Why I cannot recommend Patheos

  Retreat-masters, clergy, “inspirational speakers,” and academics are recruited by Patheos because it wants to be “the premier online destination to engage in the global dialogue about religion and spirituality and to explore and experience the world's beliefs.”¹ Patheos seeks to add to its advertising and retail revenue by providing said contributors with a platform. It is a normal business transaction. How do I feel about bloggers who move to Patheos? I stop reading their blogs. Why? Four reasons come to mind.

   Reason Number One: Some of the regular bloggers of the Patheos community are free-lance homilists who claim to represent a faith-tradition they do not.

    For example: the group blog of the Buddhist portal. Its regular contributors are Rick Hanson and Gary Gach. Both appear to be big names in the Buddhist lite mainstream media circus circuit. They produce a molasses-like stream of devotional sound bites with almost no connection to Buddhism as practiced in temples, monasteries, and homes around the world. Their blogging elicits little or no community interaction, except from spammers like “colon cleanse” and “cheapest ohio auto insurance.” No one even takes the time to remove the spam comments [UPDATE: fixed now, in response to this post]. What to do with the Patheos Buddhist Portal? Throw it in the dumpster where it belongs, unless it is not Buddhism which interests you, but Buddhism as “atmosphere,” as an ideological alternative to religion. To be sure, Buddhist texts, the history of Buddhism, Buddhism as a unified system of beliefs and practices, the rhythms of Buddhist life - home ritual, communal rites, rites of passage, the yearly round of festivals, “church and state” in Buddhist-dominated polities - are touched on in the “Library,” a non-interactive environment with no organic connection to the site’s interactive content. The best written piece in the Buddhist “Library” is the one which provides historical perspectives. But once that contribution is digested, virtually everything on the group blog will be seen for what it is: New Age tripe. Still, even the “historical perspectives” contribution is problematic. It is an unattributed post without links to further resources or bibliography. It is not a serious enough contribution to come up to Wikipedia standards, the lowest acceptable baseline for online quality content.

    Reason Number Two: The “Library” Feature is not a credible resource for the comparative study of religion. That might not matter but Patheos markets itself as reliable and useful in that sense. Its library content contains no footnotes, references, or external links; in some cases, no attribution. Put another way, the Library is user-friendly to the librarians who must keep it up-to-date; not to those who want to “seek and understand.” Two paragraphs on Judaism by Allan Nadler are symptomatic of the third-rate content one finds in the “Library”:

Judaism Vision for Society

Judaism is neither a universal nor an evangelizing religion. Jews believe that the Torah and its laws are the unique inheritance of a people elected, or chosen, by God for the purpose of forging a "kingdom of priests" whose mission is to spread the principles of ethical monotheism to all humankind.

Judaism Gender and Sexuality

Rabbinical Judaism has historically assigned distinct roles to the different genders, especially notable in the realms of public worship and ecclesiastical leadership. Judaism's positive attitude to sexuality has had the net effect of consigning women largely to domestic roles, as well as precluding women from attaining positions of ecclesiastical leadership.

    Not to pick on Nadler, who is trying to accomplish too much in far too little compass, but is it the case that the Jews are a people whose God-given “mission is to spread the principles of ethical monotheism to all humankind”? It is, according to adherents of Classical Reformed Judaism; it is not, according to adherents of Judaism in general, past or present. Is it the case that Judaism’s positive attitude to sexuality “consigned women largely to domestic roles,” and precluded “women from attaining positions of ecclesiastical leadership”? This is the kind of stuff that gets written if you are being paid minimum wage by the paragraph.

    It is also curious that Patheos has an “Evangelical Portal” but nothing in its “Library” on evangelicals per se. The “mainline Protestant” portal is being phased out, and replaced with a “progressive Christian” portal located just to the side of the “Pagan” portal. That sounds about right, but once again, there are no “Library” resources for “progressive Christianity” – yet this movement has a history, a core of common beliefs, and a particular stance over against Scripture, tradition, and reason. Patheos does not provide reliable background information on the religious and political identities which show up most regularly on its pages.  

