I neither agree nor disagree.
written by Julie R. Neidlinger 8 comments link this postOne of the more humorous things I've noted about the furor over my recent post on walking out church is what the people say who link to it.
I've noticed a startling number of younger-generation bloggers who tend to link but say "some things I agree with, and some I don't" and do not enumerate those specifics. Perhaps this is a way to do things now.
Whatever it is, it is a very handy caveat.
"I neither agree, nor disagree."
Well. Congratulations. You stand for nothing.
That probably comes off as a wee bit harsh. I understand what the blogger is trying to do: provide linkage for readers who may be interested in a topic that the blogger doesn't want to deal with just yet. In those cases, perhaps "here's an interesting link" would be a better selection of words.
I used to be like that, just a few years ago, a little too prone to covering all bases and not getting involved in reader reaction (and, consequently, writing bland posts that were anything but memorable or life-changing). I still do it, though not as much. Mainly because I blogged about the issue for myself as much as others.
Yes, I used to write like that as a matter of habit because I thought it made me sound less reactionary and more erudite and intelligent -- look at me, and how magnanimous I am, for I can see the validity of both sides! Plus, I had an easy escape route if the discussion got hot and heavy. Then I got old(er) and decided I didn't really care to see both sides because I realized that there are far more than two sides and I didn't have time to empathize with all of them, but by neither agreeing or disagreeing with anything meant...nothing. I could just as well shut up, as a blogger.
Frankly. Call it a link, and leave it at that. Don't waste your reader's time trying to appear even-handed while saying nothing.
No one is ever going to write something that everyone agrees with and, to be honest, if you did, it would probably end up being a chocolate chip cookie recipe. Write something that matters, even if it gets you in hot water and you wish you'd been more careful with your wording, especially when it comes to your faith. There's enough ad copy out there already. You may end up being wrong, but at least you did it with style.
Go ahead. Stick your foot in your mouth. It keeps you flexible, and keeps you from getting stiff in your writing and in your beliefs.
I'm very flexible.
Think of it like this: you're not going to hit the nail on the head if you refuse to pick up the hammer.
(You'll hit your thumb many times.)
Labels: blogging, christianity
Copyright (c) Julie R. Neidlinger 8/19/2008 05:14:00 PM
Like this post? Subscribe to the feed.
Help support this site.
Facebook |
Stumble It! |
Del.icio.us |
DiggIt! |
Technorati |
Blinklist |
Furl |
reddit |
Newsvine
8 Comments:
Ok, I'll pick up the hammer! I actually agreed with almost everything you said in that post about walking away from the church (thankfully, I have a great church), but there was one section of your post where I thought you could use some enlightening.
Now, I don't know you personally, and I doubt I know any of the friends that you talk about who are sick of the "youth group" guys who have never grown up, but I can tell you, as a guy who considers himself a mature or maturing believer, that the rarest thing to find in an American church today is a woman who exhibits a gentle, quiet spirit. First Peter 3:4 says that God considers the beauty of a woman with a gentle, quiet spirit "very precious." Wow, how many times do you see things like that in the Bible? I mean, given such a direct avenue of pleasing God, wouldn't you think every woman who professes to follow Christ would want to have God consider their spirit "very precious"? But I have difficulty, even among Christian women who I respect deeply and who have been a great help to my children and to me, finding such examples for my daughters to emulate in that regard. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but I don't think so.
And that passage in First Peter 3even goes on to say that that gentle, quiet spirit can lead even an unbelieving man to Christ. Think what it could do for believing men that are just immature.
There's my $0.02.
By 
thefourwinds, at
August 22, 2008 2:33 PM
Pretty good two cents.
I do agree with you, pretty much.
I want to point out there is a difference between having a gentle and quiet spirit, and being a doormat.
That sometimes gets confused.
Meekness isn't doormatism. It's more like...strength purposely deferred.
Or something.
A weak, simpering, doormat-type woman wouldn't be a great example, either, I wouldn't think.
By 
Julie R. Neidlinger, at
August 22, 2008 3:12 PM
...but yeah, good point.
By Julie R. Neidlinger, at
August 22, 2008 3:23 PM
...but! (and I suppose this is me not being gentle and quiet)
Do you know what a gentle and quiet woman gets when she's around a lot of these immature guys?
She gets to wait.
A long, long time.
Say...34 years.
And then she often just gives up and realizes she's on her own and had better buck up and take care of herself and sort of be her own Deborah because these guys aren't going to get it together and man-up.
I wrote about that, sort of, here. And in a lot of those other "relationship" tagged posts on that blog.
Because in person, I'm actually not like I am "on paper."
By Julie R. Neidlinger, at
August 22, 2008 3:34 PM
Hmm...I see where one thing I said could be easily miscontrued.
