is blogging with objective detachment possible?
I intend to write a book one day on Church Splits. They happen often enough, but I also experienced one first-hand. It has been going on 10 years since it occurred, and I’ve been waiting until I can write it with as much objectivity as is humanly possible. I feel I am getting closer to the point where I can write it without unjustly or unnecessarily injuring anyone. That’s my goal. I came across this quote in Karen Armstrong’s book, The Spiral Staircase. My Climb Out of Darkness:
“The scholarly observer must render the mental and practical behavior of a group into terms available in his own mental resources, which should remain personally felt, even while informed with a breadth of reference which will allow other educated persons to make sense of them. But this must not be to substitute his own and his readers’ conventions for the original, but to broaden his own perspective so that it can make a place for the other. Concretely, he must never be satisfied to cease asking ‘but why?’ until he has driven his understanding to the point where he has an immediate, human grasp of what a given position meant, such that every nuance in the data is accounted for and withal, given the total of presuppositions and circumstances, he could feel himself doing the same” (p. 290).
What I take this to mean for me personally is that I must come to the place where I can actually feel myself feeling, thinking, and doing what others felt, thought, and did through the split, and perhaps even sympathize with them. I can’t write about the split until I reach this point of detachment. In fact, this quote is an excellent guideline for all writers or anyone at all who wishes to work towards a more united world.
Share This
This statement means well I’m sure, but it’s hard to follow, too wordy. The taste in my mouth is one of ‘loftiness’. The pursuit of this ideal assumes that understanding ‘the why’ of something somehow explains the outcome. It’s as if all we need to do is understand ‘the why’ of a problem or issue and then we’ll somehow be satisfied in that knowlege alone. I guess I see that as only one of many ‘beginnings’ in terms of working through something so complex. Though I appreciate the hope of this quote, I hope your book doesn’t fall into the trap of trying to explain something that in itself is convuluted, at times insideous and often beyond reason. Trying to explain ‘corporate divorce’ will take more than one or two lawyers and even then would the children of the estranged parents really want to know who did what to whom and why?? I like your interpretation of the quote much more than the quote itself, so that gives me hope that you may be ready to write… I’ve got a thing or two to say about corporate divorce myself,… maybe this book has room for some story’s from far and wide?
Thanks Andrew. The original author of the above quote was, if I’m right, a non-Muslim writing on Islam. He felt the only way he could fairly treat the subject was to achieve the state he describes. This makes sense to me. I take the warning seriously about such a book as the one I want to write being “convoluted, at times insidious and often beyond reason”. That’s what I want to avoid.
I came after the split and only witnessed the scarring affect it had on our church. It was a wound that would not heal, a scab picked at till it bled, then some healing then more picking at the wound again.
Our family went through a divorce during this period…very painful indeed. However, I don’t believe I can ever assume to understand completely the inner workings of my sil’s mind or heart during the worst of times.
At best, I wait for time to heal the wound, so that the sting of pain and anger has lost its sharpness. Life shapes you, you suffer other losses, some easier some not, you enjoy great moments of happiness, all building towards a time when you realize that the experience was just that…an experience that shaped you, revealed your darker side, and hopefully in the process brings you to a better place to be objective about the part you had during the whole process…be it victim, offender or innocent bystander.
Our families experience is not unique and I doubt that our church split is all that unique either. The best thing anyone can do is not let a split define them, or the church…which I believe has happened at RV.
It should be a spring board for change, deep relection, and ultimately growth if we are willing to look seriously at what went wrong including acknowledging that some things are out of our hands…beyond our control and then move on…because that moment in time just isn’t worth the energy over the years to keep it alive in our heart, souls and mind.
Wendy. Thanks for your beautiful comment. I have 2 things to say in response:
1. I disagree that the split “defined” us. on the one hand, you say it is okay when “you realize that the experience was just that…an experience that shaped you”, but then you say you can’t let it define you. I agree with that. I think our church learned lots from it, that it has shaped us, and actually we are better for it. I know divorced people (who doesn’t!). Most of them have been shaped by it and are incredible human beings. But it’s been years since their divorce. Those that still allow it to define them… the divorce is fairly recent. So, even though through the years immediately following the split, it could be said it defined us, I think it is more fair to say that now it has shaped us in positive ways.
2. Secondly, you are a BEAUTIFUL writer. Have you ever thought about writing for public consumption? I think you are excellent at it.
Hi David, Andrew, Wendy, and others. Continuing the divorce theme as a comparison to a church split, my dad’s divorce from my mother still defines him to this day, after 12 years. He’s a Christian. It’s sad, but I’m sure there are many many divorced people out there who don’t automatically reach the “shaped phase” after a few years. Many never get over it. So it stands to reason that this can happen to church communities too.
I think our church was defined by the split up until maybe a couple years ago, but not more than that. Apparently the surrounding area has a history of church splits. I’ve always wondered what’s up with that?!
