Blogging: live not memorex; also some general analysis

It is 4:23am (eastern) for the first time this convention I’m too tired for my exercise routine. That’s okay, it gives me more time to write before I head off to the convention center.

In a moment I’ll give you a morning preview of what to expect today but first I want to make two points, the first about the nature of “live-blogging” the second, about what I think is emerging in the SCECAC committee deliberations and, IMHO, convention-wide.

Before the start of the Integrity/HRC news conference yesterday, I wrote the following:

“I will give you what I can of their remarks. Remember these are notes taken on the fly so they are not always direct quotes. I try as hard as I can.”

This ought to be emblazoned on the top of every live blog. You simply cannot (unless you are a court stenographer) capture word for word everything that is said. You can, and this is important, accurately capture the key quotes, gist, and flavor of the remarks. That is what I aim for.

In the process of coming to a personal faith in Jesus Christ, I did a lot of reading. I had heard a great deal about the “Jesus Seminar” and felt their work posed a serious problem for orthodox Christianity. Along with NT Wright’s “New Testament and the People of God” and “Jesus and the Victory of God” and some orthodox works on biblical authority/interpretation, I also read a smaller book entitled “Jesus Under Fire.” The book, which I highly recommend, is actually a collection of works from various evangelical scholars that address specific points brought up by the Jesus Seminar.

In one section one scholar (I can’t remember who) deals with the problem of synoptic “differences.” Each of the synoptics, not even mentioning John, record Jesus’ words differently when recounting the very same speech. Doesn’t this damage the concept of infallibility? Only if you misunderstand the nature or “genre” of the gospels. When newspapers quote someone in our day, we expect the quote to be word for word accurate. The same was not true in the ancient world. There were no tape recorders. No one thought that the speeches recorded by Thucydides or Herodotus are word for word spot on accurate. People do, however, and did, expect a certain level of conformity with the original gist of the speeches recorded. This expectation is heightened the closer the author is being a contemporary of the even itself.

Thus, for the gospel writers, setting aside the fact of inspiration for a moment, there was then (and there is today) an expectation. It was expected that they would accurately record the general gist and thrust of Jesus’ actual words. Since even revisionist scholars are now coming to accept that most of the gospels (I believe all of them) were written within living memory of many eyewitnesses, this expectation is heightened. Add the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and we have four infallible “live” portraits of Christ.

As this one author writing in Jesus Under Fire puts it: the four gospels are “live not Memorex.”

The very same is true with live blogging (absent, of course, the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit). If you compare what I blogged at the Integrity/HRC press conference with Mike Daley’s recording, you will see that I accurately captured the flavor, gist, and many direct quotes. I did not capture the entire thing word for word.

The same is true for the hearing last night. Compare my live-blogged record of bishop Duncan’s statement with that put out by the Network. You will notice that I captured several key phrases word for word: “conserving and progressing wings” for example. You will also note, I hope, that I accurately reflected the flavor and gist of what he said.

I was not able to record him word for word. Nor was I able to do that for any of the speakers. I was live, not Memorex.

Hopefully, Mike Daley recorded the entire thing on MP3 and you can get the word for word version as well.

What then is the benefit of a live blog?

First, until we have live-feed internet cameras here at GC2006, live-blogging is the only way you will get real time information, unfiltered (as much as possible) by the bias of the newsroom editor. I write em as I hear em, both revisionist and orthodox. If you are at home and feel out of the loop, live blogging plugs you in. I can give you a flavor not just for the words themselves, but for the physical environment and emotional intensity in which and with which the words are spoken.

Second: Sometimes live-blogging can actually make it easier for the listener to filter out some of the fluff or hemming and hawing that may cloud or obfuscate the actual points a speaker is trying to make. When you listen to someone talk, you listen for “the point.” Sometimes word for word recordings can make this point seeking more difficult. Speakers often go on tangents, use lots of um’s, uh’s, and well’s, and generally lead you through a maze of verbiage. I generally cut through that and help you get the main point.

Now, on to the SCECAC and what I think is happening. Many have said that this convention would really represent a fight, not between orthodox and revisionist wings of the church, but between institutional revisionists and revolutionary revisionists. I think that has turned out to be true. You can see this split on the SCECAC itself and you can see it between revisionists in the HOB and revisionists in the HOD.

The interesting thing is that for the most part, the institutionalists have not as some expected seized onto the Windsor recommendations. They have rather, it seems, been fighting to keep the original language Special Commission resolutions which many of them last night described as the “middle way” between Windsor and the revolutionaries.

If the institutionalists win, we will likely not see a real embrace of the WR, but an embrace of the Special Commission resolutions. This is significant given the fact that these resolutions are, according to bishop Wright and, now, according to ++York, not enough to satisfy the primates.

So, essentially, the institutionalists are fighting a rear guard action on their left and, in so doing, could end up defending ground (the Special Commission resolutions) that will not be high enough to satisfy the Communion to their right.

In any case, that’s my take this morning after three hours of sleep.

Preview: today I will cover all of the SCECAC hearings as usual. I will also cover as much of the ECUSA press conference as possible. I may try to get a look at the daily Eucharist for you, though I’m not sure I’m spiritually strong enough to handle it. I’ll get to the AAC briefing and then, finally, I’ll try to get into the HOD or HOB and do some live blogging.

Now, I’ve got to hop in the shower. I have a 30 minute drive to the Convention center.

7 Comments • Print-friendly • Print-friendly w/comments • Share on Facebook

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.