Warm thanks to Jim West who cites my biblical studies carnival from July 2009 as “quite excellent and remarkably clever” in his article on the history of biblioblogging (the citation is on p. 5) in the most recent Bulletin for the Study of Religion – which hosts a number of articles discussing the phenomenon known as “biblioblogging” (Jim and James mention the issue). I’m honored to have garnished a footnote in the history of biblioblogging.

Unfortunately (and ironically?), the issue is not available for free online (it is available if you subscribe to the BSR). Neither of my academic institutions for which I have library privileges, UCLA and Fuller, have electronic access. No fault of the Bulletin, I’m sure. Just the nature of things. But I did find a print copy at Fuller. If I had a few more moments of time, I might actually try to engage the very thought-provoking essays in the issue. Perhaps in the not too distant future.

If you can find a copy, take a gander!

The rankings are up for the September round of the Biblioblog Top 50 and this blog hit #22 on the list! This number is fitting, as there are 22 chapters in the book of Revelation and 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. My place in the list is clearly ordained by God. Hitting a real stride this past month, I posted more in a single month than I ever have–36 posts (still only a fraction of what some other folks do). I also beat my total views for the month by about a thousand over my next best month (July, which included my carnival).

On either side of me in the rankings, perhaps appropriately for the past month, are female bibliobloggers: Suzanne at #21 and Rachel (for whom I advocated in the past month ) at #23.

My new blogging friend and fellow Celt, Daniel McClellan, is apparently cheating as he has skyrocketed into the top ten after two months of blogging.

Also, Daniel and Tonya have the new carnival up. I was so distracted by the beginning of the quarter that I forgot to send posts in this month. Sorry! Be on the look out at the blog of my colleague and partner in crime, Kevin Scull, as he hosts the carnival next month!

So, as commenters are rightly calling bizarre, “Jim’s Minions” at the Biblioblog Top 50 posts this:

This is the final post for The Biblioblog Top 50. Several days ago, in an attempt to dissociate our blog from humorless bibliobloggers such as Christopher Heard and Alan Lenzi, we ‘officialized’ Jim West as CEO of the Biblioblog Top 50. Despite this implicit plea for removal from the priggish posts of the self-appointed guardians of anal retentiveness, our plea was ignored. One can infer only one thing: being a part of their idea of “Bibliobloggers” is not voluntary and if one wishes to be removed, one has to delete one’s blog.

So we will not post again until Alan Lenzi resumes biblioblogging. See you around the biblioblogosphere.

But, if you go read Alan’s post, you will see that he seems to be taking the website a little too seriously (which is ironic). The post on Biblioblog Top 50 is a blatant parody of Alan’s post. In that context, it appears to be a good joke (albeit at Alan’s expense).

If this is something more than a joke, however, I would be disappointed. I see the Biblioblog Top 50 as a fun activity that we can participate in each month. I think it breeds a little community, even it is the cyber version of community, to have something like the rankings to chat about around the turn of each month. I also appreciate the site’s attempt to list all blogs related to biblical studies.

Alan’s posts of late seem to be viewing the Biblioblog Top 50 site as something of a corporation or an established organization. Rather, it is an independent blog doing a service for other bloggers. They have the right to link to whomever they’d like. How ridiculous would it be for me to stop blogging simply because John Anderson links to my page and I didn’t like some of his posts? (Thanks for the link, John. I love your posts )

At any rate, if the Biblioblog Top 50 is not simply joking, then we should try to figure out how to carry on its legacy. Maybe that would be the juice that Biblioblogs.com needs to get an extra kick . . .

Update: Yes, it was simply a parody. It is not the end.

Clarification: Jim G. and John A. have wisely stated in the comments that they think it better to stay out of the kerfuffles, like this one. I do think theirs is a good move. I would like to clarify, particularly for Alan’s sake, that I mean no ill will towards him with this post. I tried to go over to his blog and say that, but he’s disabled his comments. But he does say that the affiliation of bibliobloggers with SBL is both “taking things too seriously” and “over the top.” If you’re going to close your blog down for personal reasons, that’s fine. But to shut down all activity on your blog because a site is linking to you does seem to me to be “taking things too seriously” and “over the top.” Just sayin’ . . .

“Blog posts are written, not defecated.” That’s the best line in this list of instructions for “good blogs.” I think many bibliobloggers struggle with #1, while we probably excel at number two. I would add to the list: being willing to admit that your own blog may not meet all the criteria for a good blog! Plank-in-your-own-eye sort of thing. Personally, I think I could get better with most of the items on the list (Jim agrees), but trying to post more often and more consistently might help (I would place this under #8).

