• Church blogging – all may, none must, some should

    The injunction “all may, none must, some should” is the classic prescription for how Anglicans deal with confession. However, it is worth thinking of it as a helpful way of thinking about church blogging too. The recent speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury in which he acknowledged the significance (and one suspects, in his mind, the malevolence) of those are able to comment instantly on matters affecting the Anglican Communion is a significant recognition of the importance for good or for ill of those who write online. Now, skating over the possibility that there’s some connection between blogging and the confessional, it is maybe worth thinking about where we’re at when it comes to church bloggery.

    I made a prediction at the start of the year that the number of church bloggers would probably decline but the significance of those who continued would probably continue to rise. The archbishop’s comments, which I’ll come to in a moment certainly bear that out the latter half of that prediction but what about the decline in those blogging from a church perspective. What’s that all about?

    Well, the rise of social media has changed the way a lot of people engage online. At one time blogging was an obvious way of connecting in an online environment. Nowadays you’ve got to work for your community if you are keeping a blog and saying what you want to say in the short telegraph messages of social media gives you an almost instant community and the instant gratification that goes along with saying something and getting a response from others very quickly.

    I happen to think that the arrival of social media is a good thing. Indeed, I think it is an excellent thing. Its power is yet to be fully understood and it has completely changed the relationship of individuals with power and hierarchy. This is something that church leaders have often found difficult to believe, never mind difficult to stomach.

    Of course, social media is deeply connected to the blogosphere. At one time I used to get most of my readership for this blog from links on other people’s blogs. That is certainly no more the case. Nowadays most of the readership comes from links on social media. That’s people sharing links on Facebook or Twitter mostly. I seed those links and try to attract people. I do so at different times of the day to attract a world-wide audience and sometimes it pays off with a strong readership from all around the world. The post I put up about what local churches might learn from cathedral ministry is a case in point. It has now had an audience of thousands. I posted a few links to it on social media and people were interested enough in what I was saying to like the post, comment on the post and recommend it to their friends.

    But social media has another function for me too – it is where I discover those random gems from around the internet that I’d never find otherwise. Things other people have posted that catch my eye. As I write this, I’m aware from reading Facebook in another screen on my desk of this article which is a fascinating perspective that enriches my life: This Atheist is Thankful for the Clergy. I’d never had found that without an American friend pointing me towards it online.

    But back to blogging – all may, none must, some should – what am I trying to get at?

    Well the great thing about blogging is that it is open to such a wide pool of people. The entry levels for publishing have fallen to almost nothing. Get regular access to the internet and you can write a blog for no financial cost which can change the world. But the amazing thing is that you can also write a blog that doesn’t change the world too. You can write a blog for the shear job of sharing something that gives you shear joy – like Freda’s post this week of a jolly cairn terrier. Bloggers don’t need to be trying to change the world all the time. There’s a world of people wanting to know what inspires you, delights you and makes you laugh. Isn’t that worth taking part in?

    Mind you, changing the world is always an option.

    Here’s what the Archbishop of Canterbury said in a recent address to the Church of England Synod.

    In an age of near instant communication, because the Communion exists, and is full of life, vigour and growth, of faith and trust in Jesus Christ, and love for him, everything that one Province does echoes around the world. Every sermon or speech here is heard within minutes and analysed half to death. Every careless phrase in an interview is seen as a considered policy statement. And what is true of all Provinces is ten times more so for us, and especially us in this Synod. We never speak only to each other, and the weight of that responsibility, if we love each other and the world as we should, must affect our actions and our words.

    Sadly, that does not come close to an apology for the Archbishop’s disastrous comments during his LBC interview earlier in the year. However, it does show that he is coming to understand how significant online comments are.

    It is rather a pity, I think, that he can see so little good in those who comment online. After all the online Anglican Communion is in some sense rather more real than the Anglican Communion that exists in distant committees and Primates’ Meetings. It is immediate, feisty and not quite so divided along doctrinal lines as people might suspect. Indeed, it is one of the few opportunities that people have to see what people think who don’t share their own theological pecadillos. I keep reading what people who don’t agree with me write not simply to keep an eye on them but because I’m interested in them and care about what they have to say. Sometimes I change my mind about things. That side of the blogosphere isn’t celebrated enough.

    I’m still in love with an online world which can move me too. Things like Kate’s reports recently from the Holy Land give me a human perspective on aspects of that part of the world that would otherwise go unreported to me. Or John McLuckie’s generous piece about the Scottish Episcopal Church’s Cascade Process. That deserves to be read widely.

