I usually don't like opening myself up like this here at the blog---I used to do this quite frequently, and it never turned out all that constructive, usually---but since an interlocutor of mine just emailed me with this very concern; I thought I would try to get more feedback than just from him.
So, do you think that the tone of my posts, in general, are too critical? As you peruse my more recent line-up of posts, most of them seem to have something to do with critique of what I refer to as classic Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and in one instance, Mormonism. My email friend thinks that the tone of my posts, as of late, have taken a turn toward the negative; but I would submit, that relative to myself a few years ago, my posts nowadays are much more tame, mild, and matter of fact than they used to be.
Let me state for the record---in case you haven't noticed---I am a passionate guy who really really does not like the spirituality that has been produced by classical theism, in general; and then in classical Calvinism and Arminianism in their varied instantiations. One of my former profs (who is wiser than I) [I'm not referring to Myk for folk trying to read between the lines] has more heart burn related to classical theism than I think I might; indeed, he has been of great influence on me. I am just saying that I see a serious problem with almost all things Classic (like theisms, Calvinisms, Arminianisms, Dispensationationalisms, Fundamentalisms, etc.). In other words, this is not an academic thing for me (just to provide some rationale). There is no doubt that I could be more positive (meaning just talking about the tenets of Evangelical Calvinism), but in a way I don't find this helpful either. The dots need to be connected first, context needs to provided prior to the significance (in some ways) of Evangelical Calvinism being totally appreciated (and I am referring primarily to the laity who have been hood-winked by classical theistic teaching all their lives ... folks who don't even realize that there is an alternative way to think about God that is better suited as Triune).
Anyway, I am somewhat venting (my friend's email could have come at a better time than it did); but I am also reflecting upon 'why' I often write with the kind of edge that I do. I don't really write for the academic (although they are free to read ;-); I write from the perspective that folk don't know that there are alternatives to the kind of usual American pulpit theology that they sit under Sunday in, Sunday out. Could I change my tone? Maybe a bit (I already have, and there are many of you out there, I think, who could attest to this), but I can't ever imagine me writing something about Evangelical Calvinism (by way of providing context for it), without also referencing its cousin, classic Calvinism.
PS. You think I'm negative, just read some of the Torrance's (not just Thomas, but his brother James), or old school guys in that camp; they write with just as much, if not more edge than I in this regard. This does not necessarily justify my edge, but it suggests to me that I am not the only one who has been excited by the deficits that flow from classical theism and its theology as well as spirituality. Sometimes I wonder why it's more noble to be passive-aggressive than it is to be aggressive (at least that's how I often read it in American Evangelical circles, by way of approach and posture)?