What do you think are the best “good blogs” among bibliobloggers? I’m not talking about the most academic, the most informative, or the most brilliant, but the ones that line up with as many of the points on this list as possible. Of the cuff here, and based simply on my own personal preferences, I would say Doug Chaplin, James McGrath, Nick Norelli, John Anderson, and a few others. I think there are many who would probably line up really well with the list if they posted more often.

HT: Chris Brady and Jim West.

I know, I know, you’re tired of the topic and we “bibliobloggers” have moved on to fight other fights. But in keeping with the spirit of my previous “listening to women” post, I would like to point out some additional reflection happening outside the fold of biblioblogdom. A couple weeks ago, around the same time I asked the Emerging Women for assistance, I also asked the RevGalBlogPals for some help thinking this through. I believe RevGalPals has been around since about when I discovered what a website was and had my own cheesy teenager personal webpage. They were first a vibrant “webring” for websites maintained by women “of the cloth” (and otherwise theologically educated, I think). When blogs hit the scene, they made the transition to a vibrant ring of blogs authored by women and those who support them in religious life. [If I've gotten any of that description wrong, somebody correct me!] Here are the requirements for joining the ring of blogs:

1. Women clergy, women church professionals, and women religious, or those discerning a call to Christian ministry.
2. Women or men blogging pals of (1).
3. All committed to building a supportive online community for women clergy, women church professionals, and women in religious life.
4. You must be an active blogger for the previous three months in order to join and to maintain membership.

Well, they keep things on a schedule over there and couldn’t get to the topic until today, but the comments have started coming in already. Some of the same themes as before are coming up, but again, these are the voices of women who have some sort of training or interest in theology/biblical studies, but have chosen not to participate in the same sort of discourse as the biblioblogging world (for the most part).

So, if you’re interested in reading more, please take a look at the RevGalBlogPal blog post where the discussion is happening. A big thank you to Songbird who was willing to take up the topic with her RevGalBlogPals. Also, you may be interested to stop by the previous post at Emerging Women, which has continued to gather some helpful comments.

I will leave you with this woman’s comment (leaving you to agree or disagree with her assessment):

I think it’s the academic discipline itself. As a woman who did my doctoral work in biblical studies back in the 80′s, it seemed like a field that both narrowly construed the issues it dealt with and relied strongly on the good-old-boy network. Over the years since, though as I’ve moved into a parish, I’ve largely left that academic discipline (at least as it’s done in traditional academia), it doesn’t seem like much has changed on that front. So, few women in biblical academia, few bibliobloggers.

Carry on.

The fuss over our recently obtained SBL affiliate status seems a little bloated to me. I understand the concerns that people have raised, but I don’t understand why anyone would so fervently cry out regarding these concerns . . . at least most of them. From what I have read of the negative reactions thus far, there is really only one truly negative outcome of this affiliate status (see below).

I think it is worth putting this whole thing in perspective.

The main point here, as I understand it, is that bibliobloggers have sanction to set up program units and gatherings at the conference. Like I mentioned elsewhere, if you don’t like the idea of a biblioblogging program unit, then don’t participate. Personally, I would appreciate hearing papers regarding how blogging affected one’s research on a particular topic. It’s a kind of methodological consideration. If you decided to blog portions of an article you later published, were you assisted by any conversation that sparked with other bloggers/commenters? That sort of thing.

It does not seem to me that [as one commenter on Chris Heard's blog put it] Jim is the SBL blog czar. He just got things started. I don’t see how his role with SBL makes any more difference now that the highly qualified steering committee has been established.

Now for the one genuine negative that I see. Bob Cargill said in his post, “affiliation lends legitimacy to the vehicle of blogging.” This can be a problem when it comes to the average student surfing the web looking for legitimate material. Sure, the affiliation and the resulting badge do not mean that the SBL agrees with or officially endorses all content on any blog that is in this affiliation. But say some student is smart enough to use the custom search of biblioblogs to look for material on a given topic. They find some crazy theory by someone way out on the fringes of accepted scholarship (like Brandon, for example ) and assume that it’s acceptable fact because of this affiliation (good thing Brandon won’t put the badge on his blog!).

Sure, we can warn our students, but that’s not always going to work. And there are plenty of educators out there who wouldn’t have the faintest idea what a “biblioblog” is or why it is affiliated with SBL. The fact is, legitimacy cuts both ways. It’s good for bloggers, but it’s bad in that some blogs just don’t produce reliable information. And it’s difficult to get the nuanced meaning of legitimacy to hit-and-run paper-writers.

