Doug Wilson on Blogging

If I wanted to doom my child to a life of pretentious pontification, I would name him Douglas.

You know, Douglas Stambler has been noting on many of our blogs that Douglas Wilson is EVIL. Myself, I don't think Doug Wilson is evil. I just think he's a kind of a sonuvabitch.

Wow. I am consistently disappointed in Wilson these days. If you follow that vein of thinking, why should anyone do ANYTHING that draws attention to themselves? Why paint? Why write? Why sing? Why sign your name to something instead of being anonymous? *sigh* Is it really worth griping about?

I dunno, mesh Douglas Adams was alright. A crazy liberal leftist loon, but not that irritating.

that's pretty much why i have a weblog. oh, that and everybody else is doing it.

I would like to say that the quote by Wilson is just old and uniformed because:
(a) Georgre Grant, RC Sproul, Jr, and Mark Horne are all people with theologically oriented blogs that have significant ties to Wilson.
(B) Any time one looks at a list of the top ranked/visited blogs in the blogosphere, the vast majority of them are political/cultural like InstaPundit or Best of the Web.

Maybye Wilson should start his own blog so he can explain himself better.

oops - that should be "George", not "Georgre". And I screwed up the link to InstaPundit

Asinus asinum fricat

semper ubi sub ubi

I have no clue who this Wilson cat is but I think he may be onto something even though he wraps it in a huge straw man.

I think that there is a sense in which we blog for others. Not for a sense of celebrity or any e-pat on the back but as a forum for thoughts, discussions, ideas and a community like feel. More a wish for people to know you, your thoughts and discuss. And also to post links to useless diwtractions.

Having said all of this please visit my blog and read my related post on Intimacy in the E Age

(Nothin' like a shameless plug)

I think it is true. It's also like having a conversation with people I want to keep in touch with without the hassle or cost of a phone call.

Doug Wilson? Is he the Mr. Wilson from Dennis the Mennace? Or is he the Wilson of Wilson Philips? Is he related to Todd Willison? I may be ignorant but blogging is the coolest thing since reformed theology.

When I read that quote, the first thing I thought was, "this completely explains Josiah!" And it explains why I can't stand blogging. I had countless bloggers tell me "if you want peole to read your blog, you have to read lots of blogs and leave comments. Then they'll read yours. It worked for me." Pastor Wilson's comments are simply indisputably true as a general principle. Of course, there are always exceptions, and Pastor Horne is certainly one of them.

But Pastor Wilson is a pastor in good standing of a faithful church, so some of you need to be VERY careful how you speak of him, regardless of what you think of his comments.

Ya Nick, that's true, but do you really think he'd be a member in good standing of any other church/denomination that wasn't of his own creation? Mebbe, mebbe not, the odds sure wouldn't be as good.

Sooner or later you're gonna hafta own up to the fact that Wilson, while putting out some good stuff, is often times a real jerk, and it does a great disservice to the church. Your consistent defense of him is going to start to harm your reputation, especially when you head into the ministry where love, charity, and grace are far more important than wit, satire, and one line zingers.

Josiah,

Are you suggesting that Pastor Wilson is somehow lacking in love, charity and grace, such that he should not be in the ministry?

Just wondering.

Like I said a few comments ago I don't really know anything about this Wilson cat but I decided to follow lome links from this entry and found Credenda which is a publication that Doug Wilson is editor of. I checked out their statement of faith and it seems pretty solid except for one thing near the very end:

We believe that churches should accept various burdens and entanglements of civil regulation and taxation under protest, acknowledging the weight of such tyrannies as a judgment from God upon a disobedient church.

I'm always leery of statements like this because I don't have enough scriptural knowledge to know if this is sound. What makes me even more leery is that there are a bunch of refferences for other points made in the statement of faith but not here. In the end it comes down to me being afraid to put God into a box like we know what His Rhymes and Reasons are without sufficient proof and being a skeptic at heart you really need to wow me for me to consider some proof sufficient.

i wonder if any of y'all (especially this mesh idiot) even know doug wilson. i doubt it. and therefore you are doing the exact same things you claim he is guilty of. i don't think calling him a sunuvabitch or intimating that he wouldn't fit in any other church, and lacks in love, charity, etc makes you any better. especially when you are talking about a minister of the gospel and a reformed brother in Christ. sheesh. i'm not a Wilson-ite by any stretch, we've been round and round, and i got out of moscow and never looked back, but do you really think it's healthy to attack Godly men that way? it's a whole attitude: "we think he's a jerk, so let's be a jerk", that's disturbing.