    I think that it is probably the case that a few more people will try blogging again over the year that is to come. I suspect it rewards those who can think about why they are blogging and make a bit of a plan as to what they are hoping for.

    I think that there’s good reasons for people to blog some of the small stuff too. The pictures from parish life that show how much life and laughter there is in your own congregation. The sermon with that one line that will touch someone unknown on the other side of the world and which will make the person from round the corner decide you might be worth trying out at Christmas.

    Maybe the turn of the liturgical year this weekend is worth marking. Maybe one or two would want to give it another go or revive their blogging resolve as an advent resolution.

    There’s virtual territory here that needs virtual missionaries.

    Real ones.

7 responses to “Sermon – 1 June 2008”

  1. Di Avatar

    It seems to me more and more important for us to rediscover the idea of the divine inspiration of the reader of scripture as well as that of the authors.

    Thank you for this, Kelvin. I agree with you wholeheartedly. After all, only the author truly knows what was in his head when he wrote it and indeed, where the inspiration came from.

    Oh, and I enjoyed the rest too.

  2. Marion Conn Avatar
    Marion Conn

    Once again I’m listening to this late at night. Definitely food for thought and prayer. I was outside in the rain tonight, I really like the idea of that I was not just wet, but drenched in Grace. Thanks Kelvin.

    Good Night.

  3. Jonathan Ensor Avatar
    Jonathan Ensor

    I believe that everyone has a right to freedom of thought. Freedom of speech is a circumscribed fact of life in the UK and it is certainly an interesting idea that reading can be inspired, but who is the arbiter of what is inspired and who is the arbiter of what is apostate. I may believe with all my heart that I am divinely inspired, but I still have to convince other people that this is the case and that I am not being grandiose etc. If I pontificate about a text in the common domain, I may well have to justify myself and/or defend my position at some considerable cost, which I may or may not be willing to pay.

  4. kelvin Avatar

    Thank you for your comments.

    Jonathan – I think that I was suggesting that we see both the authorship of texts and the reading of texts as activities that can be inspired. I think that there has to be some dialogue between author and reader.

    I also think that in the history of looking at biblical texts, some people have emphasised the value of the text to the individual whilst others have read the text in community. (We might also presume that the texts themselves were gathered in community). I don’t think that I’d like to lose sight of that idea of inspiration coming when a community reads a text together. That idea is important to me as it counters against the idea of individuals thinking that they (alone) are divinely inspired.

    It seems to me that more people have believed that they alone were the only proper source of truth or inspiration or legitimacy than has actually been the case.

  5. Elizabeth Avatar
    Elizabeth

    Having heard this text spoken of many, many, many times in the context of Luther’s reading, I must say it was an enormous relief to hear this other way of reading. This tempts me to return to other texts of Paul’s that might be worth re-reading without Evangelical/Calvinist/Lutheran-coloured glasses.

  6. Jonathan Ensor Avatar
    Jonathan Ensor

    Kelvin, I agree that there has to be a community, but pretty universally in churches I have been to the Minister has preached and the community has continued to be fragmented. Also there is no chance of dialogue with dead authors and in the realm of art, once a work is in the public realm it is available for multiple interpretations which the artist may well never have considered. Even legal documents which attempt to define the law are interpreted by the judiciary. There is little chance for art or literature or the bible to be consistently read because the implications of certain phrases or sentences may reside in the way that they are written rather than in the mind of the author and the definitions may be too loosely drawn.

  7. kelvin Avatar

    Many thanks for your comments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Recording the resurrection

    I’ve to do the strangest thing today. I’ve to record the resurrection ahead of time. We are in the middle of Lent at the moment, which means worship in a lovely subdued mode, preaching of the passion on Sunday and a generally sub fusc mood. Yet I’ve agreed to a recording of a service for…

  • News from the States

    The news came through last night that the Anglican Communion is to have its second bishop who happens to have a gay partner. Canon Mary Glasspool was elected as a new suffragan bishop in Los Angeles a few months ago. What’s happened since is that the wider American church has had a chance to say…

  • E and B

    Its a funny thing, Choral Evensong. A few years ago, I would have said it was purely of antiquarian interest. However, I was wrong. Last night was a good example. Glorious music. Quite a diverse aged congregation. A diverse aged choir too. Gorecki’s Totus tuus utterly beguiling us all in its simplicity and sparse beauty.…

  • Sermon preached on 14 March 2010

    Here's Bishop David's sermon for Lent 4. It was good to have Bishop David here this morning – he came as he is currently our diocesan bishop. (And we won't be able to say that for long).