The more the words, the less the meaning, and how does that profit anyone? Ecclesiastes 6:11
All the unhappiness of men arises from one single fact, that they cannot stay quietly in their own room. Blaise Pascal
I have officially had it with the whole Anglican "revisionist/reasserter" war of words.
I know there are important issues at stake. I understand the future of the Episcopal Church, and by extension the Anglican Communion, hangs in the balance. We are all fighting for the integrity of the Gospel as we understand (or misunderstand) it. I get all that.
But does everybody have to talk so freakin' much?
Back during General Convention, the blogs were a-poppin'. And with good reason. A lot was happening, and various factions were ecstatic or despondent, depending on the resolution. There was lots of news. And I read, and read, and read, and read ...
And things are still happening. The ABC meets with Presiding Bishop-Elect Schori just before she takes office. Decisions about APO are being rescinded and/or debated. Pronouncements from various authorities and others are released daily, sometimes hourly.
But I suspect the still-high volume of information being circulated has less to do with actual news and more to do with a pervasive addiction to the whole Sturm und Drang of the fight, a need to keep everyone's excitement at a fever pitch. The result is a signal-to-noise ratio that is spiraling downward to the point of absurdity.
Case in point: One reasserter blog I have frequented for several months (starting with General Convention) posted a sermon written by one of its bloggers. Not so unusual, but the sermon topic had nothing (as far as I could tell) to do with the whole Anglican controversy. I pointed that out (yes, somewhat testily) in a comment, basically asking how this posting (other than being a clearly orthodox-type sermon) tied into the stated mission of the blog. Either they were drifting away from their "news and analysis" focus, I said, or I wasn't "getting" something.
Here's the response I got: It was a slow news day, so we posted some extraneous material. If you don't like it, then don't read it.
It's a reasonable response, to be sure. No one was holding a gun to my head, making me read every post. It's their space, and it's their choice to publish whatever they want.
But think about this for a second. This isn't a newspaper we're talking about here, where you have to make sure there's enough news copy surrounding the ads to fill up the pages. This is a blog, for crying out loud. Since when does a blog need filler?
In the Anglican blogosphere, "all the news that's fit to print" is quickly becoming "all the news we can possibly print, and then any other random thoughts we happen to think somebody might be interested in." As much as I (as a writer) dislike editors, I'm starting to see how useful they are. Somebody, after all, has to decide what goes above the fold, what gets relegated to the back page of the Metro section, and what gets tossed altogether. (A lot of these blogs could take a page from Get Religion's playbook about coming up with a firm editorial focus.)
I am just overwhelmed by all the talk. Enough already, people.
Comments