I propose that SBL host a page containing not only an announcement of the affiliation, but also some explanation of what that affiliation means. Then require blogs with the badges to link to that explanation. Particularly a disclaimer stating that the views expressed on any given blog are not officially endorsed by the SBL. Read at your own risk!

See what others are saying by checking out Daniel’s link index of the conversation.

I have been discovering some interesting blogs of late. With their mention on the Biblioblog Top 50 (Jim’s minions), you have probably already seen my first mention–if you didn’t already know of the blog before that.

Two Fuller Seminary master’s students are blogging over at Walking Towards Jerusalem. The blog was originally geared towards Luke-Acts as it was begun by Jeremiah, but his fiancée, Ashleigh joined up just recently–who is not quite as focused on the largest portion of the New Testament as Jeremiah. Looks like a great blog and it will be interesting to see them interact. I’m always happy to find Fuller connections. May they post often!

From the comments on their blog, I discovered Jason Staples, a Ph.D. student under Bart Ehrman at UNC-Chapel Hill. He doesn’t post all that often, but he has some real lengthy and meaty posts when he does.

Check ‘em out!

Some believe that Mike’s meme is patronizing or amounts to tokenism. How dare he highlight women who are doing good scholarship! The audacity! Seriously, I do understand the concern, but I think it is only tokenism if it is a token and nothing else. That is, if one has  no interest in taking on the issue more deeply and doesn’t truly care whether women (or other minorities) succeed, or doesn’t genuinely seek parity in the field.

It is patronizing if you think the people who created these lists seriously had doubts as to whether women really are capable of scholarship. For example, if someone prefaced their list: “You know, when I started out in scholarship, I didn’t think women were capable of forming a logical sentence. I have since been pleasantly surprised that females have been able to do a few decent things. Boy, the gals in this list sure show some initiative.” It doesn’t have to be as blatant as all that, I know. But I think you get the point. For most of us who are participating in this meme, I don’t get the sense that we are either patronizing or offering mere tokens.

These have simply been lists of scholars who have influenced us and who also just so happen to be women. It is not that we are amazed that , “gee, women can write too!” Rather, it is that we want to recognize a few women who have changed the way we look at things. I affirm Mike Kok’s attempt at offering something positive and constructive while some others ratchet up the hostile rhetoric.

Update: Please see the comments below for clarification on James’ post and the “tokenism” issue. This update brought to you by the insistence of Stephanie Louise Fisher.

You don’t say. Rachel Marszalek stopped by my blog today, looking at an older post I did on Junia, to which she linked on her own blog. Rachel describes herself as an Anglican Ordinand and uses the following labels for herself: “Christian, Anglican, Evangelical, conservative (small C), Charismatic (big C), Open, Post-modern.” Have a look, for instance, at her posts tagged with “Bible” (which doesn’t even include all of her posts on biblical studies) and it looks to me that we could call Rachel’s a “biblioblog,” if she so desired. Not only that, if we were to include her as a “biblioblog,” based on her Alexa ranking, I think she’d go straight to the Top 50. Fancy that.

Now, Rachel, you may be sitting there bewildered by this post. I don’t know if you follow biblioblogs at all, but we are an active community of people who blog about academic biblical studies (though some are more “academic” than others). We have a Top 50 ranking, a monthly carnival, and bibliobloggers of the month. Recently, we’ve been talking about how few women we have in our ranks and some of us are hoping to find some more female bloggers who might unwittingly deserve the label “bibliobloggers.”

All of that said, do check out Rachel’s blog. I’ve added her to my own feed reader and look forward to some interesting conversation. Incidentally, I’ve just noticed that Rachel is not unknown to bibliobloggers as links to her blog show up quite a few times in the biblioblog custom search, but her blog itself is not included in the “official” list.

There seem to be two directions of thought for those who have been discussing this issue: (1) Why don’t more women want to join the biblioblogging community? and (2) There are probably more women out there that could be considered bibliobloggers (particularly if we allow for an expanded definition of biblioblogging) and we should find them. Many people are annoyed by the discussion and, if that describes you, you probably are no longer reading this. In any case, this particular post is an attempt to answer the first question–not by myself, but by some of the female bloggers outside our biblioblogging community. These are the initial responses coming in at the Emerging Women blog.

I’ll break the comments here up into categories:

• Is a stereotype just a stereotype? Someone else can decide whether it’s nature or nurture, but a lot of people want to talk about what women want versus what men want out of blogging or simply life in general.

“Maybe women aren’t as interested in writing straight academic theology, because you can only think about faith so much before experience of faith and theology at work becomes necessary. Many in the women’s movement make a sweeping division between the ‘rational’ male and the ‘mystical’ female (a stereotype and a generalization)–maybe as women bloggers the ‘rational’ exegetical work just isn’t as interesting. I know I’d rather hear the story of someone’s theology at work, than read their carefully studied out interpretation of something.”

