The Creative Tensions in Our Conversations

This is more all-over-the-place than Russ’s illuminiating outline, but I have been struck by what could be dubbed as four “Gs” which may capture something of the creative tensions running through our recent conversations about our mission and our reflections about the substance and depth of our ongoing work as a whole.

 

Gender: this was the topic of one of my first posts five years ago and I think Lisa’s most recent reflection captures well the ongoing dynamics.  From a Catholic (and perhaps specifically “relational” perspective), to what extent are there real limitations in the blog medium itself, and to what extent does our commitment to be living witnesses to the relational dynamics of our faith call us to supplement the blog medium with ear to ear and face to face conversations?

 

Generational: the exchange between “a reader” (law student Stephen Braunlich) and Steve Shiffrin was fascinating for a number of reasons, not least because I think they indicate that depths and tensions of a cross generational conversation.  Steve S., would it be fair to say that Humanae Vitae was something of a watershed moment for your generation; and that there is a generational tendency to tie together concerns about authority with discussions about the pastoral care regarding issues concerning sexuality and sexual morality?  Stephen Braunlich, would it be fair to say that for many in your generation the starting point for reflection is the lived experience of shifting sands under your generation’s feet –so what often comes into relief is the search for clarity in the marks of Catholic identity, rather than an effort to claim space for dissent?  Our blog crosses a number of lines, including generational lines.  I wonder if those varying perceptions and frames of mind might be at the root of some of our definitional struggles. 

 

Genre: when we count up the number of posts, and think about the voices we each bring and the roles that we play in our group, we may want to think about our various and varying approaches to posting, and work on how posts might fall within different genres.  Some of the very frequent posters are often doing the service of simply picking up the interesting things that they find around the blogosphere an the internet.  Certainly we make the judgment about what it interesting and post-worthy through the lens of our own perspective and criteria; but not all posts are intended to carry the charge of a particular viewpoint or perspective.  On the other end of the spectrum, some of us gravitate toward the genre of mini-essays.  Others come up with focused and tersely worded zingers.  Others tend to simply pose probing questions.  As we think about how we are using this medium, we may want to add this complicating factor of the varieties of blog “genre” into the mix.

 

Finally, Gaudium et Spes: Russ’s taxonomy according to the models of the church is helpful and illuminating.  Perhaps another thread running through how we envision our conversation is the basic tension which also runs through the Second Vatican Council.  How do we imagine the life of the church in relation to the world?  Do we see it as a space to be formed and strengthened, to then go “outside” in order to engage other ideas, often ideas in tension?  Or do we see the church itself as a space for engagement with difference on a variety of levels (eg, local vs. universal; cross-cultural, etc.).  In other words, how do we see and converse with the “world” within the church, and within our very selves?