Is My Blog Writing too "Deep" for Blogging?

 Addendum: I appreciate any and all feedback, especially when it is constructive (as all of the comments, thus far have been). But, let me be clear about something; while I write a post like this, it is more out of curiosity (and this is not in reference to any of the comments thus far, it is just something I want to be clear about). I have learned in the past not to open myself up too much (which this post borders on) when it comes to getting people's opinions about my style of blogging and/or writing; as Matt below notes, blogging is what it is, and ultimately it is quite a "selfish" thing sometimes. I don't blog for notoriety, and I actually don't blog to do "formal" writing; I blog and write as a blogger in a bloggy way. If anyone wants to read how I write in a non-bloggy way, then get our book; or I can send you my Master's thesis or something. But I am not really interested in getting critiqued about my grammar, punctuation, or particular conventions I use when doing "bloggy" writing; that is what it is, and blogging, for me, is usually done in a hurry (w/o having to worry about such constraints ... even though I try to be as accurate as possible). I just want to be clear, thanks. And, peace.

Are my posts too "weighty" for the blog venue? I mean, do they get too nuanced, and "deep" (as far as the material I am trying to cover) for the blog medium? I am asking for at least a couple of reasons.

1. My blog is currently dying on the vine. My stats (hits at the blog) have exponentially been shriveling over the last couple of months.
2. I have been looking around at other blogs in the theo-blogosphere---and except for some rarer exceptions---most of the posting I see going on is more pop-cultured, and/or, at least, less academically oriented than what my posts seem to be driven by (which is usually---and selfishly at points) whatever I happen to be reading on at the moment (since I blog to learn).

Anyway, your feedback would be helpful.

Was Karl Barth really a Neo-Orthodox Theologian?

Was Karl Barth Neo-Orthodox, and not just Neo-Orthodox; but as many insinuate, was Karl Barth The Neo-Orthodox? As I mentioned in a previous post (in passing), I was in conversation with a guy who is a missionary in Germany; and Karl Barth came up as a result of that conversation. My interlocutor asserted that Barth, as he understood him (as do so many American Evangelicals), was The Neo-Orthodox theologian par excellence. And yet, by way of intonation, body language, and understood implication; what my interlocutor intended was to immediately shut down conversation by appealing to a caricature view of Barth by appealing to a caricature conception of what it means to be Neo-Orthodox. My retort to my interlocutor is that there is debate amongst Barth scholars whether or not Barth was actually Neo-Orthodox. Of course the underlying nagging question in all of this, is; what in fact does it mean to be Neo-Orthodox? Does it mean, simply, that this kind of theologian is a 'Liberal' demon, who denigrates a "high view" of scripture (read 'innerant'), and who probably isn't really even a Christian (if so, just barely)? Or should understanding Neo-Orthodox, definitionally, place more of an emphasis on Orthodox; such that being Orthodox then becomes implicating of the Neo (and in Barth's case, his doctrine of 'Election' stands out here!)?

Emil Brunner & Karl Barth

I have understood someone like Emil Brunner (a contemporary and interlocutor of Barth's) to be truly Neo-Orthodox, and Barth not really. My reasoning on this has been that Brunner left a place (anthropologically) for a so called 'Natural Theology' (and thus a place for a 'classical theistic' mode in his theology, and thus truly repetitive of the inherited 'Protestant Orthodox' mantle, theologically) in his prolegemona to his doing of theology; whereas Barth did not. And thus based upon this (and some other prolegemonological principle, such as Barth's dialecticism etc.), I have concluded, if in fact my thinking on definition for Neo-Orthodox is stout, that Barth really isn't Neo-Orthodox after all; because he rejects a place for Natural Theology in his theological methodology.

For any of you, my Barthian readers, let me know what you think of my thinking on this ...

What Is It that Brings You Back to the Evangelical Calvinist?

Just out of curiosity; what topics do you most appreciate when I address whatever? Is it when I write on Calvinism (my stats seem to suggest that this is highly appreciated), doctrine of Scripture, Trinitarian theology, Christology, eschatology (dispensationalism, amillennialism etc.), Christian suffering, my devotional type stuff, Thomas Torrance, John Calvin, Karl Barth? Again, just curious.