As for Wendy’s writing, this has been suggested to her more than once and I’m glad to see yet another person encourage her to do it!
I’ve thought that of you too Heidi! Anyone else?
Splitting up is hard to do, and it does mark a person. Even if they were victims of abuse and left for their own sanity and safety, it still changes people. But most people I know who have suffered it somehow integrate it into who they are in somewhat healthy ways. I hope churches can too.
About church splits in the area… every city has it. I don’t think it is unique to this one. It is an ugly reality across the spectrum.
In Ontario I knew many churches that were still going strong after umpteen, more than just the one I grew up in because some church communities kept various connections between themselves. Though of course there MUST have been church splits somewhere. I guess I led a sheltered life!
Now my theory is that the Saint John air pollution makes people really cranky and as a result there seems to be higher percentage of church splits.
Sorry Dave. I have to disagree with your disagreement of Wendy’s observation. Following the split, the split defined RV’s “tone”, in sermons, in folks’interactions, in visitors’ observations. Out of that certainly came a new shape.
Interestingly enough, the split also defined the church that split off for some time. In sermons at that church, the split, as the act of birth for that church, was a regular topic- either as an aside “When we started…” or as a particular topic of discussion.
Any traumatic occurence in a individual’s life becomes a pivotal moment, that our mind snaps back to. The more traumatic the event, the longer healing takes (maybe), the longer it gets played back over…
The church split certainly became a defining moment of my spiritual life as I unhappily bounced between churches for the last 9 years, praying all along to see an official forgiveness session, watching with hope as small acts of kindness mended some wounds… noting as well how others remained gaping obviously.
Perhaps your book should be “Church Splits for Dummies”, a primer on how to do it. Although, this reminds me of the message of july 13 “Back to the Basics”, where the blogger suggests that pain and sufering may be required for growth.
I agree with Heidi’s theory about Saint John air pollution making people cranky. I appreciate the excellent excuse for being such a grumpy sourpuss, and so will my wife!
I agree with your comment Sandy, which makes me wonder if you misread my previous comment. I don’t think we are in disagreement.
I agree. I just enjoyed writing that I was in disagreement with your disagreement. I was writing comment #8 before #6 popped up.
to your original point, empathy with the “other side” and intention to deal with the topic with integrity will aid the fair portrayal of the period.
I wonder how fully and completely we can ever walk a mile in another’s sandals?
Hey Dave,
Church splits are a funny deal…not “ha ha” funny but more peculiar funny! I do get a chuckle at times seeing how selfish people can be. Many times…people split because they can’t get their own way. A minority wanting foolishness…when they cry and are not heard they take their ball and go play somewhere else. These people can go. Sometimes you need to get rid of the few bad apples to save keep the basket fresh. Other times, it is the majority that have their head so far up their own butts that they can’t see God anymore and a remnant gets tired and shakes the dust of their feet…and go to another place where God is still being sought after. Either way…splits hurt. God uses them everyday but they usually end up (like all wars) with having casualties. Oh that we could be like the church that God called in Acts 2…but isn’t that the problem with most theology…man is involved. The enemy will never stop until that final day…so we may as well keep praying! God is good…so I figure we gotta keep looking at Him despite the crap. Show grace always. And remember that Christ asked us to love (even when it’s hard to like). Know this…healing after a split…so you can write with a non-bias view…it is near impossible. Each time you write…you chance re-opening crap. The enemy loves it. Know that you will be bias to a degree. Thinking you won’t…that would be the first error. Also, I feel that too many depend on the church to be their soul source to God. While it is an aid and can be an incredible encouragement…it ought not to be the only source or even the main stay. God is waiting to reveal himself individually to us every day. We ought not to wait only upon the church. That is another mistake we make. Talk soon,
Maves
Thanks “Maves”… good to hear from you! I appreciate the wisdom in your comment. I realize that you are right… I will never be completely unbiased. I acknowledge that. But I want to understand all sides. I’m getting closer to that. As far as the church being a “source to God”… I’m not sure it is. I believe that the church is simply, theologically, the body of Christ, the communion of saints, the fellowship invisible manifested in local congregations. Not a way to God.
Thanks for the compliment Dave! I agree with you and I should have said that! The split is not defining us right now today…but it really did for so many years…
Only recently do I feel as though the shackles have come off and people are moving forward and not shuffling in place.
It is so encouraging to see the people in our church who are so incredibly gifted and kind shake themselves off and look up and outwards to the view ahead. To see the path that the Lord has cleared for them…all we need now is the shepherd to lead his flock to that wonderful place.
In response to the title, pure objectivity is never possible. We see everything through the lens of our experience. The closest we can come to objectivity is to acknowledge that we are not objective–to acknowledge the experience that colors our perception.
Fred: I wholeheartedly agree. Pure objectivity isn’t possible, and our perceptions are certainly colored by our experiences and knowledge. That’s why I say, “as objectively as humanly possible”. Good to hear from you.