Thursday, September 08, 2005
The Futility Of Constant Opposition
It is truly amazing to me how rapidly and virulently the catastrophe that is Katrina has descended into division, fingerpointing, and just politics. I also think it is interesting coming so soon on the wake of my visit to St. Petersburg, Russia -- the former Soviet Union.
More than anything else, it points out the futility of always finding what is wrong in a situation instead of doing something, anything, right. There is certainly an attitudinal divide, and likely a practical, one between fixing a perceived problem and building something.
In New Orleans we have seen leadership elected upon, and standing for, opposition to things -- in some cases its racially based, in some economically based, and probably some others I can't think of. Regardless, they ran on, were elected upon, and governed by, saying "That is wrong, and I will help fix it." That builds popular support, but when the time came to get the job done, to do something, all they could really do is point out what others were not doing. This is even more narcissistically true for those that stayed behind expecting to be rescued when compared with those that took the bull by the horns and left (excepting, of course, those who by some physical ailment or disease were incapable of leaving under their own power.)
Communism in theory, and the Soviet Union in practice, were build upon being against the perceived inequities of the autocracy. The ideas and government were formulated not to accomplish something, but to make sure something bad (serfdom, poverty....) did not happen. In so doing they created even greater evil, but that is really a side effect of the phenomena I am talking about. The USSR could not last, because in the end, it had no aims other than what it was not going to be.
We see this same thing in some "movements" in the US. For example, "environmentalism" is against industrialization, but it offers nothing constructive in its stead. Their ideas fail because they seem only to be able to prevent or stop something, but they never seem to make anything.
I have also seen this concept illustrated in the Christian circles. I am sometimes guilty of it. I am not going to name names, but there has been a pretty big flame war between a couple of reasonably prominent Christian blogs lately. Both blogs, in my opinion, have good things to say, but it is also possible to criticize both of them as well.
In my opinion, the war erupted in large part, out of the almost constantly critical tone that the one of the blogs takes. Tired of always hearing what is wrong with things, I believe the other blog lashed out. Frankly, I've been tempted to do the same myself from time to time. Even valid criticism becomes wearing if it is a steady diet.
I should take a paragraph here to draw a distinction between criticism for criticism sake, and criticism in pursuit of building something. Criticism and opposition are necessary parts of any political process -- in government, church, heck even homeowners associations. The difference I am discussing here is the difference between living in opposition and opposing for the sake of the alternative -- having a positive vision for what it is you think should be happening.
This blog does not pull any punches when it thinks things need criticism. I hope; however, that this blog also presents, and more importantly models, a positive vision for how things ought to be.
Criticism for its own sake divides. In some cases one of those divisions is large enough to gain actual political power in whatever arena is being considered. But when it is defined soley by its division, and not by its vision, it has little to do with the power it has obtained. Chaos ensues -- we've seen it in New Orleans, we've seen it in the Soviet Union -- and I have seen it on the micro level in individual congregations and I am worried I am seeing it in the Christian blogosphere.
Blogs have gained their current status largely through opposition and criticism. But they have to have a vision to be more than simply voices of criticism and opposition. When it comes to the Christian blogosphere, I hope GodBlogCon will present and opportunity for the Christian blogosphere to work together to forge that vision, both for the "sphere," and help each of us as individuals within that sphere formulate our personal visions.
I have recently learned that I am to be the moderator of the two plenary sessions planned for that conference. We are still lining up the panel and the precise discussions for those sessions, but I can promise you it will be exciting and interesting. I can also promise you that my effort as moderator will be to seek a vision, something to positively build. The conference planners are also working on ways for those that cannot make it physically to the conference to participate, but that effort is still to seminal to make any promises.
I hope you will put forward your best efforts to participate in this conference. It will present us with some genuine opportunities to raise blogging into something really important in Christianity.
More than anything else, it points out the futility of always finding what is wrong in a situation instead of doing something, anything, right. There is certainly an attitudinal divide, and likely a practical, one between fixing a perceived problem and building something.
In New Orleans we have seen leadership elected upon, and standing for, opposition to things -- in some cases its racially based, in some economically based, and probably some others I can't think of. Regardless, they ran on, were elected upon, and governed by, saying "That is wrong, and I will help fix it." That builds popular support, but when the time came to get the job done, to do something, all they could really do is point out what others were not doing. This is even more narcissistically true for those that stayed behind expecting to be rescued when compared with those that took the bull by the horns and left (excepting, of course, those who by some physical ailment or disease were incapable of leaving under their own power.)
Communism in theory, and the Soviet Union in practice, were build upon being against the perceived inequities of the autocracy. The ideas and government were formulated not to accomplish something, but to make sure something bad (serfdom, poverty....) did not happen. In so doing they created even greater evil, but that is really a side effect of the phenomena I am talking about. The USSR could not last, because in the end, it had no aims other than what it was not going to be.
We see this same thing in some "movements" in the US. For example, "environmentalism" is against industrialization, but it offers nothing constructive in its stead. Their ideas fail because they seem only to be able to prevent or stop something, but they never seem to make anything.
I have also seen this concept illustrated in the Christian circles. I am sometimes guilty of it. I am not going to name names, but there has been a pretty big flame war between a couple of reasonably prominent Christian blogs lately. Both blogs, in my opinion, have good things to say, but it is also possible to criticize both of them as well.
In my opinion, the war erupted in large part, out of the almost constantly critical tone that the one of the blogs takes. Tired of always hearing what is wrong with things, I believe the other blog lashed out. Frankly, I've been tempted to do the same myself from time to time. Even valid criticism becomes wearing if it is a steady diet.
I should take a paragraph here to draw a distinction between criticism for criticism sake, and criticism in pursuit of building something. Criticism and opposition are necessary parts of any political process -- in government, church, heck even homeowners associations. The difference I am discussing here is the difference between living in opposition and opposing for the sake of the alternative -- having a positive vision for what it is you think should be happening.
This blog does not pull any punches when it thinks things need criticism. I hope; however, that this blog also presents, and more importantly models, a positive vision for how things ought to be.
Criticism for its own sake divides. In some cases one of those divisions is large enough to gain actual political power in whatever arena is being considered. But when it is defined soley by its division, and not by its vision, it has little to do with the power it has obtained. Chaos ensues -- we've seen it in New Orleans, we've seen it in the Soviet Union -- and I have seen it on the micro level in individual congregations and I am worried I am seeing it in the Christian blogosphere.
Blogs have gained their current status largely through opposition and criticism. But they have to have a vision to be more than simply voices of criticism and opposition. When it comes to the Christian blogosphere, I hope GodBlogCon will present and opportunity for the Christian blogosphere to work together to forge that vision, both for the "sphere," and help each of us as individuals within that sphere formulate our personal visions.
I have recently learned that I am to be the moderator of the two plenary sessions planned for that conference. We are still lining up the panel and the precise discussions for those sessions, but I can promise you it will be exciting and interesting. I can also promise you that my effort as moderator will be to seek a vision, something to positively build. The conference planners are also working on ways for those that cannot make it physically to the conference to participate, but that effort is still to seminal to make any promises.
I hope you will put forward your best efforts to participate in this conference. It will present us with some genuine opportunities to raise blogging into something really important in Christianity.
