With Anglican matters on my mind (see last post), Fr. Jake Stops the World, a liberal Episcopal blog, has just closed up. Fr. Jake (actually Fr. Terry Martin) has decided to step down in part because the toxic rhetoric of the Anglican wars has had a negative impact on his spiritual life. I didn’t visit his blog that often, but I admit when I wanted to see what the far left in the Episcopal church was up to, and remind myself why the left is no more “inclusive” than the right, I would visit Fr. Jake’s blog to read some of the comments there. In fairness, Fr. Martin himself tended to keep to higher standards of discourse than his often vitriolic commenters. Some of the commenters were especially critical of the Catholic Church, which has stood firm against the type of sexual innovations that are now widely accepted in the Episcopal church.
This got me thinking about blogging and internet discussion in general. I agree with Fr. Martin about how the internet and internet discussions can become toxic, especially Anglican and general religious discussions. I believe strongly in free expression over the internet, and in 2003 and 2004 when the Anglican Communion was starting to break apart it was Anglican blogs, left and right, that kept me informed of what was going on (despite efforts of some Episcopal leaders who would have preferred their actions have stayed under the radar). Nonetheless, when you have two groups (or even more) battling for the soul of their denomination, both fully convinced they are right, a long and difficult battle is bound to happen. Personally, as a confessed conservative on sexual issues, I was tired of being outraged all the time as an Episcopalian, and I knew that if I stayed within the fray myself, I was just going to be constantly frustrated. However…I also know the importance of staying and fighting, and shining light on what is happening, so I also admire the bloggers who stand up for what they believe. Even as a Catholic, I know that I have to keep the balance between being involved in pointless and toxic debates, and being a constructive and Christlike blogger, helping to inform and educate internet readers.
I often have wondered if the time a lot of us spend online couldn’t be spent more fruitfully elsewhere. I especially felt this way around 2000 when I discovered internet forums and chats. Many of the chats I observed (and participated in) were just Christians slinging proof-texts at one another, with many getting angry, and people rarely changing their minds. I eventually scaled back my time on these types of chats, and instead decided to only chat with those who are friendly and looking for some type of fellowship along with the discussion. This doesn’t mean I am only going to engage those who agree with me, but I just don’t have time to become embroiled in heated debates that leave everybody angry, and actually hinder what really matters: my relationship with Christ. Of course, I am only speaking for myself. Some people might grow spiritually through heated debates, but I admit that I do not. From my time online, I have never seen someone’s heart and mind opened through a heated, sarcastic, debate, but I have seen people open up after calm, loving, and firm discussion. Notice I mentioned “firm,” because I am not implying we should get together, hold hands, sing camp songs and pretend we don’t disagree with others; what I am saying is that we should hold our discussions to a charitable and mature level of discourse.
Despite these possible weaknesses of online discussion, I think the internet serves a very important purpose, even if sometimes it can bring out the worst in us. The internet is the new way to communicate. It is the way a lot of people (especially young people) learn and network. Whenever I want information, I go online first. I pay all my bills online, and order most of my books, vitamins, and other things online. The Church needs people to embrace this new media, and to use it effectively, because it is going to advance in importance whether the Church embraces it or not.
So I guess my perspective on blogging (and other internet activity, like our informational site ChurchYear.Net) is that it is a legitimate calling, but one that must not become detached from reality as a blogger. If we wouldn’t be sarcastic and overbearing with someone in real life, we shouldn’t do it online. If we would be loving to someone in real life when discussing our faith, we should be loving online. If we are accurate about our faith in person, we should not sugar-coat online. Our online personas should match who we are in reality, or, who we should become in reality in Christ.
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
July 3, 2008 at 11:20 am
I wonder if we would all get further by praying more than blogging or commenting. I know the answer is an obvious yes. So with that said I’ll say two Hail Mary’s for psting this 1 comment.
July 3, 2008 at 3:21 pm
“…and remind myself why the left is no more “inclusive” than the right,”
Bravo.
I am reminded of an ex Fiance (one of the reasons she is an “ex”), who was an archetype of what you refer to.
She would claim I was too “conservative.” But if you look up the term, conservative is to conserve or preserve, to keep the status quo.
That is to say to preserve YOUR status quo;regardless of what it is (gays should be able to / not be able to marry, et. al.)
I have found that there is no intolerance greater than those who claim to be tolerant. They have lots of tolerance for those who are like minded, but no tolerance for those who are not like minded. I could agree to disagree with her, but she could not reciprocate.
I remember watching an interview of Susan Sarandon on one of those shows, Fox or MSMBC, and there was a split screen with her and someone who had a differeing viewpoint (it must have been about the war or something), and her opposing talking head said I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I remember she got up and started screaming NO! NO! NO!
I wonder if people were arguing like this 800 years ago with the Albigensians, or 1,700 years ago with the Gnostics? I guess it’s the nature of the beast…
July 4, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Ok, now I feel very guilty, so I will bid you ado and say a Hail Mary as well.
