Some things are not borne out of offense.
written by Julie R. Neidlinger 11 comments link this postI've had the opportunity to team blog on another blog for a while now. Most of those posts, since it is a religious blog, didn't surface here. Instead, I pointed them out on my Lone Prairie Studies blog.
Last night, while reading a blog post that I was involved in -- part of a two-post saga -- and which seemed to have a continually growing comments section, something in my head clicked.
You need to stop.
I was about to leave a comment on this post, pointing out what I thought were inconsistencies in a point made by a fellow commenter. The discussion I was involved in, regarding whether the church was a body or a building, made a throw-away comment of "I have to hurry because I need to get to church" seem perfect for refutation that, yes, indeed, that person saw the church as a place instead of a wider body despite claims to the contrary. After all, we go to a place. A little moment of what I call "ah-ha-ism" where I sharpen my verbal knives and go to work. I got ready to type.
You need to stop.
What?
You need to stop. This is no better than the alternative.
Never being great at kicking habits immediately (it tends to take me a brutal piecemeal of a while to win), I stopped by the site today and found, in this post, a response that cemented in my mind why it was time to bow out:
Comment from Joe Martino
Time: January 12, 2008, 11:32 am
[...]
I know there were some who were offended by it to the point of taking their blog and going home, but I stand by my point that what happens at Tim's church is between Tim Reed, Owosso Mi his church and God. I don't see how it's your's, Ingrid's, Ken's, Amy's or Julie's or anyone else's for that matter. I didn't see anywhere where Tim Reed, Owosso Mi said that people have to do it that way
I like Joe; in fact, I can't think of a person associated with that blog that I don't like. This is not a question of "good people bad people" but of something else. Nevertheless, the comment caught me off guard. While I can't be sure, I think it was a reference to me and the comment that I chose to leave last night, instead of that witty rebuttal I was prepared to:
I think, after reading this post repeatedly, and watching the responses of all "sides" (my own included), that I need to discontinue writing on this blog. I see the same things I saw on other sites, and it displeases and disheartens me to be caught up in it.
Thanks for having me as long as you did. All the best to each of you.
It is a frustration to now see this as me reacting out of being "offended" (a useless concept if there ever was one) instead of the possibility that there are real reasons to leave a blog that involve much more respectable and worthwhile considerations that may apply only to me and my situation. The idea that I might have left in a huff, or in hurt or anger, instead of listening to what I realized I needed to do, is frustrating. It is an assumption.
It is similar to the experience I had while trying to calmly discuss the concept of church as body vs. building, and being told to "relax" after I felt I had laid out some clear points that didn't indicate an position of judgment on a person's actions, but rather, explained why it might be prudent to consider some additional reasons on why the opposing viewpoint existed. That was frustrating. My own real life has enough frustrations; why go after more online?
Something seems amiss when a blog is created to be the counterpart to a very real problem (in this case, blogs with amazingly awful skills of slicing and dicing the church proper with judgment and personal opinion), but instead, becomes less a counterpart and more the mirror image. The mirror image seems to be different, but all it is is the same thing, opposite direction. That is not the solution I am looking for.
You need to stop.
I did not leave out of offense of my sensibilities, as suggested above, or out of some kind of personal hurt, but because I could see this was not a thing that was building me up or teaching me anything but ways to verbally win. Instead, it was often a source of frustration, misplaced anger, annoyance, and wasted time I could have spent doing something else. I spent too much time on trying to doggedly work through a point of view when maybe I should have just let it go, shut my mouth, and let the rest of the commenters stick to their sides and "never the twain shall meet."
I wrote to the creator of the blog and told him I so appreciated the opportunity to write there. It truly was a good opportunity; I was thrilled to be given the chance. I certainly never expected such consideration from a person who I see as being very far above me in terms of knowledge and education in this area. At my joking insistence, photos and terms of cats were incorporated into the site; again, I was really honored by these actions. I still very much appreciate his posts on topics that I know so little about, such as hermeneutics and various theological concepts; I will continue to read his personal blog, which I had been reading long before the group blog existed.
However, the "us vs. them" posts, the endless bickering by certain commenters under the guise of "discussion" on topics that I now question the importance of, the gang-up and pile-on of some dissenters even if they seemingly deserved it, and the strange moment when I realized something had turned over in my mind, meant I had to heed that very strong suggestion: You need to stop.
Even now, I'm thinking of ways I could very easily write a rejoinder comment pointing out inconsistencies and generalizations to the comment that suggested I left in offense. But why? To win? To have a last word? To put a person in their place? To prove a point? To endlessly harp on the same talking points until I either exhaust the reader or make a person crumble under the sheer weight of endless wordiness? I don't doubt my ability to argue endlessly and work a selection of words to bend to my will, but I question whether I should exercise that skill and make it stronger. It seems all for naught.
Senseless. And meaningless. There's no need for me to do anything, but stop. Some things are not borne out of offense, but out of very real and wise direction for me to disavow, for my own personal safety and benefit.
Labels: blogging, my life, religion, slice of laodicea
Copyright (c) Julie R. Neidlinger 1/12/2008 11:17:00 AM
Like this post? Subscribe to the feed.
