More Thoughts on Blogging

Amy Uelmen’s “thoughts about blogging” should serve both as a reminder to readers of the inherent limitations of this unique medium, and as a catalyst for those of us participating here to consider again what we would hope to accomplish through the particular venue of the Mirror of Justice.

First, every reader of this blog would do well do begin by reading Amy Uelmen’s message, as it should an essential part of a virtual FAQ for the Mirror of Justice. Readers must appreciate that this weblog is a peculiar type of forum, in which the ideas expressed often are preliminary, tentative, and designed to advance discussion and raise questions both among ourselves and for the larger society. These postings are not the equivalent of a polished and carefully considered expression of firm views as as in a published journal article. This is not to say that any of us should be negligent in posting to the Mirror of Justice, that is, none of us should be careless or casual, because as Amy notes the words we speak do (potentially at any rate) have a broader reach to a larger segment of the population than an idle thought expressed in a coffee shop or faculty lounge. But at the same time, our readers should realize that not every word posted here reflects a fixed and determined point of view nor should the authors be held forever responsible for every provocative point offered or sincere query explored.

Thus, I regard the Mirror of Justice weblog as a conversation among friends and fellow disciples of Christ. Amy certainly is correct that it does not have the same features as a direct and personal connection made through a face-to-face contact. That is one of the limitations of this medium and can result in an artificiality to the conversation. Moreover, it is a conversation that unfolds before an audience. But in many respects, and here I turn to my second point, that is a very good thing.

By holding such a public conversation, we members of the Mirror of Justice attempt to model for others how people of diverse views sharing a common faith can interact with each other and seek common ground. By my reading of the blog postings thus far, we are accomplishing that purpose. In contrast with some listservs to which I belong (and these academic listservs are quite restrained in debating style compared to the deliberate heat generated by cable news and talk radio), the tremendous respect and desire to appreciate the other reflected in the posts thus far is most gratifying and also enlightening.

Moreover, the audience we are likely to attract (if the Mirror of Justice is successful in attracting any audience at all) will include many who will never attend an academic symposium and will never read what we submit as a finished publication product to a law review or other journal. The appeal of weblogs to an internet audience lies in their feel as an open dialogue unfolding almost in real-time. Thus, through the internet, and precisely because of the nature of the blog medium, we will have an opportunity to reach people we would not otherwise encounter with the message that Christ's Church has something to say about how we structure our legal system, make legal decisions, and use the law in society. By contrast, if we share our thoughts only through an academic journal article, or through a direct conversation with colleagues—valuable though those are (and the proper focus of most of our scholarly attention)—we will miss many of those nameless people. And some may searching and questioning and would value the chance to lurk on the sidelines of the debate, never revealing themselves but learning from the discussion.

Thus, I see the Mirror of Justice weblog as, yes, a good conversation among friends in the faith, but also as having the potential to be a missionary calling. Time will tell.