~Jessica [Jessica's blog]

“It’s just life happening. Most women are multi-taskers and that shows in their blogs. If you read my blog or . . . any of women in my blog roll . . . you’ll find all kinds of different posts from theology to dinner to shopping to health care to breast feeding. We have a hard time being as focused as men. And men have a hard time reading all that ‘twaddle’. They want some assurance about what’s going to be at a given blog every day. This is not a hard and fast rule by any means, but I think it is a general tendency which effects the way women blog and the way men read. I don’t think either way is good or bad or better … it’s just what is. I read both and enjoy both.”

~Sonja (but read Sue’s valid response) [Sonja's blog]

• The definition of “academic biblical studies” feels too narrow (this is connected to the previous category, and is a part of the second line of thought mentioned in my intro).

“I think the definition of ‘theology blogging…academic biblical blogging’ is too narrowly defined and thus many, not just women but probably a disproportionate amount of women get missed. I feel like my blog is deeply theological it’s just not traditionally written. I write about my real life encounters through the lens of my faith. I work in social services as a professional counselor and I believe my work is deeply theological and missional so when I write about how my faith and work intersect I believe it has deep theological impact…at least it does on me. But I would never be classified as a theological/academic blogger even though I received my masters in counseling from a seminary and took the same theology classes as the M.Div students…and got all A’s if I might add . . . . I think when people are looking for ‘thinkers’ in theology they get stuck on exegesis and academic and thus miss a lot of good writers and theologians out there.”

~Tina Lips [Tina's blog]

• Not enough time to dedicate to it.

“I have 2 little kids and 2 jobs. And my husband is a pastor. If I want to write a thoughtful blog that involves good exegetical work, it’s going to take me a while. And I’m not going to publish bad biblical work. I may write and publish a blog on some political thing or social issue while my children yell during rest time or late at night when I’m tired (and The Daily Show sparks something , but I won’t do that with biblical work. It’s too important. So, I’m kind of on hold a few years until I have that kind of time again. And I can’t tell you how much I look forward to being back in that world.”

~robyn beckley vining [robyn's blog]

• The discrepancy in the ratio of male versus female bibliobloggers is due to social expectations and gender roles within the church (the Biblioblog Top 50 explanation).

“Where are the little girls and young women who have been encouraged to pursue theological education so they can later blog about it? Oh, that’s right, we still have a ratio of 270 to 20 of church leaders who don’t encourage girls/ women into the field.”

~Heather

“I have felt as though there is a narrowing margin of tolerance in the church for the intellectual – which seems to be much narrower for women. . . . It seems there are many outlets for women to feel at church, but not to think.”

~Ruby Leigh

“[W]omen have not always been welcome in Evangelical academia, as either students or as faculty. . . . Why would women want to spend their time engaging men who don’t think that they (the women) have a right to do so?”

~Lainie Petersen [Lainie's blog]

• Feeling the need for an institution to legitimize my voice.

“I have a blog and an MA in Exegetical Theology (aka studying the Bible in Greek and Hebrew). Originally my blog was going to be biblio-ish or at least about theology, but I got self-conscious and I didn’t get into a PhD program like I expected and now the things I blog about are very rarely about theology. I didn’t directing my blog vision very well and got caught up in the crafty parts of my life. And I don’t feel like I have the weight of an institution behind me to give my voice credibility. Maybe if I had started it when I was still getting my degree things would have been different. Maybe if I refocus things will be. But I really miss the voices of women in the biblioblogosphere. It makes me grateful for Emerging Women.”

~Bethany

• I’m not taken seriously by male bloggers (this is connected, I think, to the previous category/comment regarding institutional legitimacy).

Because too often they’re not taken as seriously as a man who blogged on the same topic would be taken. And not only by men – I’ve seen women have the same reaction.

~Lydia [Lydia's blog]

I think there are a few misconceptions here. For instance, Lainie speaks in her comment about women not being accepted in conservative Evangelical academic circles, but being conservative or Evangelical are by no means necessary for joining the biblioblogging community. We’ve got conservatives and liberals alike, as well as many who would not care for either label. I admire someone who doesn’t want to blog about biblical studies because she feels it is too important to do half-heartedly–but those biblioblogs that are written by men are by no means characterized by “carefully studied out interpretation” or even “good exegetical work,” let alone whether they are “focused.”

I have a feeling that many women may be writing what could be considered a biblioblog and do not even realize it. Maybe they wouldn’t care to connect with our blogging community, and that’s fine, but it’s worth a look.