It has happened before and no doubt it will happen again. But a recent post of my highlights one one of the dangers of blogging - upsetting people you have no intention of upsetting.
It started with my post 42: A church should have a masculine ethos (or not) where I was highly critical of the claims that the church needs a masculine ethos. I entirely stand by that post for the reasons I give in it.
A friend Peter Kirk left a couple of helpful and valid comments which included:
That sounded like a good idea and it resonated with a theory someone had shared with me that I thought was worth exploring. Note that in his comment Peter had made it clear that his church did not have a masculine ethos:
From previous conversations I know that Peter is not a fan of extreme complementarianism (make headship) out of which comes this argument for a masculine ethos.
So I wrote 42: Why have men left the Church? which was an attempt to answer Peter's question, connect with the theory I had heard (simplistically about men leaving the church due to experiences during the World Wars where the Church & Christians were unable to help them experience God alongside them during the horror of warfare) and at the same time continue to point out the failings of the position that advocates a masculine ethos (as part of their subtext trying to enforce male headship).
I started that post with:
I was, at least in my mind, referring to the original post that I had written about, which expressed support for the network of Churches that Mark Driscoll has founded, and thinking of those UK Churches that also stand for male headship and criticise other churches for being feminine. It never crossed my mind that Peter would think I was referring to his church and views as to me they are entirely different to the ones I was criticising.
But from Gentle Wisdom » Why real men don’t go to church it is clear that Peter feels I did attack him.
I have already left a comment on Peter's blog post apologising, but I want to repeat it here. I apologise to Peter for making him think I was attacking him. I had no intention of doing so and apologise for poor writing that led him to think I was.
Now in his post Peter raises other questions/challenges which I think are worth responding to and will do so separately.