   Reason Number Three: Money corrupts; if money is the bottom line, it corrupts absolutely. I’m not saying money is the bottom line for Patheos bloggers, but they risk being perceived as, first and foremost, self-promoters.

    Take Mark D. Roberts. I choose him as an example because I like his content. His recent post in which he gently upbraids Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for her ridiculous take on the Weinergate scandal, is vintage Roberts. Liberals no less than conservatives are pathetic creatures when they examine the dirty laundry of members of their own household – unless the dirt threatens to stick to them, in which case: watch out. Roberts, a liberal evangelical, is mildly refreshing here.² The problem is another: Roberts’ blog is a dot com. It showcases him. The sidebar is one long self-advertisement. You might think a post on Weinergate by Roberts would attract a significant comment thread. It didn’t.

    I have a suspicion: Patheos acts as a damper on online interaction. An example: Mike Bird’s rapid takedown of James McGrath’s all-smoke-and-no-fire posts against the inerrancy of the Bible and substitutionary atonement generated few comments. Since he joined Patheos, I don’t follow Mike online any more, but I remember when posts like that of Bird and McGrath, when both were independent bloggers, would have attracted a greater number of comments. Patheos is supposed to be about “global dialogue.” But it’s not.  

    I can say things like the above, but James McGrath, Mike Bird, Scot McKnight, Frank Beckwith, and C. Michael Patton, to limit myself to people I have interacted with in the past, on and/or offline, cannot. It would hurt the “brand.” It will not be easy for them to discuss the issues I raise. They can prove me wrong if they wish. I will link to them if they do.

    I enjoy being an independent blogger. I don’t churn out stuff because I have to. True, I take a financial hit in order to blog, but I take the hit intentionally. I like the freedom that comes with paying a price for being a blogger, rather than receiving compensation for it. As soon as you receive compensation for something, it creates a sense of loyalty toward the one who compensates you. That’s fine if you are comfortable with all that entails. But I feel no affinity for the Patheos proof of concept, which comes across as something like the following: “all religions are created equal” – especially the “balanced” ones. We are all tempted to engage in hype and spin, but let’s face it: the business model of Patheos is built from the ground up on hype and spin.  

    Reason Number Four: Not enough quality control. Patheos needs copy editors, because some of its contributors write like freshmen in a 101 class. A sample sentence from a recent post (which, I admit, I found interesting for all kinds of odd reasons): “Kirkegaard was a devout Christian and would probably be a bit dismayed at the Existentialist movement his writings gave fruit to, and just so, I don’t think Ayn Rand really expected to inform Satanist philosophy.”

    I am not a fan of Patheos. But then, I am not a fan of Beliefnet either. If you want to “explore and experience the world’s beliefs,” take the time to make friends with ordinary believers of the world’s religions, to read deeply in the world’s religious traditions, things like that. If you want to know more about evangelical Christianity, traditional Judaism, the Mormon faith, or a version of Buddhism, you will want to visit a place of worship and observe and perhaps even participate in the ritual. The world’s great religions have many dimensions: the ritual, the philosophical, the narrative, the devotional, the ethical, the legal, the social, the political, and the material (costumes, architecture, books, icons, etc.), not to mention the music, art, and drama beyond ritual religions engender. Patheos is a noble project, but it leaves a lot to be desired in terms of execution.  

¹ I am not making a cut at any of the four categories listed. I myself have led retreats and have been hired as a motivational speaker. I am both a clergyperson and an academic.

² For real refreshment, check out the comments of Andrew Cuomo’s former chief of staff, Kirsten Powers. When she finishes with former friend Weiner, there is nothing left but a puddle of the kind one associates with the death scene of the wicked witch of the West in the Wizard of Oz. 

