Quite the kerfuffle on Facebook yesterday over this devotional about the "spiritual but not religious." People felt very strongly about it, and I even got defriended over the discussion. And because I will ponder anything, even a FB kerfuffle:
If you want commentary on the piece itself, I recommend this and this, and my friend Martha offered her own meditation on "SBNRs" (written several years ago) here. This blog isn't really about the post itself, except I wanna say this: I'm kinda over the word "spiritual." I think the shift is toward something different that doesn't have a name yet: embodied? incarnational? grounded? integrated?
Anyway, today I'm thinking more about writing, how we communicate and how we reflect on that communication.
Many clergy friends gave virtual high fives that the writer finally said what needed to be said about the shallowness that often emanates from some who call themselves spiritual but not religious. Others admitted the tone was snarky and smug, too focused on the speck in the SBNR's eye and completely ignoring the log in the church's, and not a great thing to have out there if we claim to be an evangelistic people. But, they argue, the germ of an idea was sound. (My husband, a product manager, offered, "Sounds like a classic venting-about-the-customers thing. Everybody does it, but not to the customers.")
My personal view is that voice cannot be separated from message. Tone is not a dropcloth that can be removed with a flourish and stowed away, revealing the true work of art underneath. It's baked right in. "Set aside X and Y and her point is valid," some folks said in defense of the piece. But I don't think you can set those things aside.
My writing group deals with this problem often after several years together. I've been told more times than I can count, "I know what you're trying to say because I know you and the experience you're describing, but it's not at all clear from the words on this page." or "I get your point, but you come off really sarcastic here---was that what you were going for?"
That's what the kerfuffle was about. Words on a page. (OK, screen.) People who know the writer personally consider her a lovely person. I have no reason to doubt that. But that's beside the point when it comes to this piece of writing, which should be evaluated on its own merits. Does it work? Does it work in this genre? Does it communicate what she wants to communicate?
This completely freaks me out, by the way. Come fall 2012, it will be my words that are evaluated. Maybe even critiqued. Maybe even critiqued harshly and pointedly. There may be readers who cross the line and make it personal. But not all sharp critique is personal. Remind me of this next year, Gentle Readers, when some doofus on the Internet makes me cry. Help me sift through what's helpful but hard to hear. Help me find a safe place to put that. And help me take everything else, tie it to the tail of a kite, fly it into a strong wind, and cut the string.
But the stuff I write doesn't get a pass just because I'm a nice person.
That's the work of community. That's what the piece tried to emphasize---and failed, in my opinion, because of what was used to leaven it.
One final thing. On the Internet, there is no place for the church to talk to itself internally without the general public listening in. That includes, sadly, a lecture given by the speaker to a room full of pastors, which is readily available too. That's neither good nor bad, it just is. We live in Terry Benedict's casino in Ocean's 11: "In my hotels, there's always someone watching."
All right then... what's next?