Oddly enough …
This article is developing weirdly.
Normally, what I do is write a 2-3 page mini-article containing my argument in its most bare-bones form. When that is done, I go back and add the introduction, the caveats, the ultimately irrelevant but fascinating little sidetracks and so on. Not to mention pumping it full of extraneous citations for that learned look. Yes, all that fluff boosts a two-page argument to a 15-page article. This is how the game is played.
But this time I can’t do that. I am introducing something completely new. There is absolutely nothing in the academic literature about the religious aspects of online ordination. Zilch. Nada. Nichts.Lots on the legal aspects, but that does not interest me. So I can’t just refer to Pompies, P (2007) and expect my reader to get the background material there. I have to lay it all out myself. And my understanding of the topic changes as I find new (non-academic) sources. “Oh, I hadn’t thought of that, let me go back to the last page and change that before I forget.”
And so I am all over the place, working on 3 or 4 aspects simultaneously, and moving paragraphs around as I write them. Let me say a little prayer of thanks to the unknown programmer who invented the word processor. How did people work in the typewriter era when the only way to get your thoughts down was in a strictly linear way?
I wrote my first article by hand and had it typed out by a typist, so I had a foot in that era. No, not a foot, a toenail. My second article was written on a computer. Couldn’t imagine working without one now.