Some Commentary on Blogs

Over at the Stand Firm web site Greg Griffith posted a commentary on a short essay by Giles Fraser that appeared recently in The Church Times of England. He also noted Mark Harris’ analysis of Giles’ essay. What follows is my take on all of this, but I highly recommend that you go read Greg’s commentary in its entirety.

It seems that Giles was bemoaning the tone of many posts in the blogosphere:

In reality, intemperate bloggers are poisoning the wells of open debate, not enhancing it. Many of those outside the blogsphere are put off by the sheer unpleasantness of internet debate. So it is abandoned to people with thick skins and short tempers. And that is hardly the open forum that many bloggers claim they are protecting.

Mark basically agreed with Giles, but his overall conclusion was:

Giles Fraser has done us a service in publishing this article. We need to take it to heart. At the same time it is also interesting to note the number of occasions where bloggers have brought important questions to the attention of the wider church community and the newshounds of that community.

There is work to be done and we all have a part.

However, Greg really hit the nail on the head:

The blogosphere is predominantly an American medium. Go down the list of the 200 most highly-trafficked sites in the world, and it is dominated by Americans. Brits have always complained that Americans are scruffy, ill-mannered urchins, so it's hardly news to find that yet another Brit is dismayed at what he finds on blogs.

It is a mistake to assume that the "correct" role of the blogosphere is to mirror the kind of debate that's found elsewhere in society; and further, to assume that the kind of debate found elsewhere in society resembles some idyll of English drawing-room conversation (something that barely exists even in England anymore, so I'm told). Blogs belong to a medium that is different from the drawing room; different from the floor of parliament; different from coffee or tea in the parish hall; and different from radio and television.

Greg went on to say that blogs have opened up the flow of information in the church and across the Communion and prevent the “revisionists” from controlling “information the way they were used to.” For him, and for many conservatives, this is a good thing because it helps preserve the "orthodox” Anglican Church in the face of “revisionist liberalization”—and they are hoping for an Anglican Church as opposed to a Communion. However, I think that Greg's analysis can be taken a step further. Just as Giles--as an Englishman--does not, and cannot, fully and truly understand our “American” (and by “American,” I assume he means North American, and in particular of the United States) culture, neither can the Primates of the Communion, including the moderate and liberal ones--as English, Indian, Nigerian, etc.--fully understand the peculiarly “American” nature of the Episcopal Church.

Not only has the proliferation of Episcopal and Anglican blogs increased the flow of information and opportunities for communication, it also shows just how diverse our church is—and not just the Episcopal Church, but the whole Anglican Communion. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer folks on either end of the spectrum want to live with that diversity. If the Anglican Communion starts to come apart, it may well continue to disintegrate until it becomes a loose affiliation of individual parishes.

Can you spell “congregationalism?”

Peace,
Jeffri