The Moral Crudity of Jim West

    There are those who blog in order to rant; it seems to me that Jim West falls into that category. A waste of his time and ours, as he occasionally seems to recognize (West is famous for self-deleting his online production).

    It is possible to blog for more substantial reasons. Unsuccessfully perhaps, that is my goal. I blog in order to “cultivate humanity.” That is, I write in order to develop, along with others, a capacity for self-scrutiny, a flair for imagining a narrative in which to live, the ability to put myself in another’s place (per Martha Nussbaum, Cultivating Humanity [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997]).

    To the extent that Jim West’s blogging demonstrates a disregard for the above objectives, to the extent that said disregard ups his online traffic, I have grave misgivings about Jim West’s online behavior. Not to put too fine a point on it, his online persona is morally crude.  If you knew that already, fine. If you don’t believe me, read this thread.

Comments

[Calvinist]

This one is pretty bad too:
http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/oh-eeewww-gross/

[Charles]

As with most other things as well, I agree with you. About 1 in 50 posts of his had something of marginal worth but it is just not worth it anymore to have him in my blog feed.

[Brian]

I agree; I have stopped reading him too, for the same reasons.

[Gary Simmons]

Well, I suppose the ice cream could be marketable to children.

I don't follow Jim. Mostly because of his online persona, but also because he does several short posts in frequent succession, and I don't feel there is a serious and sustained argument behind it.

I get the notion that he is capable of higher thought than his online persona often suggests, but if that is kept hidden, then it may as well be untrue.

John: I'm thankful for your attempt to foster genuine dialogue and critical (as well as creative) thinking. I'm looking forward to further dialogue between you and MSH, also.

As for me, I'm trying to make sure I don't make my blogging all about my hobby horses -- complementarianism, pacifism, pro-life, need for education reform, etc. But then again, I seldom blog lately as I'm still readjusting to this thing called "employment."

[Gary Simmons]

In the interest of your self-reflection, John: was this post a rant? And was it wise?

You give this all of three paragraphs, and it seems your focus is more to call attention to what you believe blogging should and should not be about, and you provide a negative example and your intent to be(come) a positive example.

I can see this post as constructive, in that you intend to move blogging in the right direction.

[JRG]

Your post is timely, since just yesterday I removed Jim West's blog from my Google Reader feed. I used to read it to stay on top of news related to Bible and archaeology. However, posts with any substance are few and far between. It's gotten to the point that I can find better things to do with my time than work through the fluff and rants.

Thanks John for your exceptional blog.

[JohnFH]

One reason I enjoy blogging is that I have become part of a strong network of friends, Jewish and Christian, believing and unbelieving, "liberal" and "conservative" (such useless terms).

The network has nothing to do with traffic ratings, rants, the world of recovering fundamentalists, the world of recovering atheists, not to mention ranting fundamentalists and ranting atheists.

I don't believe for a minute that most people who now promote civility are committed to it - by their fruits you shall know them. Nor have *I* always succeeded in promoting civility. Still, in a world full of hotheads, it's a start.

[Bob MacDonald]

I was sorry for Jim when he lost his blog a few years ago. But he seems to have recovered it. I have not followed him for over 2 years. I used to consider him a community builder, because he has had many good things happen on the biblical studies list. But I soon grew tired of the minimalist assumptions and then I grew impatient with the total depravity posts. I hope he does not know what he is writing about. Certainly, the gifts I know from one who is greater than he are not to be spoken of in that way.

As for the woman who destroyed herself, I can only pray for someone who has no basis to continue their life. I do not find such prayer a contradiction in me, but rather a longing. Jim would do well to delete that post and all the comments. Perhaps he too can repent.

Personally, I am sorry to have to agree with you on a subject like this in writing, but I think it has to be noted that this kind of behaviour is offensive to some of us and does not seem to accord with the gospel - at least not how I have been taught it. I always have a check in my spirit when I consider that I am not trained in the guild in any way. I do not have the time unfortunately to become accredited so I must just train myself and hope that someone will not get tired of reading my reaching words that have their own error rate.

[JohnFH]

Your reaching words, Bob, are conceived by intent in the spirit of 1 Cor 13, so that, when all knowledge passes away, they will abide. That counts for a lot.

It would be wonderful if it were possible to say that Jim West's gifts of projection and vitriol are otherwise unknown among bloggers or among members of the guild (SBL members, for example), but such is not the case.