Comments

[Robert Holmstedt]

You know, John, I think I agree. I tried to follow McGrath's blog over there, but I really don't find the reading experience enjoyable anymore. How odd, because I am committed to substance over form, but the ads on the side are just too distracting.

Once again, my will bows to McLuhan. Sigh.

Rob

[James F. McGrath]

Wow, I'm really sorry to hear that the ads are that offputting. As someone who reads most blogs most of the time through Google Reader, I'm hardly even aware of them on most blogs that have them.

I was asked to move my blog to Patheos because of the content, rather than to adapt to something they hoped I would change to. How it will turn out, I can hardly say at this early stage. But I've found the comments and conversations thus far lively, and the blog post on inerrancy has generated some discussion among and between blogs more than on my own blog, but as far as I'm concerned, that still counts.

For what it's worth, I don't think the ads are any worse than Jim West's photos of people at Wal*Mart, and we all manage to put up with those, somehow. :)

And as far as what Patheos is, and Beliefnet was/has been/is, I look at the opportunity to blog there as an opportunity to be part of a conversation. I also edit Wikipedia sometimes, not because I think that it is always reliable, but because I know people want it to be, and I know that the only chance of it actually being remotely reliable is for folks like us to get involved.

Anyway, I hope we can still interact, even if you choose not to update the address of my blog on your blogroll! :)

[C. Stirling Bartholomew]

John,

You know, I read your stuff because you don't tow the party line. I know nothing about Patheos, can't even spell it. Mark D. Roberts is a liberal evangelical? Friend of mine was an "artist in residence" at his summer camp. She isn't any kind of evangelical what so ever.

You could liven up the comments by posting something favorable about Louis Farrakhan or a review of the recent bio of Malcom X.

as usual, I really don't have anything constructive to say and my syntax is really abominable, I live in neighborhood were everyone speaks ESL.

[Robert Holmstedt]

Hey James,

I don't blame you for the distractions I encounter at your new spot. And I do enjoy reading your posts enough that I'll continue to try not to let them off-put me (I love intentionally mangling English). ;-)

[Rich Griese]

Looks like a bunch of supernaturalistic hacks. I looked it up on wikipedia, and see that is was begun by a evangelical catholic and her husband that worked in the computer biz. I checked it out, and looked at the page that lists the writers. All kinds of supernaturalistic groupings. But... I subscribed to the RSS of the folks in the HISTORY category ( i think there were three). Well after about a week, I realized that these posts that were in the history category were all pretty much promoting standard supernaturalistic dogma. So... imagine if the 3 of writers that are billed as writing on HISTORY, imagine what the ones that are out of the supernaturalistic closet are slinging.

Seems like a worthless site. I would just give it a miss.

Cheers! RichGriese.NET

[James F. McGrath]

OK, well here's a link to a post soliciting comments of a sort that I hoped would prove you wrong. So far it hasn't been particularly successful, so feel free to liven things up or get the conversation on track over there... :)

[JohnFH]

James,

It was nice of you to pick up on this. I don't see any evidence yet that you or other bloggers I used to follow before recruitment to the Patheos project are willing to discuss the Patheos project, its proof of concept and execution.

That's the first thing I am asking for. I'm confident that if you discuss the project, you will make a number of telling criticisms and note positives as well, because that is your standard modus operandi.

[James F. McGrath]

@John, I'll be honest that I don't see my move [to Patheos] as an adoption by me of some abstract Patheos concept. The site aims at providing perspectives on religion, and I was invited to be one of them. I honestly think that Patheos will be whatever everyone who is involved and contributes to it makes it. And I certainly don't see my blog being hosted here as indicating my agreement with what anyone else who blogs here has to say.

I hope I have not been churning stuff out because I have to. I have been privileged to work at an institution which did not set the bar for tenure at a level that necessitated speed and quantity regardless of quality. I know that if I blog simply for the sake of blogging, I will lose readers. And so if I don't have something to say, I plan on saying nothing.

