Bobby the “Know-it-All”: Reflections on Theo-blogging and my Intentions

Posted on by

I have been accused more than once of being a “know-it-all,” only really by people who only know me as a result of their exposure to me online (i.e. blogging and Facebook). The most recent occasion of this accusation came to me from someone I “know” through online interaction and on Facebook; this guy sent me a private message with a few concerns about my tone and approach onlineβ€”one of his concerns was basically that he thinks that my tone lends itself towards “know-it-allism”. I understand why this impression could come across, especially if you have read me for any amount of time on my various blogs.

I just want to provide a little perspective though. I will take full responsibility for those times where I acted out in my “flesh” or “sinful nature” online; I think those times are more in the past than the present (hopefully I have matured a little in my online interaction over the years). But I would also like to suggest that often the reason my tone might lend itself towards know-it-allism is somewhat intentional. This is a blog, and a blog that hopes to ignite any type of thought or discussion is going to be provocative by nature. Blogging is not theological writing, proper, per se; blogging has its own genre. It is sound-byted engagement, and at best it presents thesis statements that must wait until later, and wait for other venues (theological essays etc.) to be developed. And so the genre of blogging itself lends itself to a know-it-allism sound. Blogging is usually quick, off the top, and unfortunately anecdotal; it can supersede its usual characteristics with some forethought and intentional writing, but usually the space limitations allowed for the blog attention span (usually not greater than a 1,000 words) does not cohere well with thickly developed tomes.

So why theo-blog, why blog at all? This is another question an “e-friend” of mine has put to me more than once. My answer to this is why not theo-blog? Even with all its attendant pit-falls, etc. theo-blogging allows for a space and out-let that would not otherwise be present for the theologically mindful amongst us. If you are no longer a formal theological student (I mean in seminary or grad and post-grad school)β€”and even if you are (since many of the best theological blogs are done by formal theological students)β€”then there really is no place for you in the church. There really isn’t a community of people (maybe a small group) who have the appetite to think deeply and theologically (life is too busy for such abstractions), and so this kind of Christian turns to a source that the 21st century information age has provided; this kind of person turns to theological blogging. It is in this sphere, in this realm that these kinds of people can often band together and find common fellowship one with the other around (usually) the deeper things of Christian life and thought that is unfortunately absent in most church bodiesβ€”the ideal that this kind of community provides can be that through its overflow this kind of community can bleed into the local bodies of Jesus Christ (wherever said theological blogger attends church, etc.). This is probably the primary reason why I blog. I am lonely, theologically; and so for better and worse, I have found a network, a community of fellow believers in Jesus Christ who are exceptionally passionate about thinking deeply about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Bringing my stream of consciousness together then; I know that I often come across as if I have all the answers, and that if you just listen to me that you will have all the answers too. But this, ultimately, isn’t really my intention; I am just blogging, and so by definition, again, my writings are off the top, and not always as thoughtful as they should be. I am aware that if I want to have any audience at all that my posts will usually have some sort of bite and provocative tone associated with them, and so I will suggest that this is the reason that I often probably come across as a know-it-all. But truth be told, and ironically so, the reason that I blog is that I recognize that I don’t know it all; when I put stuff out in very assertive ways on the blog, I am usually entertaining these ideas and trying to hold them as dogmatically as I can. I use this method (unconsciously, at points) to test whether what I believe be so or not. As you have noticed over the years, I have changed my views at various points; and it is because of blogging that this has happened (and the research I have been prompted to do). So I use blogging as a place to work out and develop my theological beliefs; it is a dynamic versus static endeavor for me. I do believe things, and I will obviously voice those, but I will try (and have been) to defy the usual expectations of blogging, and be more thoughtful in my posts. I certainly don’t want to come across as a know-it-all, but I am willing to risk that in order to be connected to a community of learners who want to think deeply and theologically about our God in Christ.

So true to form and genre, this post has been very bloggy (off the top); but I hope that its blogginess does not get in the way of the ideas that I am trying to communicate through this post. Have a good one today.

7 thoughts on “Bobby the “Know-it-All”: Reflections on Theo-blogging and my Intentions”

  4. Bobby:

    Three things in increasing order of importance.

    1) I have never found to you to be arrogant, condescending, or anything else, even when I’ve disagreed with your conclusions. I’ve disagreed with much in your dispensationalism posts, not because I have any allegiance to dispensationalism but for other reasons (maybe one day I’ll comment on a post).

    Even though you’ve been strident at times (polemics requires a little bit of that), I’ve never come away thinking you were a know-it-all.

    Having said that,

    2) It is almost impossible to determine tone in a written document with a high degree of accuracy.

    You and I know this because of our training in biblical scholarship. Jude’s tone: pretty easy to determine because of his imagery, emotive language, etc. Paul’s tone in 1 Corinthians regarding the spiritual gifts: Not so easy. Cessationists see a negative tone. non-cessationists, an uplifting, encouraging tone. It’s not that Paul didn’t have a tone, it’s that we lack whatever is necessary to determining it and have to go on other factors such as our interpretive conclusions.

    Likewise, unless you use emotive language (you do occasionally, but who doesn’t?) or imagery, or provide some other clue, all discussions of tone are subjective and could be wrong as well as right with regard to a given piece of writing.

    3) You have been educated in this field. You have been trained and degreed on the undergraduate and graduate level and have been accepted into a PhD program in this field. This means you write on theology as a trained theologian.

    Since you write on theology as a trained theologian, you ought to be able to, and ought to be expected to, write with some measure of authority on these subjects.

    I get that you don’t do this for a living but that’s irrelevant. Were you writing a blog on pastoral ministry without ever having pastored I would be saying something different. (I was the best pastor in the world until I actually became one.)

    If it appears to others that you write with a “know-it-all” tone it is because they fail to appreciate the hours that you’ve put into the study of these topics. They also fail to recognize how such training gives one an ability to speak with authority because your knowledge of, for example, historical theology (your Master’s specialty) is not only broad but deep.

    I realize we’re all growing, (hence pursuing the PhD, etc.) and humility is no less a virtue after earning a degree (it may be a little harder) but at this level of the game, it would be unbecoming if you were to write without a measure of authority. (Even though, I notice that the more education I get, the more I realize I don’t know.)

    And my experience is that the ones who are really know-it-alls are the ones who really don’t know it all but like to think they do. When they open their mouths, those who know what they’re talking about can tell that they don’t. Sadly, they’re usually the only ones who can’t see it.

    Grace and peace to you, Bobby.

  5. Hi Michael,

    I really appreciate your words, thank you so much!

    You have me very curious about dispensationalism, though; if there is one area I feel I have expertize, ironically, it is this area. Please let me know what it is that you disagree with me on; seriously :-).

Comments are closed.