[Carl W. Conrad]

I continued to scan Jim's blog for a long time for the sake of the occasional scoops on significant news items, but the crudities and judgmental rants and smugly self-righteous put-downs of just about anybody and everybody eventually decided me that it's not worth slogging through the mud.

[jim]

yes i agree that all of you should put your time to better use.

in fact, i welcome your disdain. i'm not at all troubled by it nor do i intend to change my methodology to suit the views of others.

as ive always said, if you dont like what i do, stay away. i certainly stay away from those blogs that i dont find interesting.

so do, please, follow your own light and stay away.

(but of course that's the hypocrisy of each comment beginning with the post. for how could or would you know how horrible i am if it weren't for the fact that you visit?).

so do, again, please, stay away. dont soil yourselves with one more click.

[JohnFH]

Rest assured, Jim, I do not visit your blog.

However, I received a complaint about your blogging from a fellow SBL member. Backing up her bewilderment with links to your blog, she was wondering whether you represent the viewpoint of a typical Christian biblical scholar.

I defend your freedom of speech: I defend the freedom of speech of Fred Phelps for that matter.

But no, despite your claimed affinity with Zwingli, the Reformation, and the Baptist heritage; despite your membership in various professional organizations, you are not in my opinion an honorable representative of any of the above in your blogging persona.

Finally, I reserve the right to take you on in the future should I be alerted of the need again.

[Calvinist]

Well said, JohnFH.

It's interesting that some SBL members are complaining about him.

[Mark Stevens]

I think Jim is just being himself. He has opinions against the moral and ethical state of the USA and he shares his opinions on his blog. Why is that wrong?

I understand people don't like the amount he posts and may disagree with what he posts about but it is his blog. He doesn't visit other people's blog and scour the comments posting long comments like some bloggers do. His blog, his interests and his views. Why is that a problem?

He is an avid scholar, Biblical and historical. These posts come through on a regular basis.

Look, I am a friend of Jim's and have found him to be wonderfully generous and friendly. He is also one of the greatest parsons I know.

Just my 2 cents.

[JohnFH]

Mark,

Do you mind addressing the feature of his online persona I cite? How do his offline generosity and friendliness make up for his online nastiness?

[Mark Stevens]

How is he morally crude? When Jim rants I have always treated it as hyperbole. He is a caring parson who asks tough questions and is a good scholar.

Have you ever asked him why he does it?

[JohnFH]

If you read the thread I link to, you will notice that a commenter seeks clarification over and again, and is treated to nastiness in reply.

I have received several complaints since I began blogging for the way Jim West treats people online. I might have replied, "Am I my brother's keeper?" and left it at that. But ultimately that stance is irresponsible. Are you certain that such complaints are unfounded?

I'm serious, Mark. Do you stand by your claim that West has nothing to be ashamed of?

[Brian]

I have found his online persona to be arrogant and mean-spirited. I have been told that he is not this way in person. Perhaps he compensates online for what he can't do in person, I don't know. But this is the persona that he chooses to display to the world through his blog. His comment above is mild compared to what I have seen him spew at other times.

[Mark Stevens]

I stand by the person I know. A warm and generous pastor who is frustrated at the state of the nation's morals. I don't agree with every thing he says but hey, he gets attacked a fair bit as well so maybe over the years he's become jaded. Is he harsh? Yes he can be. But I just figure it's his blog and he can do what he wants.

Like I said, the man I know is far more than the few lines you have described.

[JohnFH]

Mark,

I'm pleased to see that you see the need to distance yourself from Jim West's style of blogging.

The fact that you seem to think the "few lines" I link to are not typical suggests that you steer clear of his blogging, so as not to be overcome by the harshness and jadedness of his online persona.

As others have noted on this thread, and as West concedes, that is a reasonable conclusion: stop reading and stop enabling Jim West the blogger.

[woofin]

When I first started reading Jim, I thought he was much younger than he is, a fresh-out just getting started in the world, and I sort of liked his blog on that basis as an interesting mixture. I was taken aback when I discovered he is a mature working pastor.

[Brian]

Mark, I can understand Jim West's outrage at the state of morals in our world today. When I did read his blog, I would agree with him on many things, although certainly not everything. But I wonder if he isn't undermining his own moral indignation by the way he treats people online?

He regularly denounces fellow scholars and bibliobloggers and he frequently heaps verbal abuse upon people he interacts with online. I am sure that many of the attacks he receives are provoked by the caustic way he articulates things on his blog.