The irony here is staggering.

Am I allowed to IP ban a guy I gave a blog to?

oh, and one more thing. it's one thing to talk about this stuff over a beer with your buddies. i'm sure i've done it at one point or another. it's quite another to display it online for the whole world to read. this is what pastor wilson is getting at in his blurb about blogging. i don't agree with him either, but y'all sure are doing a good job of trying to prove his point.

explain the irony. perhaps you think i'm being a jerk by calling your friend an idiot. or perhaps by calling y'all jerks. well, why not. at least i'm not doing it in regard to a minister of the church.

But Nick, you have a blog. Leaving a blog comment that says, "I can't stand blogging," is like saying "I hate women" to your wife.

As to your actual point, that Doug's quote about blogging's masterbatory tendencies explains Josiah... well, yes, a little. Josiah is a sinner (he'll be the first to note that) and as such, he's often guilty of self-aggrandisement. So am I. So are you. And it's not completely unfair to say that blogging can bring out this sin. My blog has been the home for many a narcissistic moment.

But there's another side to that denarius. When you and Wilson say that blogs are only interesting to other bloggers, what you're describing isn't just a pitiable self-pleasuring. It's called community. It's the same reason that the people who read Credenda are mostly Reformed and contrarian. They get along in a written society. And for a blogging enthusiast (like Josiah) to go out and get more traffic for his blog and the blogs of his friends is a way to develop communication between people who wouldn't otherwise be able to know each other. (I, for example, am terribly grateful to have met Scott Cunningham through the blogging forum.)

I've had some people pretty close to me tell me they're not terrifically fond of my blog. They make a great point: That something earnestly bothers them about revealing your life to strangers every day. And there are many blogs, too many to name, that I think serve no other purpose than the one these friends fear. But the truth is that all writing, at least any writing that is honest and true, is inherently self-revealing. For me and others who consider themselves to be something resembling writers, the blogging world is a chance to celebrate in print the things we find most beautiful and challenging in this world. It's a chance to create art, and share that art with others, who will respond with something beautiful and true of their own. Non-writers will never understand this desire. That's okay. Maybe we'll still be able to speak to them once in a while too.

As for Doug Wilson, one of the benefits of believing in a great universal church (you know, that thing the Catholics are always going on about) is that when personalities emerge that tend towards demagoguery, we don't have to worry about him too much. No need to worry whether Wilson should be in the ministry, unless you're a member of his church or presbytery. The church will putter on. It always does.

(Just to note: My original post on this discussion was meant to be taken pretty darn lightly. It's a Wes Anderson reference, and probably a mistake. I accept the five years in purgatory.)

whether D.W. is godly is cetainly up for debate!

Don't let the bastards grind you down, Mesh! I thought it was hilarious, and would have been EVEN FUNNIER if you had been able to stab him with a penknife while saying it, Pagoda-style.

Well, I'd like to apologize for being too quick to say what I said about Josiah and blogging. I was partially wrong, and partially just unclear in how light I intended that part of my post to be. I enjoy blogging as a geek thing. I honestly am amused by how seriously you all take it, but I don't really have any problem with it. And you're right, Pastor Wilson's comments may have been too strong, or not thought-through enough, or whatever.

But Josiah, I don't intend to defend what he says too strongly. I just want to defend him, as a pastor, to be free from public and flippant criticism. Some times I go too far in my defense. I'll even grant that. I just really think he is inappropriately criticized, and often by people doing the very thing they accuse him of.

First, I would like to remind everyone that we should strive towards edifying words and conversation no matter how strongly we feel about something or someone. We should also be generous in our evaluations of those people we disagree with. I know there is a momentary satisfaction from a biting reply or witty insult, and I stumble in that area quite often, but there is a better way.

As to Wilson's commentary on blogging, "there is nothing new under the sun," and his is certainly not a new view on blogging.