I was definitely not trying to say that any Christian woman should intentionally settle for less than what they believe are Biblical standards in a husband. I can see where that may have been the impression I gave, which was not my intent. I believe that Scripture refers more to believing women who are already married to unbelievers.
However, your last comment (about having to wait) was very revealing. So, should people feel sorry for you for having what you consider to be Biblical standards and then holding out for them? Are you feeling sorry for yourself?
What are you doing to use this time when you are unencumbered by family responsibilities to live completely for Christ (a la 1 Cor 7:32-35)? Again, I don't know you. Maybe you can stand before God in perfect peace that you are living as He has called you to live while you are unencumbered by such anxieties as Paul speaks of. But if you are, I suspect you would be more content with your singleness. John Piper has some great messages about this.
Also, again, I don't know you in person, and I barely know you on paper, but I do know that Matt 12:34 says, "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." Your written words (and mine, and anyone's) reveal quite a bit about the heart. I know whereof I speak, having had various e-mails come back to haunt me, etc.
So, yes I'm trying to kick you in the butt. Don't complain about the guys if it's just because you're personally upset with God about your singleness. Get off your butt, get on your knees and find out how God would have you please Him!
By thefourwinds, at
August 22, 2008 5:49 PM
Um, no. Where did I say people should feel "sorry for me"? I'm not asking you to feel sorry for me. I could care less what you think about me, personally.
I don't know you, you don't know me. You can get off that right now.
Regarding your useful advice (which is old hat to any Christian single) about "how am I using my unencumbered life as a sinlge" -- please. As if I haven't had that reply thrown my way.
But let's see. How am I using my unencumbered life so far:
How about you go and read this bloody web site and figure it out? I'm sure you're not so encumbered that you can't do that. I don't think anyone who knows me or reads this site and knows what I'm doing in life would say I'm sitting back and doing nothing in life or in ministry or whatever else. I'm certainly not sitting around homeschooling some kids and predicting the weather for a TV station in Minot, to be sure, but I'm doing plenty.
You know what? What are you doing with your encumbered life?
You don't get to say another damn thing about me on this blog. You don't know me, as you've stated, yet you sure felt free to say things to me based on ignorance of things I've already talked about and shared with readers on this site over the past years. I don't have the time to point to posts and whatever else I've written that have expressed all the things on these scriptures (and more) you mentioned and topics over the past three or more years.
I've already covered that chunk of text by Paul, incidentally, regarding that unencumbered single life that married people thing is the proper response to any single person who expresses anything but happiness with their current state. Go find it on your own.
I am not Paul. Just so you know.
"...I suspect you would be more content with your singleness. "
I tell you what. You will never know. You will never know what it is to be single in the circumstances that I am and in all the things I've done and not done, and there is absolutely no way you can address any "suspected" things you desire to extract from the Bible and apply my direction. You simply can't know. Your pat application of a few cherry-picked verses is disgusting and completely useless and an over-simplification of how it is and is indicative of you trying to lord over a topic that you are absolutely unable to comprehend. Being single as a teenager or in early 20's is not the same, so no, you don't get to say "but I was single once" -- you. Don't. Know.
If your blessed daughters end up in my exact situation, let's see how useful your advice is to them. I bet it'll really help them out. I find it interesting that my parents would never dole out such pablum because they know, at this point in life, things are not so simplistic.
Read more of this blog before you judge my need of butt kicking, motivation, state of peace before God, use of my "unencumbered state", the state of the heart, or anything else. You just dropped in for about three seconds and pounded out a lot of nothing in my direction.
No one, by the way, has an unencumbered life. No one. That's just an idea married people have about a mythical single life that they direct to single people because they want single people to feel sorry for them and their responsibilities. Single people are more encumbered, for they do not have anyone to help them. Everything comes through their effort and sheer trust in God. There is no one to help. They are both genders, in a sense. They are more encumbered, but are seen as free-wheelin' lucky people because they don't have kids or a spouse.
No one has an unencumbered life.
By Julie R. Neidlinger, at
August 22, 2008 10:33 PM
I heard all that tripe about being unencumbered when I was single, too. The only conclusion I could come to was that the married people who said all that were simply lazy when they were single, and just assumed that everybody else was too.
As to sides, there are only two. That's how it's painted. Both are usually wrong. American Christianity is a religion of formulas and cliches. Your words were plugged into a formula, and you were found to be taking a side due to the result of the formula. I would advise you to take a class in linear algebra! :) Anyway, I followed as many links and rabbit trails as I could on your world famous post. Not many things surprise me anymore, but this was simply amazing. Sheeesh.
By Steve Scott, at
August 23, 2008 4:36 AM
Two posts on the unencumbered tripe:
Part 1
Part 2
Comments are moderated, now, as is stated when you try to leave a comment. Your comments may or may not appear.
I'm not letting any more free-for-alls happen after the last experience and the post two weeks ago. Don't bother emailing me, either. I don't want to hear from you.