If one thinks of other sites for religion information that people turn to, whether The Huffington Post, CNN's blogs, or any others, they a simply platforms which give experts and other interested parties a place to express themselves, and in return become or continue to be a place people turn to in order to hear such voices.

The recent Lead Plates fiasco provides a useful illustration of why blogging in this way is useful. When one is connected with a recognized site, it offers a connection for journalists and the media. We discovered in the case of the lead plates story that not only did the media not find scholars' blogs, but they often rejected them as sources of reliable information about religion and related subjects! I think that if even one of the scholars in question had had a blog that was associated with either a media outlet or a major site, we might have been able to interact with the media more effectively.

As I said earlier, I am still in the early days of my Patheos experience. And Patheos is itself a project still in development, as indicated by the fact that it is still inviting new bloggers and participants. I am willing to give them a chance and see what Patheos becomes, with me as a part of it. The alternatives, to refuse to be a part of the process and then either complain about what they become without me and others like me involved, or complain about the fact that it turned out well and I was not and no longer have the chance to be involved, don't seem to me in any way preferable options.

[JohnFH]

Okay, James.

The takeaway as I see it is that you are not committed to the details of the Patheos project, its proof of concept, profile for marketing purposes, etc., but to Patheos as "simply [a] platform[ ] which give[s] experts and other interested parties a place to express themselves, and in return become or continue to be a place people turn to in order to hear such voices."

I understand that, but since you have a contract of some sort with Patheos with economic benefits attached, I would think you owe Patheos a degree of brand loyalty.

If that is the case, the details of that brand are of interest, to you I would think, and to your readers, actual and potential.

My misgivings about Patheos, to which one might add those expressed by others on this thread, stand.

As opposed to a self-promoter, you are a community-oriented blogger - a huge plus in my book.

Most members of the community of biblical bloggers will remain outside of the Patheos community for a variety of reasons.

Perhaps they are not recognized experts; perhaps they don't fit into the business plan of Patheos (they may have quality content, but not enough traffic to attract the attention of Patheos); perhaps it matters to them, as it does to me, that the marketing profile of Patheos is, to put the best spin possible on it, aspirational rather than actual, a work in progress that will no doubt undergo a series of course corrections in the future.

In my case, James, multiple commitments keep me from blogging as often as you are able. I notice that you continue to publish a blogroll; unlike mine, it appears to be up-to-date rather than a historical relic. Kudos to you for all that you do on behalf of NT scholarship and the biblioblogging community.

[JohnFH]

For a great discussion on this topic, check out this thread on F & T:

http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/2011/06/moving-blog.html

[seth sanders]

"Despite my disappointment in his behavior and my concerns about his capacity to be in a leadership position, my heart still aches for him and his family." Sounds like it's straight from the heart.

[JohnFH]

I agree: Kirsten Powers comes out of this just fine. A class act. Can't say the same for Anthony Weiner.

[Brian Mitchell]

Patheos? I had never heard of this site until, now. Reasons, 1, 2, and 4 ring true in my opinion as well. From a cursory glance I didn't notice any articles specific to exegesis, textual criticism, nor to classical Hebrew.

While, some portals of the site mentioned texts, there appears to be no outlet for blog readers to check up on quotations/references in a digital online library on their site(If I am wrong please correct me) nor any links in articles to accurate critical texts of faith. If the writers on that site are real 'experts' I would expect there to be copious footnotes, and quotations from original language texts. Where are the Japanese language texts? Where are the classical Hebrew and Aramaic texts? these and other questions come to mind as I scanned through the Patheos site.

[G. Kyle Essary]

I really like the individuals selected to write at Patheos, but it has killed the community atmosphere of biblio/theoblogdom. Honestly though, Jesus Creed has unquestionably been the most popular of the sort for quite some time (if you don't count pastoral blogs like John Pipers), but I'm sure he saw a great bump in readership once he moved to Beliefnet and that continued at Patheos.

