Why Essays?

Why does the title of this blog mention ‘essays’? Brian Dillon gives a brilliant answer in his book, Essayism: On Form, Feeling, and Nonfiction. This short-form style is aptly suited to expressing opinions on a variety of issues, shifting focus regularly rather than delving down deeply into any particular subject. This suits my personality. I am not a specialist, but a dilettante, who likes searching around for interesting stuff. 

It’s like Edward De Bono’s concept of ‘lateral thinking’. He compares thinking to digging holes. The expert, he says, is someone who likes digging deep holes, with nice smooth walls. The lateral thinker, however, likes to dig lots of holes, new ones, without necessarily going deeply into any single one. He also leaves lots of mess, when he moves on to a new enthusiasm.

While this may simply excuse my own intellectual laziness, it does describe the work of the essay-writer; though the short length of my posts may not justify the full use of the term ‘essay’. Dillon, though, also draws attention to the meaning of the verb, ‘to essay’. This describes an attempt, a venture – one may ‘essay’ an opinion, for example. So, an essay is an experiment, a sally, a suggestion. One doesn’t necessarily commit oneself to everything one states, no matter how apparently assertively, in an essay.

So, although I shall indeed state clearly my views, I accept that there may be inaccuracies and infelicities in my writing. I say this to cover myself, in case I offend anyone. In truth, I am slightly frightened of starting this new blog, because I hopefully will deal with some controversial subjects. Paradoxically, I fear I shall find myself upsetting different sorts of people, depending on the precise subject matter.

When I discuss poverty, immigration, and injustice, I shall surely upset my conservative friends. When I debate sex, sexuality, and morality, certainly I will offend my liberal friends. When we put our head above the parapet of contemporary debate, we risk getting it shot off. So, although my normal disposition is eirenic, and I avoid intemperate language, I still take this risk. Interestingly, I fear the hostile reactions of my liberal friends much more than the conservative ones. This is because, intellectually, sociologically, educationally, these are my tribe. I depart from the consensus at my peril. The lines in the cultural war are sharply drawn, and we too frequently reject or disfellowship those who disagree with our heart-felt positions.

Of course, a church must adhere to a firm set of beliefs, whether liberal or conservative, that is only fair. But these must be acknowledged. Frequently, churches deny they have any doctrinal position, or proclaim their open-mindedness. But woe betide any visiting preacher who unknowingly departs from the unspoken creedal consensus. Often ‘unity’ is prized in our contemporary ecclesial context. But this only serves to marginalise questions that were previously thought of as integral to faith.

This is at the expense of ‘truth’: not ‘my truth’ but ‘the truth’.