I wonder, as a pastor, how does he treat people who have moral failings in his own congregation or community? Does he use the same tactics as he does online?

A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to meet him personally. He passed right by me. But I found that I wasn't interested in meeting him because of his online persona. Perhaps he would serve himself and others better if he let some of that warm persona you so describe shine through more often on blog.

[Calvinist]

Today he is perpetuating the oldest slur in the bigot's book -- he has posted an implicit comparison of gay people with pedophiles:

http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/imagine-that-a-catholic-college-firing-an-openly-gay-priest/

For his thousands of blogs readers, this is the REAL Jim West, not the friendly chap known personally to a few dozen cronies.

[Bill]

Is this whole thread because of "that's what she said"? John Hobbins, is that the crudity and nastiness of which you speak?

The remark has a pop culture usage as sexual innuendo, especially popularized by the US version of the TV show 'The Office'. But Jim West's remark (immediately below the comment you link to) was a statement against giving up, as in suicide. The commenter said, "I give up". Jim's reply underscored the point of his post against suicide, that one should never give up.

John, if your disgust was over the whole post itself, forgive me for misunderstanding. But if your post was against "twss", I don't see the particular crudity. "Twss" only counts as innuendo when the line it responds to can be taken as double entendre. If this does, boy, gee, I am seriously missing it.

As to how I know all this - I have crude friends, so sue me. ;-)

[Bill]

This also reminds me of when you (John) called Jim's blog list "antediluvian", presumably because it predated the current FLOOD of biblioblogs, at that time, with which none of us could keep up. But Jim took the word as a general insult against the list itself.

Again, maybe I'm missing something. Or maybe you guys need a translator. ;-)

[JohnFH]

Hi Bill,

We all need translators now and then. You are welcome to translate for me any time.

Jim West's style of blogging is in permanent need of translation. In answer to your question, he succeeds in being offensive in his blogging persona in more ways than I can easily count. It is not worth my time or yours to go over them.

I will limit myself to this recurring pattern: he sees people mistreating themselves and other people and that seems to give him permission to mistreat whomever he wishes.

I concur with Jim West's own advice: if you find him offensive - and I do, and most people I know do - stay away from his blog.

[mikelioso]

The anonymity of the net does bring out the sociopathic in people. Jim is defiantly of the let them eat cake variety. is that typical of his attitude, is it a comedy site?

[JohnFH]

Mike,

I don't appreciate the use of the word "sociopathic." It's not an insinuation to make lightly.

It might be wise to construe West's blog as a comedy routine. Then it might be referred to as a bad comedy routine. God knows the world is full of comics who ham-handedly exceed the bounds of propriety.

[John Anderson]

I too, have not visited Jim's blog for a while. Not necessarily because I find him offensive (it's hard to genuinely offend me), but I must confess that what annoys me most is the utter discontinuity between his online persona (and it is precisely that) and the real JW. If you have ever met this man in person you would never guess he is the one who writes those posts, frequently calling people "dolts" or whatever new derogatory word of the day he has decided upon. In person, however, he is a quiet, seemingly-shy, unassuming man who seems genuinely quite kind, if you can get him to talk to you. Does anyone who has met him agree with me on this point? I don't mind Jim having an online persona; he is surely entitled to that. I just wish he was more transparent about who he is. When I met Jim for the first time at the Boston SBL in 2008 I was quite surprised at his timidity and what seemed to be, upon first impression, a gentle and quiet kindness. I later saw Jim at the biblioblogging reception and, in passing, jokingly asked him to call me a "dolt" (something he had called me plenty of times online) to my face. He nervously smiled and shuffled on to another group of people. That's what bothers me most; be authentic.

I will admit, though, that yes, his posts are problematic in several regards, though with JohnFH I support Jim's free speech. What I do not support, however, is free speech that is hateful or detrimental to others. Since Jim deleted his original blog this discussion is lost, but I recall a post he had about homosexuality in which I pressed him on the matter, which resulted only in an ad hominem attack. Would that we had that conversation in person!

(For a fun read, BTW, search Chris Heard's blog for his detective work on Jim West's credentials; I won't link directly to it here, but there was a spirited exchange in 2008).

[JohnFH]

John,

It is also my experience that Jim West is shy and soft-spoken in person, whereas online, he too often is crude and mean.