Believe it or not, I had a theoblog from about 2001-2005 and quit thinking that blogging had come to an end with podcasts and vodcasts. I was wrong...really wrong. About two years ago, I started to wonder if it was declining again and how the blogging world would progress.

I assumed that there would be two trends, and that one would ultimately win out. The first was groupblogging. Near Emmaus has been trying this, as well as sites like Parchment and Pen. I like this idea because the bloggers interact with each others posts and there is still a community feel. The other option was the platform blogging. Scienceblogs, Beliefnet and others really took off doing this back around 2007, but with sites like Patheos, The Gospel Coalition, etc. moving to the form, it looks like this trend will win out.

I think it's good in that it moves a lot of quality content to one site, and in terms of pagereads, google hits, etc. I'm sure it gets you more traffic. I think it's bad because when all of the biblio/theoblogs were "free agents" there was a biblioblogging community. With Beliefnet all of that changed, and has continued to change. There is no longer a biblioblogging community, but biblioblog communities. Without a doubt, BW3 and Scot McKnight reign supreme in terms of biblioblogging, and have for quite some time. But they only made the earliest rankings, because they weren't ever really part of the biblioblogging community. Now with Patheos grabbing up some of the more well-known biblioblogs, it moves others out as well. I expect this trend to community.

[G. Kyle Essary]

The final line should read, "I expect this trend to continue" not "community," haha.

[JohnFH]

Hi Kyle,

Thank you for insightful comments as usual.

Let me push back a bit.

I don't think of Scot McKnight or Ben Witherington as bloggers on the Bible any more than I think of Justin Taylor or Al Mohler as biblical bloggers. McKnight and Witherington are established NT scholars but they rarely blog about things that occupy the attention of NT scholars as such. They don’t even blog about things that occupy the attention of lay students of the Bible that much. In all four instances, it's more about modeling and showcasing a particular strand of evangelical Christianity and polemicizing against other strands. I don’t think any of these guys belongs on a big media outlet like HufPo, CNN, or NYT because the terms of their conversation tend to be intra-evangelical rather than world-engaging in the sense that Paul was on Mars Hill in Athens.

It might be true that the above four bloggers have a combined readership that outstrips that of the Biblioblog Top 50 combined, but that's beside the point for a bunch of reasons. As already noted, it is comparing apples to oranges – the four bloggers named are not true biblical bloggers. To be clear: there aren't that many biblical bloggers on my definition in the Top 50 list either. Most of the traffic that sites like those of Jim West, John Loftus, and Matthew and Madeleine (just examples) generate has little to do with the things biblical scholars and/or lay students of the Bible occupy themselves with. Most so-called biblical bloggers in the top 50 are better termed theological or anti-theological bloggers.

The question is another: which blogs out there are dedicated to being places where the best of biblical scholarship and interested students of the Bible, serious and not so serious, can meet? *Interactive* places where specific passages and themes are discussed in full awareness of the primary sources and secondary literature?

There is a crying need for that kind of blogging. Speaking for myself, I am still learning how to blog effectively in that sense and help people interested in that kind of blogging to find what they are looking for.

I realize that most people who claim to want to know what the Bible says are not willing to acquire the reading skills necessary to make progress in understanding what the Bible says as opposed what the faith tradition or lack thereof they identify with says the Bible says.

Still, I believe that there are hundreds of thousands of people of all ages who are interested in what “the naked Bible” has to say, even if that throws their certainties into question.

I'm not sure it's true that moving to Beliefnet or Patheos acquires a broader readership for those who do. Are there published figures on this, or is this guesswork?

Re: true-blue biblical bloggers. Mike Bird and James McGrath regularly blog about things that occupy the attention of NT scholars as such. I could be wrong but I don't think any of the group blogs or platforms of which you speak have bloggers who regularly blog about things that occupy the attention of Hebrew Bible / OT scholars.

