Well, that’s quite a way to come back from Christmas vacation.

As the “lead writer” here at Mere-O, I feel somewhat obliged to offer a few reflections on the controversy surrounding my colleague Andrew Walker’s rather pointed analysis of Derek Webb’s interview in the Huffington Post.  Addressing this is not a task I particularly enjoy, given that the controversy has overshadowed the excellent work that has gone on here at Mere-O this year.  And Andrew has been right at the heart of that.

And therein lies the problem.  I’m not opposed to satire, but I don’t practice it in public because it is so difficult to pull off well.  And the failure to execute properly has the potential to do far more harm than other tools in the writer’s toolbox.

And from my vantage point, that is precisely what has occurred:  where we could be having a fascinating discussion about the contents of Derek Webb’s interview and the actual ideas he presented, the conversation quickly turned to the presentation of Andrew’s critique, rather than his substance.  And that, if nothing else, is a missed opportunity for substantial dialog on important issues.

Yet it’s important to point out that such pointed criticisms are not necessarily wrong.  G.K. Chesterton, for instance, didn’t hold back in destroying arguments with a healthy amount of wit.  But he would even direct a few barbs at his opponents as well.  While that sort of rhetoric has been standard fare for centuries, it’s not immediately obvious that we have become so enlightened as to render it unnecessary.   We should be wary if our criteria for public rhetoric no longer makes room for our Savior (“you brood of vipers!”), even while we should be simultaneously wary of justifying our own lack of charity toward others with our appeals to the one in whom there was no sin.  Andrew has acknowledged his own errors in the matter, and that is enough.  Abusus non tollit usum, and all that.

With that in mind, here’s a few more general reflections about the episode.

First, we have to acknowledge that public figures like Derek Webb have an incentive to be critical, as do the bloggers and writers who respond to him.  Andrew’s post was one of the most popular posts ever on Mere-O, in part because Webb sent the link spiraling throughout the Twitterverse (the retraction, no doubt, will be largely ignored).  The only reason that the interview garnered any attention was because of Webb’s thinly veiled critiques of those who originally made him famous by buying his music.   The only real law of the internet is that controversy draws a crowd and pays everyone’s bills.

Yet that incentive comes with a real cost, and as for me and Mere-O, we will take the path of downward blogging mobility rather than compromise our reputation as a place for substantive commentary and conversation on all things pertaining to Christianity, culture, and politics.  There is room at Mere-O for charitable polemics.  But it should facilitate the goal of persuasion, not detract from it.   The lure of traffic is strong, but my vision for the site is much broader and longer than the bursts that come with dipping into controversy.

On a related note, I want Mere-O to be a place where we find the good and praise it. One of my favorite comments ever here at Mere-O was nearly five years ago when a reader pointed out that I try to find something good in what I’m interacting with.  That’s a discipline that is easy to forget because it’s rarely, if ever, rewarded.  The internet is a place where praise feels redundant, where even complimentary posts frequently only give a link, a quote, and the mild “read the whole thing.”  While I have gotten away from that discipline, it’s something that I do make a conscious effort ot

Third, I want to underscore that while Andrew’s presentation has raised legitimate questions about the role of satire and polemics in public Christian discourse, I think that he is right to raise genuine concerns about some of Webb’s language.  Frank Turk’s close reading of the interview is helpful in this regard.

Finally, 2010 has been Mere-O’s best year ever in terms of content and I am grateful for those readers and commenters who have contributed to our learning and held us accountable to the standards which we have tried to set for ourselves.  It’s been six years of growth, and I am thankful for the new readers we have gained and for those who have stayed with us.  We don’t fit easily into any corner of the Christian blogging world, and that can sometimes make it seem a little lonely.  We appreciate and read all the feedback we get, even if we don’t respond directly to it all.

With that in mind, we will continue to work hard in 2011 to provide and preserve the sort of careful and charitable analysis that has made Mere-O one of the best places online (in my unbiased opinion).  We hope you’ll continue to join us contribute your voice to the discussion about the shape Christian discourse should take in the public square.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Posted by Matthew Lee Anderson

Matthew Lee Anderson is the Founder and Lead Writer of Mere Orthodoxy. He is the author of Earthen Vessels: Why Our Bodies Matter to our Faith and The End of Our Exploring: A Book about Questioning and the Confidence of Faith. Follow him on Twitter or on Facebook.

4 Comments

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by briandaugherty, Trevin Wax. Trevin Wax said: "The only real law of the internet is that controversy draws a crowd & pays everyone’s bills."@MattLeeAnderson http://ow.ly/3vP4m //So True! […]

    Reply

  2. First, we have to acknowledge that public figures like Derek Webb have an incentive to be critical, as do the bloggers and writers who respond to him. Andrew’s post was one of the most popular posts ever on Mere-O, in part because Webb sent the link spiraling throughout the Twitterverse (the retraction, no doubt, will be largely ignored). The only reason that the interview garnered any attention was because of Webb’s thinly veiled critiques of those who originally made him famous by buying his music. The only real law of the internet is that controversy draws a crowd and pays everyone’s bills.