[Theophrastus]

While Jim is free to exercise his First Amendment rights to free speech, I think that the community needs to decide if they want to allow him to continue to play a central role in events such as SBL-Bibliobloggers functions.

Jim often engages in offensive and bigoted broad characterization of Catholics, Jews, women, homosexuals and others. I'll let you folks debate whether the "shy Jim" or the "obnoxious Jim" best reflects his "true" personality, but it seems to me that Jim improperly mixes his roles by organizing his SBL activities on the same blog in which he publishes offensive remarks.

There is a further question about SBL's cooperation with Jim given the many questions about the veracity of his self-description of his academic background.

[JohnFH]

Jim West is not, so far as I know, on the steering committee of the SBL program unit, "Bloggers and Online Publication." He helped promote it, but he did not attend its inaugural session in Atlanta this past year - a session, BTW, that was a delight to experience.

West is an active member of SBL, ASOR, CBA, and other professional organizations. He has published book reviews in peer-reviewed journals such as Catholic Biblical Quarterly, SJOT, and RBL. He published an article, last year, on Baptist history in the peer-reviewed journal Baptist History and Heritage. He completed the research for that article while a research fellow at Mercer University.

I'm not familiar with the degrees West has earned but I have no doubt he is qualified to write in the field of the Old Testament.

I've seen others suggest that West has misrepresented his cur vitae on past occasions. Chris Heard, I believe, leveled that charge. However that once was, West does not do that now.

I think it is fair to say, and Jim West would not disagree, that he presents his own views, and not those of organizations he belongs to, when he blogs.

His blogging persona is an embarrassment to most people I know, within and without SBL, who know of it. But I wouldn't want to see SBL take action against him. He's not that important.

[G. Kyle Essary]

I no longer read Jim's blog, but I second John's comment about his credentials. Chris Heard's "investigative work" brought about little. Whether or not he graduated from an accredited school says nothing about how competent a scholar he is. His work has shown that he does know how to do scholarly work at the same level as most of the big school Ph.D.'s in the biblioblogging world.

[John Anderson]

The last three comments have been particularly interesting. I agree with Theophrastus and with JohnFH's most recent comment, largely. I disagree, however, with Kyle's statement that graduation from an (non-)accredited doctorate program says nothing about one's competence as a scholar. Let me be clear: I don't wish to say Jim is an incompetent scholar. I wouldn't know, I don't read anything he does (and actually try to avoid something if I see his name attached to it; far too caustic). But I take a bit of offense at the insinuation--intentional or not--that my 2 years at Duke in a masters program followed by 4 years of rigorous Ph.D. work at Baylor is more or less equivalent to what Jim has done. Again, I am not saying I'm a better scholar than Jim--how do you judge such a thing anyways?--we both have gifts and deficiencies. But if the criteria is that he published book reviews in RBL and CBQ, is that really the barometer to measure by? Regardless, put most simply, Jim knows (some of) his stuff quite well, but whether that has prepared him to be a true scholar--which I see as one who attempts to build the discipline of biblical studies and not launch automatically into ad hominem attacks when pressed--I begin to wonder.

I would also suggest folk try to dig up Chris Heard's original post on the topic; it is at the very least interesting reading, and some of it on the money to my eye. But I am glad to learn from John that West no longer misrepresents his CV. And after having met JW in person and seeing how he treats people online, I must echo John's final statement in his most recent post above.

[G. Kyle Essary]

John,
You are arguing against something that was never insinuated. Nobody is arguing that they are equivalent in terms of past education. The argument is that Jim's work is on par with much of the stuff Ph.D.'s in the biblioblogging world put out.

Regardless of how he came to such knowledge, scholars should be assessed on the quality of their work. If I'm teaching Hebrew, I don't care if you went to Princeton for your undergrad when I'm assessing the quality of your paper anymore than the student who went to junior college, did some tutoring at the synagogue and has no pedigree.

[John Anderson]

The dangers of reader-response, on display here!

But, I'd still disagree with the premise in your second sentence.

[G. Kyle Essary]

Hey John,
I can't disagree that reader-response can be dangerous, haha. Just to clarify, from which comment do you disagree with the second sentence?

1: Chris Heard's "investigative work" brought about little.
2: Nobody is arguing that they are equivalent in terms of past education.

If it is the second comment, then I can at least say that I am not arguing that your educational background and his are on par, because they aren't.