If a really large readership is what you are after, it is far better to become a columnist for HufPo, CNN, or NYT. Posts in those media generate hundreds and even thousands of comments.

I am not after a really large readership - though I have explored partnering with others to get occasional content up on HufPo. All green lights so far; I just haven’t had the time to pursue it.

When all is said and done, the limitations I set on my blogging are self-imposed. Today is Pentecost Sunday. Four families were received into membership in my parish; three of the families consist of brand-new Christians in the sense that, though they may have been raised as Christians for brief periods of time in one sense or another, they are claiming the name of Christian as their own with joy and assurance and deep commitment for the first time in their lives. I know enough about these families to know that their Christian walk is a literal life-saver at this juncture of their existence. On days like this one, I know for a certainty that my commitment to evangelization will always trump my commitment to biblical scholarship and biblical blogging. I also enjoy campus ministry. In that context, college students with little, and, more and more often, with no religious background to speak of, commit their lives to Christ and the Gospel. It is gorgeous to be a part of it and to mentor college students who plan to go to seminary and become ordained pastors.

Everything I just mentioned matters more to me than blogging. And why do I blog? The purpose of my blogging is to bring the truth claims of the Bible as I understand them into the public square; to be a place where the best of biblical scholarship and interested students of the Bible, serious and not so serious, can meet. An *interactive* place where specific passages and themes are discussed in full awareness of the primary sources and secondary literature.

Is a place like Patheos suited to these purposes? Not that I know of. So far as I know, Patheos is bereft of bloggers who discuss passages and themes from the Bible with the Hebrew or Greek as the point of departure. My commitment to interpreting the Bible and interpreters of the Bible on the basis of engagement with the texts in the languages in which they were written is non-negotiable.

[G. Kyle Essary]

I agree with almost everything you say, and would never look to any of those blogs for insights in biblical studies, but the critique cuts both ways.

I included theoblogs in my comments because that is what most of the biblioblogs are in reality. Few meet your definition of a biblioblog. Some are attention seekers (you've mentioned a few, but there are more in the top ten). I love M&M and Glenn Peoples stuff, but do an occasional post on interpreting Joshua (through the lens of Wolterstorff) or on preterism make you a biblioblog? I am pretty sure that both BW3 and McKnight make the cut for biblioblog above these. The same could be said of Vridar, Loftus, Watts and most of the top 10. If you are in biblical studies, little related to biblical studies will be of interest from these blogs.

Some are popularizers. This is where I would place McGrath. His posts go from science education to science fiction to television to debunking mythicism, etc. but rarely moves to the level of anything that I think biblical scholars would be interested in (and that's not an attack on his site, because it serves another purpose). The quality of his biblical studies posts is much better than some of the others, but it still is written in a way to speak to those outside of the field. I think it exemplifies a type of mainline Baptist, Protestant Liberal theological popularizing. And that's a voice that needs to be in the conversation no doubt. As such, I hardly see it as that different from Jesus Creed five years ago (it has moved further and further away from biblical studies topics over the years, as I think McKnight himself has tired with it).

Are any of these sites Paleojudaica? No. Or from a different perspective, Bible Places? No. And it's surprising to me that Bible Places makes the top ten. I think it has more to do with the name than with the content (which I love). The non-passionate, unengaged blogs are of interest, but rarely make people want to engage them. Jim West may make people insane with his posts, but there is little doubt that he is passionate and inspires people to engage him.

And that's what I don't like about the platform blogs, it works against engagement by creating cliques of particular perspectives. McGrath becomes the mainline blogger for Patheos, and Bird the evangelical. I love Dalrymple's posts, and BW3 and Bird and much of the Patheos evangelical portal, but the format works against their engagement with others.

