Holy sh…er…crap! What a week it’s been. Since last Friday when we published our second “Friday editorial” we have been delighted by the discourse that it has prompted. Immediately after running the piece we received a lot of compliments and support for our stance on what we perceived to be the non-issue of swearing among evangelicals. Many people agreed with our sense that the focus on four-letter words had spiraled out of control and appreciated our attempt to reign it in by pointing out that, for most of us, it just doesn’t matter that much.

But just as quickly as the praise came in, so, too did we receive some earnest criticism from readers who took issue with the editorial. The emails, tweets, Facebook responses and blog posts that challenged our opinion were very much appreciated. Both Sessions and myself love knowing that we stimulated a conversation, and particularly one that drew in not only many readers, but also many of the largest and most respected evangelical periodicals as well. Most of the responses were well-crafted, fully realized and, if not completely convincing, at least challenging. Of course there were those that were less so, those reactions which were insulting and terse; none more so than being referred to as “pathetic and dumb” by a tweeter from a prominent magazine.

Where we have been happy to dialog with people, from those that responded online to personal friends here in NYC and beyond, we have done so on the grounds of mutual understanding: the reader fully comprehends where we are coming from and what we were trying to say and then takes issue either with the subject itself, or the way we said it. Where we have been disappointed and let down by the direction the conversation has taken is where we are most unfortunately misrepresented. I believe this is the case in a recent blog post on the website of the magazine First Things.