1

Joe, I've wondered how you manage to keep cranking out the lengthier stuff for so long. I'm pretty sure you'll find this new approach a lot easier to maintain. I'll look forward to reading the new style blog just as I do the current one.

2

I love the idea, I try to check at least every other day, but so many times I don't have time to read a long post.

3

1) The short-posts thing is interesting. Depends on what you post on. Your strengths are your willingness to put together broad, informative posts and your arguments for your positions. There are thousands of "off-the-top-of-my-head" blogs. It could be a step down for you. (Your traffic-volume changes will let you know. It will be interesting to monitor.)

2) Try some kind of stronger visual separator between entries - a graphic element, or a bold-face title or something. The bullet points aren't very distinctive, and it makes the entries look like parts of a list. It took me a while to figure out what was going on until I realized the two entries were unrelated.

3) Re: blogging. Your remarks seem non-sequitur to the comments you quote. He isn't primarily commenting on the relative strength of the liberal and conservative blogospheres, but the importance of blogging in general. As for the former, he was talking about blogs in campaigns ("Web-based political activism", "the entire online political effort"), not overall. And, finally, it seems obvious that the liberal political blogs were better organized and more tightly integrated into their respective campaigns. Conservative candidates had very little like that. The blogs surely didn't contribute to the candidates' electoral losses; by every estimate Dean would have lost sooner without his online effort, and Kerry's spending gap was closed only by the independent 527s. The Rather thing was embarrassing but minor; the campaign-coordinating blogs were new and very influential. (Think the Republicans won't have campaign bloggers next time?)

4

BTW- a little off topic Joe, hope you don't mind. The death count from that quake is topping 60,000 people and could go significantly higher. Some villages are just gone. Nothing left but sand. They could use any help we can spare. There are literally ten million people homeless. This is the kind of destruction you'd see with a nuclear strike into the heart of a big city. There's a list of donation venues at The Command Post. Red Crescent and so forth.

5

For what it's worth, I have no problem whatsoever with your Montaigne aspirations and don't see any need for you to change to what is called a more "bloggish" style. If more blogs were like yours, I'd have probably jumped on the blog bandwagon a lot sooner.

6

Mike Joe, I've wondered how you manage to keep cranking out the lengthier stuff for so long.

I gave up sleeping. ; )

So are you back to regular blogging? You kind of dropped out of site for a while.

I'm pretty sure you'll find this new approach a lot easier to maintain.

I’ll still have the usual daily essays. This will just be in addition to the normal stuff I write about.

Linda I love the idea, I try to check at least every other day, but so many times I don't have time to read a long post.

I often feel guilty about writing such lengthy posts. One of the main reasons I write so few posts daily is that I don’t want to take up too much of people’s time. There are too many blogs to have to spend all day reading lengthy diatribes on arcane subjects.

Kevin: 1) The short-posts thing is interesting. Depends on what you post on. Your strengths are your willingness to put together broad, informative posts and your arguments for your positions. There are thousands of "off-the-top-of-my-head" blogs. It could be a step down for you. (Your traffic-volume changes will let you know. It will be interesting to monitor.)

I’ll still keep the same old stuff coming. This will just be in addition to my normal output. All that might change is that I have less time to spend in the comments section.

2) Try some kind of stronger visual separator between entries - a graphic element, or a bold-face title or something. The bullet points aren't very distinctive, and it makes the entries look like parts of a list. It took me a while to figure out what was going on until I realized the two entries were unrelated.

You’re right. I need to find a better graphical element.

3) Re: blogging. Your remarks seem non-sequitur to the comments you quote. He isn't primarily commenting on the relative strength of the liberal and conservative blogospheres, but the importance of blogging in general.

Then why did he say “the most powerful of whom seemed to be liberals”?

As for the former, he was talking about blogs in campaigns ("Web-based political activism", "the entire online political effort"), not overall. And, finally, it seems obvious that the liberal political blogs were better organized and more tightly integrated into their respective campaigns.

I think most of us conservative bloggers would heartily disagree. Look at Blogs4Bush or the Thune blogs. Just because it didn’t receive the same amount of attention (naturally) doesn’t mean that these blogs weren’t as intricately involved.

7

Joe,

What about a combination to take the heat off. Your topics seem to have a potential life for days and weeks with the comments. The only reason they die is by moving down below more recent posts. What about one good lengthy one per week that remains higher up, just below your short post section. That will help keep those who like your lengthy blogs coming back, and remaining for a time, and bring in frequent newbies. And I think you enjoy writing the lengthy blogs as much as we enjoy reading them.

