again, thanks for your time
shalom

because she is cool like that!

smiling back at you …

and never hesitate to ask questions.

oh, sorry for the tangent. i’d agree with michael and it is okay dude, you don’t need to read my blog. i might have started it actually shape other peoples thoughts but quickly realized that was stupid, so it is me being me and what God has shaped me into. i figure there are a few people out there that would care for that.