A writer for Touchstone Magazine’s blog Mere Comments (a sponsor for the Biola conference GodBlogCon) Dr. S.M. Hutchens posted on the frivolity and blasphemous nature of the name of the conference.
We’re so used to this kind of thing that it passes right over us–but if it is still possible to discern a taking of the Lord’s Name in vain, surely this thing called “Godblog,” being held out in California (where else?), and in which we appear to be minor participants, should be recognized as a fine example. In fact, I can imagine few cruder, sportive, light, or commercial ways to use the name of the Creator of heaven and earth than to compound it with the abbreviation for “weblog.”
(Not a peep about the fact the blog he writes on is linked in Beliefnet’s ‘Blog Heaven’ and the button is prominent on Mere Comments)
Predictably people bit.
It’s marketing hyperbole.
Dr. John Mark Reynolds, a professor at Biola who taking part for the second year, was probably asked to shoot back at his blog Middlebrow to get buzz going.
It is amusing that this post charging blasphemy to those of us involved in GodBlog and attributing lots of other social attitudes having nothing to do with our actual beliefs came out on the day my breviary said was the traditional Western feast of Saints Cyril and Methodius. . . who in their own day were sniffed at for using the language of the people to try to communicate the Divine.
Potential attendees and commenters have been had.
A senior editor of a sponsoring publication speaks up now?
This looks like a proverbial cliche marketing ploy, and I’m willing to call it as such.
I’m surprised some commenters who may or may not be planning to attend don’t see this as a faux dust up, I commend those who aren’t taking this shtick seriously.
This conference has been faced with legitimate criticisms including it’s political leanings, lack of exclusivity and missteps of some of last years leaders toward critics.
Looking at Technorati, conference blog chatter is way down this year. Booked speakers have been busy promoting posting, bloggers that got flamed last year have shown grace this year providing plugs, the conference site is professionally run and putting up hot button political issues, but all that hasn’t brought the chatter level up. So far only relapsed catholic has noticed Hutchens broad brush attempt.
On the off chance I’m wrong and Dr. Hutchens doesn’t want his publication sponsoring, and is genuinely offended and a legitimate critic; then outsiders are the last thing conference organizers have to worry about.
This year outsiders haven’t bothered to voice concerns, experienced bloggers have been around that block.
With only 20 days left, buzz has to be built.
Reynolds doesn’t have comments, one comment showed up at the conference site; a few commenters spoke up at Mere Comments. Some of the commenters take Dr. S.M. Hutchens with suitable academic serious, some don’t. Russ:
Published 2 years, 1 month agoI agree wholeheartedly - I’d suggest (borrowing from the Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 113) renaming it Vain Jangling Con.
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
J.R.R. Tolkien once expressed doubts about theories regarding long dead authors based on misreading of his Lord of the Rings. . . they sounded plausible (the Ring was the atom bomb) unless you knew the history of the text.
I can assure you that (so far as I know) Hutchens has this opinion. I was not asked to respond by anyone and did so out of bemusement at the opinion. In fact, I am still startled that friends at Touchstone did not give me a heads up that at least one of them had a serious concern with the name.
In short, you are wrong. . . and I don’t think charging folk you don’t know (well?) with (somewhat) unethical behavior with little or no evidence is a good idea.
Marketing is marketing - it’s on the front page of the conference blog, being called grand.
Uses of the words ‘possibly’, ‘probably’, ‘looks like’, or ’some’ are not potential ethical accusations.
You are free to say or believe otherwise.
I see Dr. Hutchens got a free pass for his effort.
Upset sponsors aren’t a desirable outcome.
I’m hearing you say engagement with Dr. Hutchens was your own choice and no one you are associated with asked you to. I’m hearing you say you felt concerned and startled.
Okay.
Thank you.
marketing: to make a communication about a product or service a purpose of which is to encourage recipients of the communication to purchase or use the product or service.
You said:
Potential attendees and commenters have been had.
A senior editor of a sponsoring publication speaks up now?
This looks like a proverbial cliche marketing ploy, and I’m willing to call it as such.
I say:
Now you discover you are wrong. Why not just say so?
Hutchens and I disagree about the term “Godblog.” Really. We had a real disagreement. . . news of which got posted on the Godblog site. Calling an argument grand just means that some of us can have a disagreement with shouting, yelling, or name calling. That is not giving Hutchens a pass, just treating someone you like as a gentleman should.
Are you willing to admit that you were wrong?
“with shouting”. . .should read “without shouting. . ”
Long time readers of this blog will notice a standard shift in the original argument in BD’s post. First, he implies (argues?) that the entire discussion was just a scam to drive web traffic with Hutchens and me involved in the scam.
He discovers he was wrong. . . and now shifts to arguing that Godblogcon’s use of the argument as marketing is marketing. Well, yes. But that is not very interesting and now what his original post implied. There is nothing wrong with marketing after all. . . though there would be something wrong with feigning beliefs in order to drive a marketing campaign.
Imagine some blogger writing: Iraq War Just a Plan to Market Bush in 2004!
Then when confronted with evidence that (for good or bad) Bush went to war based on his convictions. . . the person replied, “Ah, but the Republican party used the War anyway in their marketing.” The key is not whether the War was used to pitch Bush, but whether that was the reason (or a substantial reason) for going to war.
There is a bad trait of seeing one’s ideological foes in the worst possible light at all times. It leads to sitting about wearing tin foil hats and failing to engage actual arguments.
BD seems like a fine writers, a great blogger, and nice guy. I hope he can just say he was wrong.
If that is what you need and want - here you go, I’ve got no pony in this race.
Dr. Reynolds, I’m wrong.
Hurrah for progress on all fronts!
While we are all in a confessional mood, I was wrong to think you would not say you were wrong. . . which bids fair to set up one of those Star Trek infinite loops where the computer goes mad.