I know what you mean and feel the tug of my angel saying other things are more important!
July 5, 2008 at 8:37 am
Thanks for the comments (and it is always great to pray!). However, I want to be clear that I am not saying that blogging isn’t a calling. I think writing/communicating/teaching/blogging is a legitimate and important calling, one that I am not about to stop (after all blogging is a form of online communicating/teaching).
However, I think that the nature of online communication makes it possibly toxic, and we have to be careful to avoid that. When blogging and other online activity hinder our growth in Christ then we are missing the point. That is my main point, and I assume this is true of any endeavor we undertake for Christ, online or off.
July 5, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I agree: The Internet is a two-edged sword. I myself was brought back to the Church via discussions on the old AOL forums. On the other hand, I have certainly witnessed–and participated in–bitterly rancorous Internet debates, and I have been far, far too guilty of unChristian snark (and worse) in my online dealings with my fellow human beings.
‘Tis a puzzlement, and I’m not sure what the answer is. I don’t think Christians should absent themselves from the Internet–why leave the online arena to the enemies of religion? But OTOH much prayer is needed, much humility, self-examination, and ascesis…more than I have ever engaged in myself.
The Internet, like any neutral medium, can be a vehicle for good or for evil. That’s true in so, so many ways.
Slightly off-topic: I’m not sure how relevant this is, but my husband and I were talking this a.m. about the amazing usefulness of the Internet as n “instant information” medium.
A brief digression, as context:
Last night, my husband, our two teenage sons, and I watched the restored “director’s edition” of Lawrence of Arabia. I first saw this movie, at age 11, on the big screen, in 1962 (its initial release). To say that it was over my head at the time is the understatement of the millennium. But what a spactacle!
I hadn’t seen the movie since, and I’d forgotten nearly everything about it, except that it had a rather lush score and lots of people in Arab head-dresses.
I was blown away by it last night. It is one of the all-time great movies, IMHO–although, as my husband noted, it certainly isn’t a chick flick!
It’s also rather disturbing. As my husband noted, it’s disturbing in much the same way The Iliad is disturbing — because there are no clear-cut good guys and bad guys, and one is not at all sure that good has triumphed over evil in the end.
Anyway, after viewing it, I was so fascinated by T.E. Lawrence that I did what any denizen of the Internet Age would: I Googled him. I found an excellent website maitained by Lawrence’s authorized biographer, and I read myself silly. I couldn’t stop reading; it was all so fascinating.
As I observerd to my husband over breakfast this a.m., the Internet affords instant gratification of one’s intellectual curiosity. This would have been impossible before the Internet Age. In order to gratify an interest, one would have to go to the library…and, more to the point, one would have to live near a good library. Which would usually mean living near a city or in a university town. (I can safely guarantee that out nearest local libraries–in Walnut Cove and King, NC–do not carry much about T.E. Lawrence.)
Obviously, the Internet can not be all things to all people or furnish all necessary resources. My husband, who rarely goes online, pointed out that the Internet would not necessarily have all the sources (primary and secondary) required by scholars for their research. This is very true. But for the layperson who simply wants to find something out about some new topic, it’s a treasure trove. Not always an entirely accurate or reliable treasure trove, of course. But still, a treasure trove.
One of my undergraduate professors once remarked that Goethe’s Faust thirsted for boundless experience (a preculiarly Romantic preoccupation), whereas Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus thirsted for boundless knowledge. In the light of that, I think Marlowe’s Faustus didn’t really need to sell his soul to the devil. All he needed was the Internet. (Perhaps some people will say it’s the same thing. ;))
July 5, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Perhaps apropos nothing… But Diane did you happen to notice how many women’s speaking parts were in Lawrence of Arabia?
July 6, 2008 at 10:01 am
YES!! I comemnted on that to my husband about halfway through. “There are NO women in this movie!!” He responded that there were those burka-clad women on the cliffs–remember? They were cheering or wailing or something. LOL!
Well, as I said, it definietly wasn’t a chick flick. And I’m as chick flicky as the next woman. I love movies that my DH hates, like Legally Blonde and The Devil Wears Prada, (Well, I actually wasn’t that crazy about the latter, but my DH couldn’t tolerate two minutes of it; he was ready to retch.)
I’m also ordinarily not that crazy about war movies; too squeamish. But Lawrence of Arabia is so much more than just a war movie. It’s a character study of a fascinating man who IMHO was as mad as a hatter but still utterly fascinating.
July 9, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I almost never comment when things get out of hand in the comboxes. Such a waste of time. Blogging should lift us up not tear us down. There are times when I’m so discouraged after reading nagative posts that I think it could easily affect someone’s health.
July 10, 2008 at 5:28 pm
RE: “Perhaps apropos nothing… But Diane did you happen to notice how many women’s speaking parts were in Lawrence of Arabia?”
Save for some uvulating gals in their abayas, there were zero speaking parts.