Yes, sometimes blogs are little more than glorified diaries. But even a diary-type blog can be interesting and worthwhile to read. Would he complain about reading the autobiography or memoirs of a great religious or political figure? Not that all bloggers are on that level, but in principle, there is something to the idea of sharing one's life in print for others to read.

Yes, sometimes the blogging universe is blatantly attention-seeking. This can be bad, and we should avoid blogging as a means of ego-stroking. But I must agree with Shannon's comment: "why should anyone do anything that draws attention to themselves?"

I read blogs for the same reason I write a blog. That is, I want to hear the iron-sharpening thoughts of others. I can browse the Chattablogs and read interesting perspectives on life, culture, philosophy, and theology. I can write a post on my blog about my journey and questions, and have others share their related thoughts and ideas. I don't read blogs just to get their authors to read mine and think I'm smart or funny or creative. I want to interact, to share. Conversation and mutual edification are the reasongs I read blogs and the reason I write one.

Wilson said: "So chalk up another one to technological capacity driving what we do before we understand it." How exactly do we come to understand the power of the internet without using it, without testing out its capabilities? What does he propose instead or is that just empty rhetoric?

The problem with blogging is that, in the end, you can't punch someone in the face to get your point across...

=D

I've never met aforementioned DW, and have frankly refrained from comments about everything up there in Idaho, because of hte presence of so many people in the chattablog community with connections up there. What I think many of us Cov-related folk are responding is the tone that comes across in so many of the DW associated publications. I've only read a couple of the books, and a few issues of Credenda. The TONE that comes across to us who have never met the guy is one of pretentiousness (hello! Latin phrases!? like he's some kind of medieval scholastic!?)...one who thinks he's figured it out and is attempting to create his new utopia. Not leaving room for the larger Reformed community, nor for learning that is outside some kind of romanticized classicism (wh. isn't classical at all...it's medieval). I'm no expert in theology, but I'm becoming an expert in other things, and frankly, I cringe at some of the stuff written in Credenda, because it's just wrong, not to mention really bad popular scholarship. I'm happy for all those who have good experiences up there in Moscow. I'm just saying...that's the tone that comes across to me, and I think others, when all we know is his written word.

Skip, boy, do I feelya.

Jeanette, I wholeheartedly agree with you, and I'm really thankful you didn't write any of that in French *wink*

Josiah,

I take it you're not going to answer my question?

My experience with Wilson comes solely from reading Credenda, and to be frank, all I saw was an extremely pretentious guy who was stuck on himself and his own wittyness. If his writing actually was witty and his satire actually was any good, I wouldn't have so much of a problem, but I didn't find his writing to even be any good. Plus, I got the impression that he thought that anybody that didn't like his stuff just wasn't intelligent enough to really understand it.

Richard, sorry, forgot to respond. Your comment got buried in the mountain of other comments.

But onward:

My opinion, for what it may or may not be worth, is that Doug Wilson often times in his writing lacks the charity, grace, and love that I feel is necessary for being a good minister of the gospel.

Whether or not this means that Doug Wilson is not a good minister of the gospel is a different subject. I'm not in his church, and all men, including pastors, are not perfect.

My feeling has been, and currently still is that Doug Wilson should seriously reconsider the tenor and tone of much of his style and a portion of his content. I think they do a disservice to his ministry and a disservice to the gospel.

I remember many a time when I was younger (like, a couple years ago) when people would be offended by something I said or wrote. Oft times my response would be something in the ballpark of "people are offended by the truth." This seems to be the staple of Wilson's defense before critics, and to me sheds further light on some serious problems in his worldview [for lack of a better term].

nihil sub sole novum

It took me about twenty minutes to read all the comments on this blog and almost the whole lot of you guys seemed to haved gotten your feelings hurt. Well boo hoo hoo. Pick up your bottom lip and wipe your self-righteous little eyes.

I blog and even enjoy reading a lot of yours, but there is one thing I've learned about bloggers and that is: that too much pride is as common as fat people at an all-you-can-eat-buffet (I'm fat and can say that on a first-hand level). Why can't we say, "Doug Wilson might be right" regardless of what you think of him or even who he is. Instead we just critize what has been said because it might mean we are wrong or in fault. Good Heavens No, Not us. We are the untouchable bloggers. You all sound as pretentious as you claim others are.