    Yet that incentive comes with a real cost, and as for me and Mere-O, we will take the path of downward blogging mobility rather than compromise our reputation as a place for substantive commentary and conversation on all things pertaining to Christianity, culture, and politics. There is room at Mere-O for charitable polemics. But it should facilitate the goal of persuasion, not detract from it. The lure of traffic is strong, but my vision for the site is much broader and longer than the bursts that come with dipping into controversy.

    Love it. Good for you.

    Reply

  3. Matt,

    Helpful clarification. Admittedly I’m a bigger fan of Webb’s earlier albums, and do not much enjoy his last couple. But I do keep an eye on what he produces, have read the interviews, posts, and most of the comments surrounding this conversation, and would have some thoughts and suggestions to add in attempt to promote positive conversation.

    “The only reason that the interview garnered any attention was because of Webb’s thinly veiled critiques of those who originally made him famous by buying his music.”

    You really think so? As you know, the Huffington Post is a massive online publication, and homosexuality and religion are massive hot topics with a constant undercurrent in media and politics. Regardless of Webb’s critiques, anytime a Christian (famous or not) enters mainstream publication to talk about these issues, many add their voice.

    Moreover, Webb has been critical of his Christian supporters from early on. There’s plenty of it on his live album ‘The House Show.’ Sure he wasn’t addressing homosexuality, but he was still the same confrontational Derek Webb; simply over different subject matter, the church, that didn’t strike as many chords outside evangelicalism.

    It seems people think that his progression artistically away from approachable albums like ‘She Must and Shall Go Free’ to ‘Stockholm’ somehow equates to a change in his theological views, as if he’s slowly loosening his theology and no longer associates and identifies with his early supporters. To me, though, it seems fair to say Webb has always been critical of his supporters, largely in attempt to spur believers to action and truth. The critiques simply look and feel different depending on the topic he’s writing about. Unfortunately Stokhom ‘feels’ to many like dancing with the devil, and people cease to ask questions and really listen to what he’s trying to say.

    “And that, if nothing else, is a missed opportunity for substantial dialog on important issues.”

    Right on. But I think this blog (more-so than most) is capable of substantial dialogue on this topic. My suggestion: Put this into action and do an honest interview with Derek. Have the conversation, leave the ‘translations’ behind, and ask him what he meant when he said such and such. Both Mere-O and Webb have significant influence, and many would benefit from an honest dialogue between the two parties. Undoubtedly, it fits well your desire for ‘substantive commentary and conversation on all things pertaining to Christianity, culture, and politics.’

    Perhaps a more motivating factor is this: Usually these topics are addressed by the Larry Kings of journalism and editorial craft. That is to say, so often it’s the secular asking and the Christian responding, a formality more than a conversation. I see potential for intelligent conversation and questions between Mere-O and Derek profitable for the readers of both Mere-O and Webb fans, and more importantly the body at large.

    Mere-O has some gifted brains, and Derek is a gifted artist. Bring the two together and talk about what Jesus’ teachings look like regarding the topic of homosexuality like Christians loving each other with brotherly affection. The result would be more beneficial to the conversation than any Huffington interview. The journalistic effort, specifically the real depths to which this conversation would go, would speak volumes. I know I’d be eager to listen.

    Derek’s tweet said, “this guy seems to have me figured out.” Mere-O obviously doesn’t, but could. Not as an end in itself, but to serve the readers trying to understand this conversation. He seems to have a lot to say about love that gets missed in the muddle of comments and criticisms otherwise. Mere-O seems to have a lot of thoughts and concerns (some no doubt necessary) that have yet to be communicated clearly. Do it together and bear fruit together for those eager to grow in understanding of this dialogue and love of Jesus.

    Thanks for reading, and thanks for the work you guys put forth to spur intelligent commentary and conversation.

    Reply

  4. Ben,

    Thanks for the awesome comment and overly kind words. A few quick thoughts in reply:

    1) Re: my sentence about the reason that Webb’s interview garnering attention, I think you’re right that HuffPo would get some attention. But there are lots of other religion columns that go up there that almost no one pays attention to. Your take on Webb’s music is really interesting, and I’ll defer to you on that as I don’t know the canon quite as well as you. If true, I think that says more about what his critics hold dear than Webb himself. Where we accept criticism and where we don’t says more about us than about the criticizer.

    2) “Put this into action and do an honest interview with Derek.”

    I’d love to do this. I suspect and fear, though, that Webb will turn us down given recent history. Also, I don’t want to be perceived as perpetuating a conflict for the sake of expanding our audience…so I’m of two minds about this. I’m not sure, honestly, which way to go.

    matt

    Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *