Sunday, October 19, 2003
Part II: Why I Haven't Been Posting Much Lately (though the title may soon become quite the piece of irony)
This started in my previous post, so if you haven't read it yet, and are wondering what this is all about, scroll down to the next post, then read the comments, then come back here. This is the response to the responders in the comment box. I thought about putting the comments I am responding to in this post as well, but this was already three pages in a Word document, so I decided it wouldn't be too terribly difficult to leave the previous comment window open and go back and forth. Sorry for the mess, I'm not real good at brevity.
Karl...I agree absolutely, much could be said. But before I go any further here, I want to make clear what my position is not. It is not that Orthodox people should not have blogs, nor that we shouldn't have an active presence in the digital world. On the contrary, I affirm that we should definitely have both. Beyond that, I don't really have a position per se, just a bunch of thoughts floating around in my head that seem to have a pattern, though I will in no way vouch for the truth contained in them as yet. That is actually why I started this topic, to help settle some ideas. It is the nature of our presence I'm trying to get at; what it should and perhaps should not be.
I also want to make another point clear about my post. It was written as a VERY general introduction to the topic from my perspective. From that standpoint, it is also very brief in thought. I repeat, it is only the tip of the iceberg (I know, it's also the longest post I've ever written [though it was just eclipsed in size by this one]...what can I say).
To address your points specifically:
a) I agree whole-heartedly that "One can state that they are right and still listen at the same time to the other person...these two can coexist at the same time" My question is...Is that enough? What if both parties can stay absolutely calm and genuinely listen, and yet in their minds and hearts, have not the desire nor intent to gain anything from it? What will be the result? Probably nothing (this is not meant to rule out supernatural intervention). How many times have we seen this. But it doesn't even take both sides to have this attitude. If one does, the result is likely to be the same. We must be willing to grow from it, and growth means change. Not necessarily will it be change away, it could be change towards, or change in depth, but change nonetheless. If both parties are not coming willing to be changed by the other...well I've never personally seen anything good come of it. And this is my frustration with the Anglican I mentioned. He not only seems to be unwilling to grow, when confronted with the consequences of his ideas, he has either retreated further away from the issue, vigorously tried to sidestep the issue, or even grown angry. I love this man dearly, but unless we can both come to the table with a willingness to grow, to explore the consequences of our ideas, what do we have to discuss? And as far as patience...My love for him has spurned me on in spite of the fact that he seems to have given up on dialogue with me. Every so often, I ask him if he still wants to dialogue, but he hasn't responded to me in some time. There could be a number of reasons why, and so I make no presumptions as to the reason, but it is the case nonetheless.
b) I'm not sure I see the connection you're making here. Blogs and books are two very different communications formats, with characteristics very distinctive from the other. It is precisely these distinctions that in my mind can be problematic. Books are for the most part a one sided communication, blogs are not. You can ignore a book and no one gets their feelings hurt. Ignore someone that comments on your blog, they may take is as an affront, whether intended or not. You can allow your passions to become inflamed over what you've read in a book, the book doesn't care. People in the comment box may not feel the same. Books, if well written, generally have enough time put into the writing of them that it communicates what the author intended. The immediacy of blogs is not always conducive to this. I could go on, and if need be I will, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.
c) I would need you to more clearly define how you're using "true community" to address the first sentence. But as to the following sentences, I can only offer personal anecdote. I have seen a couple of people, after only one personal interaction, have a drastic paradigm shift in two hours or less of conversation. I know of another person, who knew almost nothing of Orthodoxy, who read one book over a weekend, with no other communication, and he was ready to convert. I've never seen or heard of anything like this happening in the internet communities. Granted, this is only anecdotal support, but it is my experience. Again I want to make clear, I am not saying blogs are worthless. I want to make sure not to be misunderstood. I'm not suggesting we "throw the baby out with the bathwater". I am saying let's be responsible stewards, whatever that entails. It seems to me that the inherent hindrances of online communities make Ecumenism much more difficult, more practically un-pragmatic, more likely to cause harm where none was intended etc etc. Sure, you might get a couple of good people involved in a great discussion in the comments, but what happens when someone else joins in who isn't as responsible, loving, committed to honest dialogue etc. How we handle these situations, and how others on our blogs respond, to a certain extent reflects not just on us, but on the appearance of the Church herself to the outside world. Again, please note that what I am talking about here is active Ecumenism, not a more general Orthodox presence on the internet.
d) I'm not afraid whatsoever to let people rant and rail against the truth. If that is what it appeared I communicated, I mis-comunicated. I too have witnessed situations where a rant/railing turned into conversion of thought. It's not a matter of being able to handle rants. It's more a matter, I think, where often the nature of internet communication, especially the immediacy without consequence, is more likely to encourage this kind of thing. Sure it's going to happen sometimes in any situation, but I would rather see us do what we can to avoid it rather than encourage it. But that's just me, maybe you feel differently, maybe I should feel differently. That's why I'm bringing this up in the first place.