Amen. Guys, don't get your feelings hurt so easily and don't attack a pastor.

And brush your teeth.

Sven,
I think thats the point of the whole thing. Someone in the position that Wilson is in ought not run around hurting peoples feelings unecessarily. Pride has got to be one of the easiest sins to find. You could claim it was the source to almost any of the works of mankind (including Wilsons writings). It's also a sin of the heart which makes it hard to prove. So why pick a group of your own brothers and sisters and accuse them of wanting there egos stroked when you don't know that for sure? Who does that benefit? His position as a Pastor ought to make him even more careful about who he may be offending.

And Josh, since no one else has responded, the irony is that you in calling someone a name out of anger, you did the very thing that you were angry about.

Okay, I'm gonna stick my neck out here.

Mesh, even though Uncle Josh, Svenska, et al, are my buddies, and even though Doug Wilson has been my pastor, I thought your Wes Anderson reference was beautiful. Perhaps you could have avoided some confusion by citing it (eg, "Harry to Royal in The Royal Tenenbaums"), but ah well. I liked the reference because, at least for me, it's deeper than surface-level. We all know that Royal is "a kind of a sonuvabitch." But we also like him. And I would venture to say that the reasons why we like him are inseparable from his being "a kind of a sonuvabitch." Personally, I feel much the same way about someone else in question here. (No, not Josiah, although I imagine that might be true if I knew him in person! ;-) But it's not an insult; it's getting a laugh out of the reality. The guy who's "a kind of a sonuvabitch" is also the guy who gets things done, raises noteworthy children, accomplishes great things in battle, in business, in society. Think about drill sergeants and commanding officers and CEOs and the Godfather.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, and if you think I am, go watch The Royal Tenebaums or something else that portrays the kind of personality I'm talking about. It's not an insult; it's getting a laugh out of the reality - an honest and amiable laugh at the way God makes his servants.

Jon, a friend of mine once said: "People think you're an asshole for all the wrong reasons."

pat: thanks, but i understood the irony comment...maybe you didn't read the comment after that. or maybe i like being ironic:) the fact of the matter, jon, et al, is that while i understood the royal tenenbaums reference, and i can definitely see your point, there is also an inherent danger to calling a minister of the gospel a sunuvabitch on a blog. that's all.

You know, you all should check out the book DW co-authored with with Steve Wilkins, "Southern Slaver As It Was." Wilkins is a pastor of a church in Monroe, LA and a member of the Southern Heritage Society (he's on the exec board) and is on the Board of Directors for the League of the South. The Southern Heritage Society is a front for the Neo-Confederacy and here's a direct quote taken from their book:

"....Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with perfasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world." (Wilkins and Wilson 23-24)

and .....

"Slave life was to them [slaves] a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care." (Wilkins and Wilson 25).

I've known DW for over 25 years and never once had an inkling that he upheld these beliefs. He reminds me of those critics who claim that the Nazis only gassed a few hundred thousand people, not millions.

Never before have I posted on a blog, not because of any sort of arrogance, but I just find myself too busy with work to read these things. I have spent about the last 30 minutes reading this and have one thing to say, shame on you for your actions. If you believe a brother is in sin, there is a way to address it. If you believe a pastor and an elder is in sin there is an even more stringent process of conduct given to us by scripture. None of you attakcers have done this. Because, from what I know, it seems to be a problem with this site, I will set my statement here, but I am disgusted with your attacks. Grow up.

Sammy,

Was you're comment inline with what you think Scripture states about confronting a brother/sister who is in sin?

Is your disgust with the site rooted in a disdain for my original post (where I didn't attack Rev. Wilson), or all the comments people left.

Either way, thanks for your pleasantries.

wow, i decided to check this blog thing out and what a great cure for insomnia!

ever listen to steve schlissel's sermon on tv and the american male? i have a suspision the same is true for blogging (everyone go find it).

back to studying contract law... I need a little excitement.

hello, anyone want to talk?

douglas stambler
(durango, co)

Good Guys are also named Doug Wilson!

http://MakeLivesBetter.com

I was surprised to see someone from Durango on here. I also live in Durango and didn't think the Doug controversy had reached this far-that does seem to be what this whole thing is about-Doug. Well he sure is making waves!!

