I am no longer interested in criticism about who I choose to associate with online, or which blogging groups I join. I am not going to wear guilt by association or feel some sort of false guilt because a certain number of people come to read what I write. …What I would like to say to certain Christian bloggers is that this is not church. As far as I'm concerned bloggers are all just individuals with computers. There is no cyber board of elders and pastors….What I mean is that there is no group of people running and overseeing a cyber church.

Catez is right. There is no synod, presbytery, diocese, or other ecclesiastical council that oversees Godblogs. Essentially, we are all Baptists. We set up our blogs, either individually or as a group, and begin to express our theological opinions, all without oversight from a higher level polity. We may choose to congregate together (what is the GodBlogCon but the blogging equivalent of the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention?) but our little para-churches are answerable to no higher human authority.

Many bloggers, of course, will claim that their sites are exempt from denominational oversight. But should that be true? If a Presbyterian minister writes regularly on issues about religion and theology, why should her writing be exempt from denominational authority? Or what if a Lutheran laymen and a Catholic priest hold a regular open debate? Should they not be held to account as if they were writing in a denominational magazine or journal?

I suspect that most people will answer “no.” They would claim that their blogs are not only not churches or ministries but that they are free from congregational authority, even when they are writing about issues concerning their denomination's view of doctrine. So then is my contention true? Are all GodBloggers Baptists at heart?

2. In the same post mentioned previously, Catez poses this interesting question:

There's a man who is the author of a book which is a best seller. He is popular with millions of people worldwide and considered an authority on religious matters and Christianity in particular. There is criticism of those who read his book, particularly those who promote it as the book for the times. There's criticism of people's motives for following his advice too. You would be right in saying that just as he has numerous people who seem to hang on his every word, he has also amassed a significant number of critics. In fact some people don't like him purely because he is so popular. Do you know who he is? Does his popularity in itself make him a Pharisee?

The responses she received in the comment section include: Rick Warren, John Piper, Brian McLaren, and Joel Osteen. I would add that it could also fit John McArthur, Bruce Wilkinson, Tim LaHaye, Phillip Yancey, Chuck Colson, Francis Schaeffer,…in fact it could fit just about any male Christian author who has written a best-selling book.

Since they don’t all share the same theological views, we can’t blame the reason on issues of doctrine. So what else could it be? I suspect that just as there has been a strain of anti-intellectualism in evangelicalism that there is a similar anti-success element. Success, like intellectualism, is viewed as an obvious and incontrovertible sign of worldliness. Why is this such a recurring theme? Why can’t Christians simply be more discerning rather than making judgments based on popularity? Is it something in the nature of our faith that makes us this way?

(Check this post to see who the author Catez is referring to.)

3. What trait do you admire most in your favorite bloggers? For me it is the ability they have to handle barbed criticism in a civil and dignified manner. I’m not just talking about polite disagreements but rather when a blogger gets hit with a verbal 2”x4” across their forehead and responds with, “I can certainly see that you feel strongly about the issue but here’s why I disagree…”

While shouting matches and flame wars garner all the attention, there is a solid undercurrent of reasoned and thoughtful discussion to be found in the blogosphere. I’m not saying that it is a dominant trend; the Coulterization of discourse continues unabated. But I do think it is dawning on people that civility can produce far more intriguing debates than the can be found in an exchange of heated rants.

4. Blog posts are a true literary form. (Don’t laugh. I’m being serious.) The problem, though, is that they are still an immature and undeveloped form. Blogging is still a relatively new phenomenon and has been able (so far) to borrow from other literary formats (i.e., diaries, essays). Because the malleability of the blog posts allows it to fit a vast range of purposes, a definitive style has yet to develop.

Hugh Hewitt once commented on this point and noticed that the closest thing the blogosphere has to a distinctive literary stylist is Mickey Kaus. While it is true that KausFiles has a unique and interesting flow, it is likely that the style would not work if Kaus had not already been an established journalist. Quirky only works when you have the proper credentials.

But if not Kaus, then who has developed a unique style of writing that is uniquely suited to the strengths and weaknesses of this format? Who is the Montaigne of the blogosphere? The reason I’m so interested in the question is because I need to know who to mimic.

Developing a uniquely individual writing style almost always begins by copying a better, more distinguished writer. When I was a younger I dreamed of becoming a novelist and would study the works of Cormac McCarthy and Larry McMurtry in an attempt to discover the secrets of their structures. Now I’m curious to find a blogger whose structural style I can imitate.

Novels, poems, and essays all have certain characteristics that make them work effectively. Shouldn’t the same be true for blog posts? But what are the elements (word count, formatting, display of links) that make one blog style better than another? And who is the exemplar of this style?