Help support this site.
Facebook |
Stumble It! |
Del.icio.us |
DiggIt! |
Technorati |
Blinklist |
Furl |
reddit |
Newsvine
11 Comments:
I'm familiar with this. Very familiar. In the end one has to give up the debate and ask: What's the point?
There must come a time in life when one's beliefs are settled. Not that they can't change. They probably will. But a place where a person says, "This is what I believe and I have no intention of debating it or persuading anyone of it."
I would make a terrible evangelist for any cause.
By 
, at
12/1/08 13:07
Julie,
The comment was not directed only at you, however as I have now said in email and on the .info it was wrong. I hope you can forgive me.
By 
Joe Martino, at
12/1/08 14:41
Thank you for your emails, Joe.
I don't feel "wronged" in that you need to apologize. I really don't. I'm more concerned about how I was becoming, and that I pay attention to a clear, inner call to step back. In that sense, this is a good experience for me. The eye-opener it took.
But, thank you, Joe. You have gone above and beyond, and it is a good reflection on the kind of person you are. Don't worry -- I'm not upset at you (or anyone, for that matter) whatsoever. Keep up your good writing, keep your eyes and heart open, don't grow too in love with your own opinions, and stay humble -- good advice for myself, too.
No worries.
:-)
By Julie R. Neidlinger, at
12/1/08 14:56
I think you have done the right thing here. We all get caught up in things like this from time to time, but for what ultimate purpose? I have yet to see someone actually say, "You know, you're right; I was wrong." in response to discussions on blogs. It happens very rarely in real life, let alone in a forum like the comments sections of blogs.
By Will, at
12/1/08 18:03
You are so, so, so, so, right, Julie.
I've followed your links to the team site on a number of occasions, read your posts as well as others', and some of the comments. And while I understand the overwhelming urge to form a counterpoint to a certain type of judgmental site, there's something wrong when everything becomes a knee-jerk response to that site and its authors. Eventually, it becomes impossible to say, "Well, maybe she partially has a point" or "Her reasoning is invalid but that doesn't make your position correct" or even "Isn't there anything else more worthy of our attention?" We end up defining our positions in opposition to the person we've cast in the role of the Devil, when we ought to be defining them in response to the One we serve as Lord.
We magnify the importance of those whom we publicly oppose. The reality is, I'd barely be aware of Ingrid and her ilk if it weren't for people trying like mad to refute her. We publicize those with whom we disagree. Let her preach to her choir--we can't stop her, anyway. We have better things to focus on.
By Keith Schooley, at
13/1/08 08:33
Wise words, Keith. Particularly this part:
"We end up defining our positions in opposition to the person we've cast in the role of the Devil, when we ought to be defining them in response to the One we serve as Lord."
That would be good for me to remember, as well as the idea that it isn't enough to be merely against something, but also be for something.
I think I can take this advice to heart. I forget it often. Remind me.
:-)
By Julie R. Neidlinger, at
13/1/08 20:21
Julie,
When CRN first went up, they linked to my blog and cited me a couple times.
But "anti-_______" sites that target fellow Christians don't sit well with me, especially since they tend to make the same mistakes as their adversaries. You can craft a corollary out of that eventuality.
So as much as I didn't like some of what went on at Slice and its derivatives, the response at CRN seemed loaded with too much snark. I asked to have links to my blog removed. The links vanished for a while but appear to have returned. Oh well.
All that to say I understand exactly why you did what you did. At some point it does have to stop. It's not always about getting the upper hand or being right. If anything, that "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality's ruining Christianity for a lot of people in the West.
By dle, at
13/1/08 22:16
Thanks for the good comment, Dan.
I really do appreciate Chris Lyons' blog, and I don't doubt his heart is right on why he started the CRN.info blog, nor his very real desire to make it something valuable.
A few things happened today (out of public view) on that blog which caught me off guard and left me smarting a bit, and I can only blame myself and look at how I can make changes in the way I communicate. I really can't go into it, but suffice it to say that today was one with some out-of-the-blue seemingly personal hits that I never expected coming from quarters that I never dreamed would say it.
At this point, I'm really hanging on the words of friends and readers like you, Will, and Keith: two pastors and a well-known Christian blogger who frequent this site and whose opinion I've come to value and trust.
It's a difficult thing, trying to decipher what to listen to, what to take to heart, and what to block out as needless noise with little spiritual or personal benefit.
Ah well. More good lessons. And you know how I like to learn lessons from life! Ha.
By Julie R. Neidlinger, at
13/1/08 22:27
what happened on the other blog?
By , at
13/1/08 23:58
Oh, nothing. Me just being foolish again, is all.
I need to get thicker skin. I'm too easily hurt and too quickly assume everyone is my friend. Just stupidity on my part -- gotta toughen up!
:-)
By Julie R. Neidlinger, at
14/1/08 00:11
"Toughening up" can be a good thing. Just be careful not to lose Julie in the process.
That would be a great loss.
By Rey, at
14/1/08 04:49
