Jim McGrath doesn’t seem to appreciate my superstardom. Alas, he isn’t alone nor has he been for a long time. Neither, it seems, does his ‘anonymous’ commentator. But it’s easily explained-
1- I post. Stop being lazy and you can post too. Let’s face it, I’m just as ‘busy’, if not busier than most of the biblioblogging sorts. I don’t have the luxury of teaching a couple of hours a day and then dashing off to play whatever video game is popular or watch the latest popular bizarre tv series and then talk endlessly about it. I start working at 5 in the morning and I work till I go to bed at night. Call it workaholism if you like, it’s just part of my nature and I’m not about to apologize for it to McGrath or any of the people who whine about my posting ‘too much’ (which is really rude anyway given the fact that I’ve never complained about any of you posting too little).
2- Posting ‘only’ strictly biblical studies materials is not, in my estimation, the end all be all do all of biblioblogging. The bible is our theological foundation text and as such – theologically – is applicable to every life situation. So when someone is totally depraved, that’s a biblical topic. When someone accomplishes a fantastic deed, that’s a biblical (because theological) topic. In sum, everything, and I mean absolutely EVERYTHING is grist for the theological mill. If you don’t think so, that’s your problem, not mine.
3- McGrath writes
I have suspected for some time that the secret is neither sheer popularity nor totally depraved and dilettantistly Zwinglified content, but the sheer frequency with which he posts. Combined with the number of people who subscribe to his blog feed, that will translate into a lot of visits, even if those are from people who quickly skip over the photos of people at Wal-Mart or the expressions of climate science dilettantism.
Who knows but Mr Sciency is going to have a hard time proving that my popularity isn’t derived precisely from the fact that I connect the dots, theologically, with life in the streets. The fact, which McGrath deftly ignores, that lots of people subscribe to the feed indicates something whether he likes it or not. Unbeknownst to him and just about everyone else, the blog gets north of 30,000 hits a month PLUS feed reader ‘hits’ or whatever they’re rightly called. 30,000 visits a month + feed readers. Maybe the problem with so many bibliobloggers is that they’re just downright boring and that’s why no one reads them. But I’ll be darned if I’m going to become like them just to massage their frail fragile egos.
4- Finally, I blog because I want to. I blog on what I want, when I want, how I want, and believe it or not, I’m not going to change my methodology or blogging philosophy because MCGrath doesn’t understand it or because my being the most widely read biblioblogger annoys angry atheists like Avalos and Loftus or academics like Heard or Goodacre or Satan himself (who is, you’ll recall, the father of envy).
Go ahead, take McGrath’s challenge. Good luck. And if you find yourself ranked higher on Alexa (at present the only methodology which we have to indicate actual site ranking besides ‘feelings’ or ‘personal preference’) I’ll be the first one to blow the trumpet for you. Then, at least, McGrath and the herd of anonymous whiners who think his thoughts with and for him, will have another target. Unless, of course, #1 turns out to be Davila or Goodacre. Then, finally, there will be peace in the blogging kingdom (because, let’s be brutally honest for a second- the problem McGrath and the rest have is with ME personally and not my ranking. And their problem with me is that I refuse to bow the knee to their academic Ba’al and I refuse to acknowledge their supposed positional superiority. I’d rather teach students at the little school I do and pastor the little church I pastor for a week than play the ‘higher ed’ game as it’s presently played in America for a lifetime).
Mind you, however, if it’s war that McGrath wants, it’s war he’ll get. I’m not exactly afraid of a challenge.