So, Rod, would you say that you were trying to start a conversation, rather than hand down prescriptions?
I wonder if that's where the disconnect happened. You wanted to actively think through how conservative/conserving principles would affect how we arrange our personal lives, and that included reclaiming some elements that seem to have been claimed by liberals. You wanted to present how this pondering-and-reclaiming is going in your own life and those of others following a similar project. It was intended to be exploratory rather than prescriptive. Would that be accurate?
But it seems what was most memorable was the concrete illustrations. What some people heard was "You must wear Birks or you're a bad person." I remember learning in seminary: Be very careful in choosing your sermon illustrations, because that's all people will remember.
It seems to me that the most consistent and fundamental criticism has been:
"You're just baptizing your own taste."
The followup critique takes several different forms:
(a) "...and this is no time to bust up the conservative coalition."
(b) "...and when you stress that what undergirds these aesthetic choices are conservative principles, you imply that my different choices are unprincipled or thoughtless."
(d) "...and the whole thing is too vague; there is no there there."
(e) "...and Crunchy Cons are just as captive to the culture as anyone else; your assumption that you are living uniquely committed lives is delusional and smug."
does that cover the waterfront? have I missed or misunderstood anything?
(I'm also getting on a plane today — will check in when I can.)
