Why I Don’t Read Your Books or Blogs
As I have been reading and reviewing books and blogs over the years, my approach has changed. This was not an overnight change, but something that just happened the more involved I became in engaging those who were serious about teaching and learning with intellectual honesty and integrity (something that, I am sad to say, does not always characterize Christian teachers). There are certain characteristics that I have found in people’s teaching that immediately alert me to the realization that I am wasting my time (which I don’t have much of!).
What follows is really general communication discipleship that should be thoughtfully considered in all conversation.
If you don’t want me to read your books or blogs (or listen to your sermon or lecture), here are some characteristics to adopt:
- Overstatement
- Unqualified Superlatives
- Non-Contingent Propositions
Yes, I know . . . maybe not what you expected. Many of your lists would include clarity, systematic presentation, grammer and spelling, and reference support. Those things are important to me as well (although you may not have noticed from my writing!), but the above list is what I notice most, especially in presentations and arguments that are theological in nature.
Overstatement, unqualified superlatives, and non-contingent propositions, are related and can be thought of as different ways of saying the same thing. In fact, you might say that they all belong in the same semantic domain that we might call “imbalance.” Once I detect imbalance, I usually have a hard time going on. Think of phrases like these:
“I am absolutely certain that . . .”
“This is the only explanation for . . .”
“The church has always believed . . .”
“There is no doubt that . . .”
“Everyone knows that . . .”
“It is perfectly clear . . .”
“No educated person believes . . .”
And the like.
It is the tendency to represent your case without what many people call “epistemic humility”—a real understanding that you could be wrong. We all have a problem saying “I could be wrong” or “in my opinion” because we feel as if in doing so we are making concessions that undermine our case. We like to give our readers and listeners continued and perpetual confidence in the argument of our presentation. We feel that if we don’t gain this confidence at every point and turn, we have poked holes in our own vessel and that by the end of the voyage, our ship will be sunk. Therefore, everything must be air-tight. There is no room for personal opinion since the subjectivity that it presents gives way to uncertainty. There is no room for contingency, no room for insufficient data, and no place for the legitimacy of the opposition, even to the slightest degree. If we believe what what we are saying, we must justify this belief beyond any possibility of a doubt.
But, ironically, especially in a hyper-critical postmodern world, we give credit to our case when we do represent the transparency that accompanies real contingency and the revelation of epistemic humility. We show that we have a broader understanding of the issues. It evidences an honest wrestling with the subject of the proposition. In the end, when we do come to a conclusion on the matter, even with all the contingencies that we have worn on our sleeve, readers become more confident in your ability to think with integrity and have a greater confidence in your conclusions.
Notice what Strunk and White have to say in their popular book on writing style. Also, notice that this is not a book about how to write theology, but how to communicate through writing. The wise and timeless principles expressed here can be applied to any communication venue (even an argument with your spouse!)
“When you overstate, readers will be instantly on guard and everything that has preceded your overstatement as well as everything that follows it will be suspect in their minds because they have lost confidence in your judgment or your poise. Overstatement is one of the common faults. A single overstatement, wherever or however it occurs, diminishes the whole, and a single carefree superlative has the power to destroy, for readers, the object of your enthusiasm.” (Strunk and White. Elements of Style, Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 7).
Do you understand what they are saying? Once you characterize yourself with this type of imbalance, it is very rare that you will gain an audience (except with those who already agree with you). The object of your enthusiasm becomes diminished, finding relative balance in the strengths of your other overstatements. If Jesus Christ is the object of your enthusiasm, does his death, burial, and resurrection find equal qualification with your belief that your church is the one true church, that the world was created in six literal days, that the anti-Christ is Obama? Overstatement can destroy our testimony. With such a methodology the discharge of the Gospel becomes hamstrung.
Let me back up and say that if someone uses unqualified superlatives, overstatements, or non-contingent statements wisely and sparingly with intentionality, so long as their credibility has thus been established, I will not only tolerate them, but listen to them with a greater degree of interest and consideration. Why? Because they show themselves to be balanced and worthy of consideration.
Please note, this is not a postmodern concession to relativism, for I am not advocating that people hide convictions or not take stand for what they believe. Neither am I saying that you cannot have great degrees of certainty and assurance about many of your convictions. I am simply telling people that if you overstate your case, no matter what it is, I will have a hard time listening to what you have to say, and I think I speak for many.
So, if you don’t want want me to read your books or your blog, simply overstate your case at every turn. That is it. It is pretty simple. I would be careful, however, and consider whether or not you are wasting your own time in writing if these characteristics describe your approach. We honor God when we stand up for the truth, but we don’t honor him when we misrepresent the truth to accomplish our presupposed agenda that has not been critically thought through. God help us all to use our words wisely, especially those of us who are teachers.
The Credo House of Theology is well on the way. Get the latest updates here.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Share this Post[?]- Why I Won’t Read Your Books or Blogs
- What is God (2) – Why I Look to Philosophy and Say You Should Too
- The Greer-Heard Forum: A Few Observations
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Four – What Did John Believe?
- Right Beliefs, Wrong Reasons
Print This Post








Kent on 11 Aug 2008 at 4:02 pm #
I think you’re wrong about this.
Bob McNeme on 11 Aug 2008 at 5:02 pm #
How do you like: “There is not a shread of evidence – - -”
Howard Pepper on 11 Aug 2008 at 5:15 pm #
Thanks for the good thoughts here, Michael. Interesting that I was just the other day watching a video of a presentation recently by Frank Schaeffer, who was repeatedly making a similar point. He was saying that a major problem with the Evangelical standpoint, as he himself formerly had, is this kind of absolute certainty, and that humility primarily means saying “I could be wrong.”
