Blest be the Tie that Binds
I'm alarmed. I've had a busy couple of weeks and haven't really looked at this site for a while, and when I do ... George has stepped away and everyone else is silent! What, are you scared or something? Or have you been hit with the angst of finding out that our conversations really do affect how people think and feel?
What I appreciate about blog communities like this is that we have a forum where people actually discuss things that are important, relevant, and challenging. Of course we have to be respectful -- if for nothing else than the sake of Christian brotherhood.
Yes, we living in a time of intense cultural transition, and we in the church are having to figure out what needs to change and what needs to remain as is; we're all going to have different opinions about it, too. This SHOULD give us ample cause to think about and communicate our ideas. What concerns me about silence is the possibility of mutual disgust: "Why talk about such-and-such? Nobody will listen anyway." Is this what is happening?
Friends, this kind of discussion is important to the CGGC. We are not the kind of denomination that has a lot of built-in connections. Our sense of community is terribly weak, in my opinion. What I'd like to see is a website where we could upload and download a variety of ideas, presentations, studies, etc., in addition to ongoing discussions like ours here. Maybe that's too pragmatic for this blog, but perhaps the pragmatism would balance out our theological conundra.
Sorry for the rant, but I don't like the sound of silence from people who are some of the most creative and brightest people around.
Wow, I feel better.
Ben
posted by Ben Tobias at 9:40 AM
7 Comments:
Several years ago, I was a groomsman for a co-worker in his wedding. The church was an extremely Calvinist church. I overheard the pastor tell the groom, "Hey did you hear that scholars came up with another name for Calvinism? Biblical Christianity." I didn't find it that funny. They thought it was hilarious.
Many denominations are being splintered by the very conversations we are having. I have no doubt that these conversations need to occur and that some of them will increase division. My optimistic side thinks that maybe we can all come together in unity. But that hasn't been the record for most groups. Since I am hosting this blog for the sake of the denomination's health, I'll fully admit it concerns me.
Take for instance George's post (since deleted) on the CGGC stance on gays, lesbians, and trans-gender. This was the post that made me nervous enough to ask some questions of fruitfulness. Do you think it would be safe for a CGGC pastor to say that he/she favors ordination for homosexuals? Or marriage for homosexuals? Or for a neutral statement on the issue rather than for or against?
Perhaps you think no one has that view. Perhaps you think no one should be allowed to have that view. Perhaps you have that view and are willing to die for it. Perhaps you have that view and don't mind keeping quiet about it in order to submit to the denominational stance. Perhaps you have the view that anyone who would express favor for any item on this issue should be immediately questioned by the appropriate board.
We have a lot of young pastors here, and they are not afraid to discuss issues, but I want to be sure they know what they are walking into. I also want to offer this blog as a mentoring opportunity for them.
The homosexual is just one issue. There are several more and it might only take one.
I think there needs to be some clarity on the purpose of this blog.
- Is it a forum to discuss any idea?
- Is it a CGGC mentoring forum?
- Is it open to only those who provide names?
- Is it open to anyone?
- Are others "at risk" of being censored (and I use that term intentionally)?
- Is this a public forum or a private forum?
There are more questions. I think there is growing confusion over the exact purpose of this blog. If no one else wonders, I do.
This leads to an answer for Ben's question about why few have been posting. As clarity decreases, people will not participate. That may not be the only answer, but if no one is sure about why this forum exists, he/she probably won't take the time to join in.
This can't be all things to all people.
Just my thoughts.
I think the confusion has come from the growth. When I started the blog, there was no forum at all. The specifics were issues of emerging thought and postmodernity. The discussion has been fruitful, connections have been made, relationships started.
It is now time for an evolution of this forum. Someone needs to start a new blog with clear purposes. I don't know if the CGGC does it or endorses it or not. Ben, you seem like a worthy candidate. I would gladly endorse it.
Brian,
I understand what you're saying about the initial purpose of this blog. But do you really think the confusion can be directly linked to growth?
There is evidence that people gravitate towards conservative churches because they are much clearer about where they stand on various issues - they offer clarity about their beliefs. These churches grow because people know what they are joining. Growth doesn't necessarily cause confusion if people are clear about what they are joining. I think some mixed messages have been sent here - that is why I asked for clarity.
Also, are you suggesting this blog has "run its course" and it's time for something else to emerge out of these conversations?
Brent
I think we need to be careful not to freak out because there have been a few episodes of MUCH CONVERSATION interspersed among the usual LACK OF CONVERSATION. It seems to have been the nature of this blog from the beginning to have periods of silence. Sometimes it's the over-analyzing that can ruin good relationships (IMHO).
I kinda feel the same about clarity of purpose. I've always assumed we operated under basic understood (and unwritten) rules of societal living. Sometimes those rules will be stretched, but mostly people know how to be polite and gracious - while still allowing for individual sprinkles of cynicism, humor, and orneriness. Yes, this is very RELATIONSHIP centered, and is another reason why anonymous posting makes it difficult. For instance, with Felicia, most of us have come to know her heart and basic intentions just by reading her comments with her name at the bottom. If she had never signed her name, it would make it harder to know those things (btw, I have always appreciated your input Felicia).
I wonder if some of the problem is with an understanding of what a "public" or "group" blog is. To me, it is public only in that anyone can read it and MAY contribute comments. But that "publicness" is limited by the fact that not just anyone can post, and that, yes, in fact, there is someone (Brian in our case) who can remove, or moderate, what is discussed/posted/commented. It's similar to 'freedom' in that you can be free insofar as you don't cramp someone else's style too much. There's a limit.
So, that's just my 2 cents. I appreciate the discussion.
I agree with Dan, let's not freak out just because there's been some healthy debate here lately. You guys think this is bad? You should hang out for a while at a real discussion board (e.g. theOoze.com). You get some real arguments over there.
If we can't get past a few disagreements and conflicting personalities without thinking we need to shut the whole thing down, we're in trouble.
To be honest, what we've experienced here recently is perfectly normal for an online message board. I'd see it all the time at theOoze. A more conservative person would show up and start flaming anyone who didn't agree with them, they'd stick around long enough to vaguely become part of the community, then someone would say something to hurt their feelings and they'd post a long, dramatic post about how they were leaving the site and never coming back. We'd all be emotionally manipulated into feeling bad for them and beg them to stay. They'd disappear for about two weeks, and then show up and start posting again like nothing ever happened. This pattern would repeat itself over and over again with each new flamer that came to the boards. Sound familiar?
Bottom line, let's just get on with life... this is no big deal. Been there, done that - many times. This is just how these kind of discussion sites go.
Dan wrote: "I wonder if some of the problem is with an understanding of what a 'public' or 'group' blog is."
I agree that this could be a source of some of the confusion. Since I am one of the few (maybe only) who has been stressing that this is a public blog, I'll reply.
In my opinion (although I don't want to give the impression I am shooting from the hip here) the internet, by its very nature, is a public form of and forum for communication. There is really nothing private about it - even sites for "members only" can be hacked and read by some outsiders.
The comment "To me, it is public only in that anyone can read it and MAY contribute comments" supports the idea that it is a public form of and forum for communication.
I also agree that there are limits within any public or private context. But in this particular context, which I would suggest is a public one, the limits come into play by being very clear about what can and cannot be talked about here. That is why I keep coming back to the need for clarity.
Honestly, I am open to anyone (named or not) talking about anything (controversial or not) on this blog. But that is clearly NOT the position of everyone involved. Therefore, I think we need to be upfront about what is and is not "allowed".
Otherwise, confusion.
Brent
Post a Comment
<< Home