e) I think for the most part we agree here.
f) Again, I think overall we agree here. My only contention would be the mechanism in which we do so. I agree that speaking the truth needs to happen. But let us ask ourselves. Where would the Church be today if Christ had come, and his only work was to leave us the truth in written form (Indeed, many Protestants live and think as if this were true)? We need to speak the truth, but we must remember that the Truth was incarnate, and that same Truth will be best spoken when it becomes incarnate in us. It is my thought that this ought to be the main focus of our energies. I know we've all heard the saying (I forget who it's attributed to) "Preach the Gospel, and when necessary, use words." On the internet, all we use are words. Let us expand our circle of influence in the lives of others in an incarnated way, and live the Gospel as faithfully as we can, and I believe we will do much more for the Kingdom of God than our mere words. Yes, words can be effective, but only because of the Incarnate Christ, seen through the lives of His Church. I can think of no better example of this than the Monastics. Their words are much fewer, if any at all, than ours, but I believe they do much more for the world, are much brighter beacons of the incarnation than we will ever be, short of becoming monastics ourselves (and probably even then with the state of my wretchedness). It has been in wrestling with this very paradox that has brought me to this place.
You wrote "The irony is that if you are correct, that the blogosphere is not a good place to discuss ideas, you've made this point *in the blogosphere*. Now what do we do? *grin*" I am not at all suggesting we ought not discuss ideas, even in the blogosphere, only that we ought to be careful which ideas we discuss, and the manner in which we do so.
James...As far as amongst friends, I could not agree more. In this way, there is a real incarnational aspect to it. You are very right to note that in some way your words had an effect on me. But this only came to be because I have known you for the better part of my life. I was willing to listen to you precisely because I already knew you as someone whose words carried weight. But your blog is also very unique, in that attempts to be as incarnational as possible. You share yourself for the most part rather than just ideas. Ideas mean nothing without an incarnation to back them up (think Christ and the Bible again). I don't consider your blog to be "actively ecumenical" in the way that I am discussing. Your blog to me is living (or digital) testimony that we Orthodox can have a presence, and a strong one at that.
Aaron...Seriously...ditto to every last word you said, including the implications of the removal of the anathemas.
I love you guys, (even though I don't really know you Karl, I'd really like to, wink wink). Hit me back on this, I'm really looking to grow here.
This started in my previous post, so if you haven't read it yet, and are wondering what this is all about, scroll down to the next post, then read the comments, then come back here. This is the response to the responders in the comment box. I thought about putting the comments I am responding to in this post as well, but this was already three pages in a Word document, so I decided it wouldn't be too terribly difficult to leave the previous comment window open and go back and forth. Sorry for the mess, I'm not real good at brevity.
Karl...I agree absolutely, much could be said. But before I go any further here, I want to make clear what my position is not. It is not that Orthodox people should not have blogs, nor that we shouldn't have an active presence in the digital world. On the contrary, I affirm that we should definitely have both. Beyond that, I don't really have a position per se, just a bunch of thoughts floating around in my head that seem to have a pattern, though I will in no way vouch for the truth contained in them as yet. That is actually why I started this topic, to help settle some ideas. It is the nature of our presence I'm trying to get at; what it should and perhaps should not be.
I also want to make another point clear about my post. It was written as a VERY general introduction to the topic from my perspective. From that standpoint, it is also very brief in thought. I repeat, it is only the tip of the iceberg (I know, it's also the longest post I've ever written [though it was just eclipsed in size by this one]...what can I say).
To address your points specifically:
a) I agree whole-heartedly that "One can state that they are right and still listen at the same time to the other person...these two can coexist at the same time" My question is...Is that enough? What if both parties can stay absolutely calm and genuinely listen, and yet in their minds and hearts, have not the desire nor intent to gain anything from it? What will be the result? Probably nothing (this is not meant to rule out supernatural intervention). How many times have we seen this. But it doesn't even take both sides to have this attitude. If one does, the result is likely to be the same. We must be willing to grow from it, and growth means change. Not necessarily will it be change away, it could be change towards, or change in depth, but change nonetheless. If both parties are not coming willing to be changed by the other...well I've never personally seen anything good come of it. And this is my frustration with the Anglican I mentioned. He not only seems to be unwilling to grow, when confronted with the consequences of his ideas, he has either retreated further away from the issue, vigorously tried to sidestep the issue, or even grown angry. I love this man dearly, but unless we can both come to the table with a willingness to grow, to explore the consequences of our ideas, what do we have to discuss? And as far as patience...My love for him has spurned me on in spite of the fact that he seems to have given up on dialogue with me. Every so often, I ask him if he still wants to dialogue, but he hasn't responded to me in some time. There could be a number of reasons why, and so I make no presumptions as to the reason, but it is the case nonetheless.