And, from a former Evangelical perspecitve myself, it’s interesting that often the points most leaned upon and needed within the system, that are thought beyond compromise (taken with complete certainty) are the very things that are the most speculative and rest on dubious historicity.
Santos on 11 Aug 2008 at 5:36 pm #
I think it is important to realize the possibility that we may
be wrong. On the other hand, I think that it has become “cool” to
preface everything said with “of course this is just my opinion”
precisely because it adds authority to our words (the
postmodern calls it “authenticity”).
I think GK Chesterton hits the bullseye in the following excerpt
from “Orthodoxy”:
“…what we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place.
Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled
upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be.
A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about
the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part
of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not
to assert–himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he
ought not to doubt–the Divine Reason. Huxley preached a humility
content to learn from Nature. But the new sceptic is so humble
that he doubts if he can even learn.”
Matt on 11 Aug 2008 at 6:08 pm #
It took years of rough and tumble experience for me to learn ‘epistemic humility’. Teachers throughout my college years (evangelical christian, with stealth liberal professors; a good thing by the way) had little trouble shredding the fundamentalism of my zealous youth. Yet as I packed on a bit of intellectual muscle as a result of these encounters I noticed a strange thing… the sword cuts both way. Overstatements, unqualified superlatives, and non-contingent propositions are not limited to the ‘religious’. I get great pleasure reading Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. – great secular examples. I struggle with being a relativist and try to keep in mind Chesterton’s words, “what we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place….modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be….a man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth”. Michael, I look forward to seeing you this weekend in Manteca.
Lisa R on 11 Aug 2008 at 8:03 pm #
Michael, I absolutely agree and this serves as a much needed reminder to us aspiring writers
Yes, I think that humility is at the core of the balance you mention here. I even get turned off by sermons that include something like “that is wrong” or “let me straighten out your theology”. It presumes a level of perfectionism that an honest examination of our humanity and fallibility should reject.
Damian on 11 Aug 2008 at 8:55 pm #
Wow those are the same reasons I don’t listen to talk radio. lol.
It would seem a good idea to apply this criteria to the non-theological realm as well.
Good job.
Aaron C. Rathburn on 11 Aug 2008 at 9:57 pm #
I agree completely, and I think that this is a very delicate and nuanced thing to accomplish.
That being said, we live in a culture that presently has a strong question of instituted authority, and one must be very careful to apply these principles correctly, and not haphazardly so as to dismiss any authoritative legitimacy.
I wouldn’t have said this, had I not just read the comment above: “I even get turned off by sermons that include something like ‘that is wrong’.” Some things just plain are wrong. I give the poster the benefit of the doubt that she meant something else (because ultimately, we both agree with your post’s points), but we must be careful-
We are not in a quest for truth, we have it- Jesus Christ is the truth. The Word of God is truth. It is merely our understanding of the truth that is in question, and that is where we need to carry great humility.
-ACR
Lisa R on 11 Aug 2008 at 10:14 pm #
Aaron, you are right, I should have expounded on those quotes. “That is wrong” is in reference to one person’s castigation of another’s interpretation. That is not to suggest that objective standards of truth should not exist because regarding the “essentials” of the faith, I do believe that is required. But there is a way to present it, as messengers and not the authors.
Scott Free on 12 Aug 2008 at 12:59 am #
No, that’s a blatant lie. What you don’t want is an influx of factual information that conflicts with your myopic view of whatever issues you choose to rave about like a 911 truther on crack.
'Mash on 12 Aug 2008 at 5:37 am #
When writing anything in relation to God I always try and keep the following in mind…
1. No one comes to know Jesus through logic or argument. It may get them so far but it is only the Holy Spirit that changes the heart and allows them to know Christ. My own ability to know God was and is a totally undeserved gift to me for His ultimate glory.
2. Knowing this I lean not on the “perfection” of my argument but on the grace I have been given and the Holy Spirit who is using me to convey the Gospel.
3. I am by nature arrogant and self-sure and so am particularly incapable of conveying truth without the aid of the Holy Spirit. Knowing this and fearing this means I have to have my heart right with God and I have to be in constant communion with God in prayer whenever I write anything related to the Gospel lest my sin taints it.
I aim to always be spiritually sensitive and keep checking to see if I am writing out of my own strength. If I find I am then I pause and reflect on the the first two points again.
SeismicMike on 12 Aug 2008 at 6:52 am #
“Nowhere in Scripture does it ever say—”
“This is obvious from the Scripture—”
I try to be open minded in my approach to theology and philosophy, but I admit that I’ve been guilty of these many times. I generally thing that it’s mostly a byproduct of unintentionally trying to sound more eloquent – and may be the case for lots of people with this problem. That’s something I need to watch in general, but I’ll especially keep an eye out for imbalance from now on. Thanks for the heads up!
PS. My wife and I watch The Theology Program videos online from time to time and we love them. We’re in class 2 right now, Bibliology and Hermeneutics, and one of the things we appreciate most is when you and Rome try to take an objective perspective on the issues before coming to a conclusion – even when you’ve already state what your position is.
Beware overstatement . . . « A Ruach Journey on 25 Aug 2008 at 8:14 am #
[...] — ruach Michael Patton over at Parchment and Pen: A Theology Blog writes a sharp post on “Why I don’t read your books or blogs.” Unfortunately, Michael, it is more than likely that those most in need of hearing these words, will [...]