[John Anderson]

Kyle, actually neither comment. I was registering my disagreement with your statement that "Jim's work is on par with much of the stuff Ph.D.'s in [the] biblioblogging world put out." Yes, he has done one or two peer reviewed journals, but I can't help but smile when you click to buy one of his books published through Quartz Hill press and see they are all just listed on lulu.com. I'm not saying Jim isn't sharp and doesn't know more than the average person (or pastor). I'm saying I don't think his output is up to snuff with biblioblogging Ph.D.s. Look at Chris Heard, who has a book out, several articles, and a forthcoming two volume reception history commentary on Genesis; Mark Goodacre, who has published numerous academic works; Aren Maeir, excavator at Tel Safi; and if I can be so bold, me, with several articles, book reviews, and a forthcoming book, and chair of an SBL unit. I just don't see the similarity. This doesn't mean Jim is incapable of doing good work, but I can't get past the Quartz Hill --> lulu publishing bit.

And now that I look at the two comments in your most recent post, I'd say I disagree with each of those too! (wink)

[G. Kyle Essary]

You are definitely correct that he doesn't have the quality academic output of the bloggers you mentioned (only 5% of the scholars at your average SBL do either of course, haha, as they are quite a top-notch group). You should have gone ahead and thrown in Jim Davila and Chris Brady as well...heck and Larry Hurtado. Of course, these guys kind of stick out.

Chris Heard trumps the list because he made a Bible board game. Come on, how many other scholars do you know that can pull that off?

You are probably right overall on this point though, but there are a whole lot of Ph.D.'s out there and a whole lot of biblioblogging ones.

[John Anderson]

Kyle,

I'm hoping Chris will give me a gratis copy of his game, since we're Genesis buddies (is Chris reading this? ha!). But yes, pretty cool!

Part of the potential issue, I think, is that many of the folk who were blogging regulars when I was as well, about 2 years ago, are no longer posting, and since I was a bit busy writing a dissertation I have failed to keep up with the bulk of new bloggers. Especially those with Ph.D.s. I don't know how I feel about considering Jim among that group, though to be honest . . . but in the interest of full disclosure, I'm also a bit ambivalent about the issue (though I realize my comments above may point otherwise).

[G. Kyle Essary]

John,
There is no doubt that the game looks cool (in a weird, biblical studies, Christian believer, geeky kind of way).

[Matt]

I guess I'm not as touchy as most people - the current trend is to be polite, politically correct and sparing of other people's feelings. While this is all find and dandy (and a far cry from the gloriously amusing back-and-forths that were common in writers such as John Calvin, Martin Luther and their cronies for a few examples), it's a shame that this current creed and dogma of modern intellectual intercourse is taken to such an extreme, yet rarely applied when we run across someone we disagree with and who happens to break what we perceive as our own personal decency creed: the boycotts come out, the accusations of intellectual insipidity are flung, the ad hominem attacks begin piling up in large piles of what-cannot-be-referred-to-lest-it-offend-our-new-intellectual-Victorianism.

Have we really come to this? Is all modern discourse to be forever shackled to these new creeds and dogmas? Is it not possible to simply disagree, shake our heads, have a chuckle or groan (take your pick), leave it at that and resist the urge to commit the very same 'heretic'-burnings that got this whole thing started, in this instance? Far be it for me to cry "hypocrite" - but there it is. I just really feel the world is big enough for many people to voice their opinions without being hauled to the gallows of modern idignation for doing so. One doesn't have to literally burn someone at the stake (to once again refer to the origin of this entire thing) to produce the same results through other means.

Humor is, by many good definitions, usually derived by focusing on the misfortunes or cultural differences of others - we find examples of this strewn throughout the Bible. This works well for comedians and the Biblical authors telling funny etiological stories about the origin of the Moabites and Ammonites, but woe to the modern intellectual who attempts such a thing. There will always be loud voices using this to discredit someone they already do not care for.

Just my opinions, here - I hope they don't offend too greatly: take them as satire, if you must.

[JohnFH]

Hi Matt,

Is it possible to be highly critical of someone's behavior and *not* morally crude? I think so.

I reject your advice, that we "simply disagree, shake our heads, have a chuckle or groan (take your pick), [and] leave it at that."

That is often great advice, but not always. In some cases, it takes more courage, but is nonetheless more praiseworthy, to oppose a wrongdoer to his or her face.

Just my opinion. That's what I offer here: my views. It's all I can offer.