It appears that many of you would claim to be students of the Reformed doctrines, so I maintain hope that these words will not fall on deaf ears.

Oft times we tend to define our understanding of a particular life's calling according to our experiences in the culture that surrounds us. And of course our culture defines itself as the best culture of all time. It rarely occurs to us that popular definitions of concepts such as love, compassion and a minister of the Gospel could be skewed and completely unscriptual, or that our current culture may be horribly twisted by decadence & deception and given over to and blinded by sin according to God's judgement. We should always seek to gain our understanding of such things according to God's Holy Word, and, if necessary, set aside our previous causes when it is revealed that they work against God's truth.

Several here has accused DW of setting up a strawman so he could knock it down, w/o considering exceptions. I do not agree. As a true minister of the Gospel, in imitation of examples in Scripture, he points out certain activities of Man and manages to expose the true purpose of some people's participation in it and the extent & reality of the folly that is possible in the hearts and lives of sinful men (all of us) not seeking to be led by the Holy Spirit to bring all things captive to the glory of Christ and the furtherance of His Kingdom.

Doug Wilson is certainly not speaking of everyone who runs a blog - read carefully what he has said. But he IS speaking TO everyone. Every last one of us is capable of falling into self-grandizement (is that a word?) - even Doug W. himself. I am sure he would admit this. It's the nature of fallen Man. And the first one to shout "NOT ME!" is quite possibly one who is most guilty of such behavior.

Mr. Wilson is not perfect and is capable of misrepresenting Christ - at times. Not every word that procedeth from his mouth (or pen or keyboard) is the holy writ of God. But please be careful that you not attack the man, judging him according to your own personal preferences. Be as the Bereans and search the Scriptures to see whether the things he says are true.

Now, let us reason carefully. If Doug Wilson was out and about in order to bring glory and praise and popularity to himself, why would he be so bold as to use the oft criticized satire that could readily crush his ministry at any moment? There are others who employ satire who remain "unknown" or procede to shrink into oblivion. DW's ministry outlets are growing - or perhaps one might say: "being blessed". Why is this? The membership of his church has so grown that it separated into two congregations, each with their own pastor. This may not prove anything, but it says more to me than than a megachurch sporting dozens of assistant pastors, with hundreds of classes and activities, all designed to draw people in and make them feel "a part of something". All the while the "messages" NEVER condemn folly and sin. It is all designed to tickle the ear and comfort the heart - whether that heart is regenerate or not. There is something very wrong with a church whose activities never bring discomfort to the unregenerate and unrepentant heart. Shame on those of us who are freely willing to allow those who mock God in their hearts to participate in the special blessings God has reserved for His Own so long as they "play nice". These very same people are only a part of "the group" according to "what's in it" for them and they end up being the one's who dictate to the church what's acceptable - Scary Thought!

There are one or two who have commented here that indicated a first hand experience with Doug Wilson by either living in the same town and/or attending Christ Church. I cannot claim this, but I have enjoyed his preaching for several years through receipt of his sermon tapes weekly. I enjoin those of you who have not heard him to give him a listen. It is important that you consider the many aspects of the man and the fullness of the Gospel he declares before you declare any judgement upon some of his words and the intentions of his heart (which only God can truly judge).