b) I'm not sure I see the connection you're making here. Blogs and books are two very different communications formats, with characteristics very distinctive from the other. It is precisely these distinctions that in my mind can be problematic. Books are for the most part a one sided communication, blogs are not. You can ignore a book and no one gets their feelings hurt. Ignore someone that comments on your blog, they may take is as an affront, whether intended or not. You can allow your passions to become inflamed over what you've read in a book, the book doesn't care. People in the comment box may not feel the same. Books, if well written, generally have enough time put into the writing of them that it communicates what the author intended. The immediacy of blogs is not always conducive to this. I could go on, and if need be I will, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.
c) I would need you to more clearly define how you're using "true community" to address the first sentence. But as to the following sentences, I can only offer personal anecdote. I have seen a couple of people, after only one personal interaction, have a drastic paradigm shift in two hours or less of conversation. I know of another person, who knew almost nothing of Orthodoxy, who read one book over a weekend, with no other communication, and he was ready to convert. I've never seen or heard of anything like this happening in the internet communities. Granted, this is only anecdotal support, but it is my experience. Again I want to make clear, I am not saying blogs are worthless. I want to make sure not to be misunderstood. I'm not suggesting we "throw the baby out with the bathwater". I am saying let's be responsible stewards, whatever that entails. It seems to me that the inherent hindrances of online communities make Ecumenism much more difficult, more practically un-pragmatic, more likely to cause harm where none was intended etc etc. Sure, you might get a couple of good people involved in a great discussion in the comments, but what happens when someone else joins in who isn't as responsible, loving, committed to honest dialogue etc. How we handle these situations, and how others on our blogs respond, to a certain extent reflects not just on us, but on the appearance of the Church herself to the outside world. Again, please note that what I am talking about here is active Ecumenism, not a more general Orthodox presence on the internet.
d) I'm not afraid whatsoever to let people rant and rail against the truth. If that is what it appeared I communicated, I mis-comunicated. I too have witnessed situations where a rant/railing turned into conversion of thought. It's not a matter of being able to handle rants. It's more a matter, I think, where often the nature of internet communication, especially the immediacy without consequence, is more likely to encourage this kind of thing. Sure it's going to happen sometimes in any situation, but I would rather see us do what we can to avoid it rather than encourage it. But that's just me, maybe you feel differently, maybe I should feel differently. That's why I'm bringing this up in the first place.
e) I think for the most part we agree here.
f) Again, I think overall we agree here. My only contention would be the mechanism in which we do so. I agree that speaking the truth needs to happen. But let us ask ourselves. Where would the Church be today if Christ had come, and his only work was to leave us the truth in written form (Indeed, many Protestants live and think as if this were true)? We need to speak the truth, but we must remember that the Truth was incarnate, and that same Truth will be best spoken when it becomes incarnate in us. It is my thought that this ought to be the main focus of our energies. I know we've all heard the saying (I forget who it's attributed to) "Preach the Gospel, and when necessary, use words." On the internet, all we use are words. Let us expand our circle of influence in the lives of others in an incarnated way, and live the Gospel as faithfully as we can, and I believe we will do much more for the Kingdom of God than our mere words. Yes, words can be effective, but only because of the Incarnate Christ, seen through the lives of His Church. I can think of no better example of this than the Monastics. Their words are much fewer, if any at all, than ours, but I believe they do much more for the world, are much brighter beacons of the incarnation than we will ever be, short of becoming monastics ourselves (and probably even then with the state of my wretchedness). It has been in wrestling with this very paradox that has brought me to this place.
You wrote "The irony is that if you are correct, that the blogosphere is not a good place to discuss ideas, you've made this point *in the blogosphere*. Now what do we do? *grin*" I am not at all suggesting we ought not discuss ideas, even in the blogosphere, only that we ought to be careful which ideas we discuss, and the manner in which we do so.
James...As far as amongst friends, I could not agree more. In this way, there is a real incarnational aspect to it. You are very right to note that in some way your words had an effect on me. But this only came to be because I have known you for the better part of my life. I was willing to listen to you precisely because I already knew you as someone whose words carried weight. But your blog is also very unique, in that attempts to be as incarnational as possible. You share yourself for the most part rather than just ideas. Ideas mean nothing without an incarnation to back them up (think Christ and the Bible again). I don't consider your blog to be "actively ecumenical" in the way that I am discussing. Your blog to me is living (or digital) testimony that we Orthodox can have a presence, and a strong one at that.
Aaron...Seriously...ditto to every last word you said, including the implications of the removal of the anathemas.
I love you guys, (even though I don't really know you Karl, I'd really like to, wink wink). Hit me back on this, I'm really looking to grow here.
Comments:
Post a Comment