Your blog engages. You discuss politics, philosophy, religious experience and theology, biblical studies, etc. and write in such a way that people want to respond. As a free agent in the non-structured biblioblogging/theoblogging community, you inspire others in that community to join in the conversation. I see platform blogging as moving the conversation to a different community altogether, which seems to be more focused in a particular perspective. It draws a larger readership, but I believe a more homogenous one.

In our discussions and emails over the last few years, you know that my heart is in ministry alongside yours (as well as in the First Testament), and it's for that reason that I respect greatly what you write and look forward to most everything you post.

[JohnFH]

I should also mention that Dan Welch of Patheos contacted me via email in order to sound me out further on these matters. That was a classy thing to do on his part, and speaks well for Patheos, even if my criticisms still stand.

[Welch Daniel]

Thanks, John, for what you said in your comment above. I’ve already thanked you over email for your input, but I’ll write a quick comment here in case your readers are interested.

Plenty of people have suggested that Patheos is a crazy idea. We’re bringing serious scholars and accomplished writers from across the faith spectrum in one big marketplace of ideas. We’re two years in. We’re proud to have some of the best and most popular writers on the web contributing to Patheos. We’re growing quickly as visitors come in through one article, and then find several more writers to enjoy. Our writers benefit because they find new audiences for their work. I hope it’s doing some good in the world, but of course we’ll probably never know that.

We often say that you’ll always be able to find something you love on Patheos – and something you hate. Patheos is by no means a finished project. It would have been fun to start with unlimited resources and build the religion site of all of our dreams. Instead, we’ve built it piece by piece, and it’s continuously evolving.

To briefly address a few of John’s specific points:

Any big site has more energetic parts, and more dormant parts. When I last checked, we were in the hundreds of thousands of pages on the site. The Buddhist blog is clearly one of the more dormant parts on our site right now – good find. But the evolution will continue, and at some point a wonderfully skilled managing editor will make the Buddhist portal a great resource.

We’re thrilled to begin some improvements to our library this summer. This is an expensive project (our library content is written and peer-reviewed by scholars in the field), and most parts of it don’t generate tons of pageviews. But it’s an important part of what Patheos is and stands for. Even when we’ve made large investments in the library, experts will find pieces to debate, as you did. But it’s evolving in the right direction. John has made some good suggestions, and I’d welcome more from his colleagues.

I can’t say it any other way than that John is mistaken on the independence issue. We don’t interfere with what our bloggers write.

On pay: John and his blogging peers invest a lot of time in their blogs. If someone wants to be paid for the time and the value they’re sharing with readers, I don’t think that’s anything to be sniffed at, and it certainly doesn’t mean they’re “churning out stuff because they have to.” John presented a false choice of freedom vs. compensation, but I don’t begrudge him for not wanting to be paid for his blogging (although he’s a fine writer and I enjoy his site).

He’s also mistaken on this point: Patheos is not an “all-paths-up-the-mountain-are-equally-good” site. Instead, it’s a marketplace where ideas from across the spectrum are exchanged. The debate is sharp and vigorous, as it is on this great site and many similar blogs.

On quality control: We don’t copy edit blogs (as I said above, blogs are independent). I don’t think most bloggers want to be copy edited. We do edit columns and articles, which are of excellent quality and cleanliness. Can a poorly constructed sentence be found on Patheos? Sure – same with most places.

Believe me: There are plenty more shortcomings that John didn’t pick out! It’s an ambitious undertaking, but you’ll find some great writing and thinking being done at Patheos – as you’ll find on John’s blogroll to the right.

By the way, I think John’s advice in the last paragraph is great. The vision for Patheos has always been to help whet the appetite for learning more about the world’s religions – not to quench it.

If your readers have input for Patheos, I’m sincere in saying I’d like to hear it. I’m at dwelch [at] patheos.com.

Thanks for the invitation to respond in your space, John. Keep up the great blogging.

Dan Welch

[JohnFH]

Thank you, Daniel, for a vigorous and thoughtful response.