Jesus Christ brought the sword - not to tickle ears and make everyone feel the warm-fuzzies, but to divide. To divide the Sheep from the Goats. Consider Galations 4 & 5. Our witness and ministry should be such that it does not permit peaceful communion (in the brotherhood of the Church) with those who preach a false gospel. But we are to "cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." (Gal. 4:30 ESV) We are not to tolerate a teaching of salvation that goes against that which Scripture teaches. And Paul even shows us how to respond to those who preach a false gospel - even if with the best intentions. In Gal. 5:12 he announces with force, "I wish ...[they]... would emasculate themselves!" Again, this is from the English Standard Version, which happens to (IMO) best express Paul's intention here. There is no sugar-sweet, modern-day gentleness shown here. The foolishness of a man's heart - even a regenerate one (which only God can perceive) - is such that, at times, only the biting tongue of truth contained in satire can wake a person up to the ingrained sin of their heart. Additionally there is something worth noting: generally only those guilty of a sinful behavior being polemized (yet another made-up word?), and/or, worse yet, guilty of lack of humility - that which puts the glory of themselves or Man in general above the glory of the Almighty Sovereign LORD - these are the ones who take personal offense to the use of satire. Examples of which are found in abundance in Scripture. If you are not guilty, chill. It has not been directed toward you. And rest assurred, God knows. If you are particularly being targeted with false accusations, chill. Let the Holy Spirit be your comfort in righteousness. The Bible says blessed are those who are falsely accused for righteousness sake. There may be a place to state your case, but if your blood boils for vengence, or you are desiring and/or strike out with tit for tat, attacking someone else's character, or you want "justice" and have your "name cleared"... STOP! Test the spirits. Who are you trying to serve, to defend? Yourself? Man? Or God?

Lastly, (finally, huh?) I do have my own blog. I regularly grapple with my heart's reason for it. I don't want to use this blog to bash others in order to watch them squirm, or just to make them look bad, or to just bring attention to myself. But I really do want to be a writer and the medium is helpful for practicing/testing my hoped-for talent. I also would like to encourage others, point them to the Truth. Ack! But me, the miserable, wretched sinner that I am, all too often find that my blog serves to bring encouragement to me! I have established contacts and made friends that I believe have been more beneficial to me than to others. But I can only hope the Glory is the Lord's.

Oh! And for those who revel in pointing out irony as they perceive it and where there may actually be none: Doug Wilson now has his very own blog. Be sure to take the time to read this entry, it addresses the very quote that started all the hubbub here.

God is not mocked and as His children we should be unwilling to tolerate it with wormy niceness when others attempt to misrepresent our Father. But first be sure it is THE GOD you are representing and not your own mistaken perception of Him.

I live in a town 8 miles away from Douglas Wilson's Christ Church.

He has come under fire lately for his preaching and published works, both of which encourage re-instituting slavery, stoning queers, and other atrocities.

He's a dangerous Neo-Confederate stealing the minds of hillbilly Idahoans. Look him up on the Southern Poverty Law Center's website sometime - you'd be suprised at the amount of hate this cat preaches.

All in the name of Christ.

Why even mention this idiot?

Well, I personally know Douglas Stambler, "head prophet of the world", as he has told me. He is married to a woman almost twice his age. Wilson has not done all good but that gives Douglas, who owes hundreds of people/churches money. So he cannot talk.

"Additionally there is something worth noting: generally only those guilty of a sinful behavior being polemized (yet another made-up word?), and/or, worse yet, guilty of lack of humility - that which puts the glory of themselves or Man in general above the glory of the Almighty Sovereign LORD - these are the ones who take personal offense to the use of satire. Examples of which are found in abundance in Scripture. If you are not guilty, chill."

Yeah, I've heard this one before. It's the "don't get angry, I was just joking" excuse. I've known some folks like that. They thought they could say what they wanted and be excused because they were "joking." Not saying that's what this Wilson fellow was doing, but hiding behind the excuse of satire or sarcasm is a cop-out.

Also, Valerie, taking Galatians 4:30 into context, we see that Paul is not referring to a literal slave woman and son (i.e., unbelievers) but a figurative slave woman and son (the law and its consequence, death). Galatians 4:24: "These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar [the old Covenant]....28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise [the new Covenant]. 29 At that time the son born in the ordinary way [the old Covenant, the law] persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit [the new Covenant]. It is the same now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? 'Get rid of the slave woman and her son [the old Covenant and death, the fruit of the old Covenant], for the slave woman's son [death] will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son [eternal life through Jesus Christ].' 31 Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman [we, as Christians, under the new Covenant, are not dead], but of the free woman.
Gee, amazing what a difference context can make, is it not?

caveat: I'm not saying that we should tolerate false teachings, or allow unbelievers to take part in communion, but we should not shun them either, for "it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick" (Luke 5:31). Also, I think Gal. 4:30 needed to be contextualized to show what Paul was really talking about.