8

I think that Lex makes a good point--though I doubt you would be happy with one long post a week:)

Perhaps you should approach another publication about writing (in the way Glenn Reynolds writes for MSN, The Guardian, etc.). First Things, Touchstone, Religion & Liberty, NRO, etc. Those long posts are generally top notch! Spread the wealth. Also, it might be a good way to attract new readers (with evangelicaloutpost in your byline), and you could cross-post articles or link to them. Lol..don't you love other people offering obnoxious, intrusive, and possibly incorrect advice, especially people like me who don't run blogs or essays as good as yours!

Whatever you do, we will keep reading, I am sure.

9

J. Hagglund For what it's worth, I have no problem whatsoever with your Montaigne aspirations and don't see any need for you to change to what is called a more "bloggish" style.

It certainly won't be a radical change -- simply one more post thrown into the daily mix. While it may not not be a section that is often read, it will allow me the freedom to point to other interesting links that I find. Too often I've taken the "all or nothing" approach and failed to pass along some worthy posts on other blogs.

10

Yeah you can't expect to churn out a high quality essay every day or even every other day, I wouldn't think Joe. It seems like it would become a time issue, not to mention that kind of self imposed pressure could conceivably ruin the fun of it.

11

So are you back to regular blogging? You kind of dropped out of site for a while.

Yeah, I dropped off over the summer because I picked up some new responsibilities at work, and the boss didn't feel the obligation to accommodate the blogging I'd been doing at work. ;)

Also, I ran into a little writer's block, but hopefully I've found my voice again.

12

With my first comment to your site I'll say that I like this but it's a bit disconnected. The replies will become confusing as people will respond to one story and not another and perhaps, if it happens here, people will reply to each other.

13

Joe:
Your essays are of high quality. I have laughed at your self-deprecating humor and I have been been moved and stimulated by your ethics. You have set the bar very high for yourself with the length and breadth of your writing. If you intend to insert a "slice of life" literary style,
remember that some of us are very interested in your faith in Jesus, in your daily walk, and in your service in the Marine Corps.

Eph 3:20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
Eph 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

14

Sounds like a good idea. Of course, I trust you've violated your most cherished beliefs and cloned yourself -- failing that, I don't know how you'll write two essays, spar with several hundred cutthroat commenters, and become evangelicalism's Glenn Reynolds on a daily basis.

But if anyone can do it, you can.

15

Keep up the good work, Joe. Have a look at Bill Whittle's ejectejecteject.com for an example of taking a series of blog essays and turning them into a book.

Ed, Joe only has a handful of truly cutthroat commenters, and there are a couple of semi-regular tag team members who appear in his corner from time to time. :-D

16

Your observations on Leonard's essay in Salon are good, but don't be too hard on that guy. He and the Business/Technology section he edits are the only reasons I bother hitting that site anymore.

Like seemingly all of the Salonites, he's appears to be a leftist, but he's certainly not a foaming-at-the-mouth variety like Joe Conason and much of what he has to say is rather apolitical and levelheaded.

Perhaps the reason Salon continues to hemorrhage cash is that it has become the Mother Jones of the online world, yes?

17

As Christianity starts spreading more quickly to non-Western civilizations, and, in the not-too-distant future, as non-Western Christians outnumber Western Christians, I wonder how this change will change the current dynamic:

Right now, Western Christian ministries spread the Gospel, and other Western ideas and values to the East. Soon, though, as Eastern peoples and thought start to dominate Christianity, their "version" of Christianity may change. And then, as Joe pointed out, they might start sending missionaries back West, with their own version of Christianity. Not radically different, but tweaked a bit.

How will the West deal with this?

How will American Christians feel when they are no seen as the dominant Christians in the world?

How will American/Western Christians feel when a majority of Christianity doesn't agree with their views on certain religous topics?

I have a feeling that the Christians in the US and the West won't like it.

As Huntington predicted, this might be another facet to the clash of civilizations...

18

And then, as Joe pointed out, they might start sending missionaries back West, with their own version of Christianity. Not radically different, but tweaked a bit.

Actually, Korean presbyterians and Nigerian Anglicans have already begun missions, of sorts, in the USA. And, rather than being "tweaked" they tend to be more orthodox than our own churches. They are certainly more orthodox than many of the TBN-styled evangelists that come from America (not intending to offend but this is my sincere belief).

19

"Of the approximately 2 billion Christians alive today...560 million live in Europe and 260 in North America, for a total of 820 million"

I could be way off, but I've heard that Europe's Christian population is more like 32 million. (or at least that regularly attend church) Europe is a dead nation with regards to the Christian faith and the the term "European Christian" is almost already an oxymoron.

“Every year, some 2,765,100 church attenders in Europe and North America cease to be practising Christians within the 12-month period, an average loss of 7,600 every day” (missiologist David B. Barrett)