A Facebook Exchange with a COE Bishop
A few days ago I entered a Facebook exchange chock full of revisionists, mostly in the COE. It’s something I rarely do, since it serves little purpose at all to have exchanges with people who don’t share the same faith. I’m guessing that most of us within TEC have noticed that public exchanges between conservatives and revisionists within the Anglican Communion have grown far far more rare, now, with revisionists avoiding the conservative blogs and conservatives avoiding the revisionist blogs.
I personally think that’s probably a good thing. Once one has established the boundaries of the vast chasm between the two groups in foundational worldviews, there’s little left to say, other than running through the “prayer wheel” of arguments, which we all already know anyway. The problem is not “the arguments”—it’s that none of us accept the other side’s presuppositions or even basic definitions of the most basic of theological concepts.
The thing that was most striking about the responses from the revisionists is how deeply offended they werewhen I pointed out how the thread demonstrated the two different, mutually opposing faiths that exist now within the Anglican Communion. Obviously I don’t believe one faith is recognizably Christian. But that’s not the point. The very idea I expressed—that here is an organization with two different antithetical faiths—was deeply offensive to them. I don’t know if it’s something they haven’t thought of, or something that they just can’t allow right now to be true. Over here in TEC, it’s been long-acknowledged by many on both sides that the two groups simply don’t share the same Gospel. People on both sides are able to say “you worship a Jesus I don’t know and don’t care to know.” In private email exchanges many many Episcopalians are able to share that recognition with me over the years—and it’s even been said publicly on blogs *by revisionists*. I, of course, completely agree.
The standard responses on this particular Facebook thread were to 1) accuse me of “hating” them, or 2) accuse me of being angry with them—as if somehow that would explain my having the audacity of believing that there are two different mutually opposing faiths represented within the Anglican Communion.
The bishop, Alan Wilson in the COE, was the most outraged, [although he didn’t take too kindly to my mocking the continual rhetorical inconsistencies with which he litters his writing either, so I don’t think he was merely outraged over my “two different faiths” thesis]. He accused me of being in one of two groups that engage in “binary thinking” [the other group doesn’t engage in binary thinking—one of the things Alan Wilson does quite a lot in his blogging is accuse people of doing the same things he does, all the while indulging in endless self-congratulation about not doing so].
Here are a few excerpts from the things he said—all the while protesting that, of course, he was not angry at all. ; > )
Hours later, after the conversation has moved well along, Alan Wilson cannot let it go:
This is how he responds to being confronted with 1) someone who is in the Anglican Communion, in TEC, who 2)mocked his rhetoric and pointed out the demonstrable contradictory and inconsistent bits in it, and 3) pointed out that the various members of the thread don’t share the same faith.
Now—true or not—none of those things I said are nice or comfortable things to say. They’re not attractive or winsome to the recipients and they are certainly provocative statements [though again, those things have been said now, for years, over here in TEC]. So my assertions—whether people acknowledge them to be true or not—are certainly “high in conflict”. I wasn’t making any effort to be persuasive or convince people of my point of view.
I don’t need to be liked by them and they don’t need to be liked by me. The people are already persuaded, either way, and are already in either of the two groups. I get “thumbs ups” from people who silently audit such threads, and then others denounce me. That’s the two groups, and I understand that and accept that dynamic for what it is.
It’s sometimes unpleasant to have one’s rhetorical inconsistencies mocked and it’s sometimes unpleasant to have someone else in one’s organization point out that there’s no commonality on one’s faith.
But such a response? From a bishop who’s supposed to be mature? And self-aware?
The main thing that Alan Wilson can do when confronted with disagreement and unpleasant rhetoric it seems—is to make wild suggestions about the person with whom he disagrees being drunk, on medication, hating him, or by comparing the person to disturbed psychopathic people he met when he worked in a prison. And I haven’t included various attempted insults about “fundamentalist” hermeneutics which are merely silly straw men that he wheels out as boilerplate periodically.
Now, none of those things offend me. To be offended or hurt, I’d have to care what Alan Wilson thinks of me, and I’ve been unconcerned by being liked by revisionist activists like Alan Wilson for many years now. And, truthfully, I don’t actually think Alan Wilson, in his heart, believes that I was drunk, or on meds, or psychopathic, or full of hatred for him. I just think it helps soothe his vanity to say those sorts of things out loud in front of his tribe.
I accept that he doesn’t like his pretensions punctured. I expect he’s used to a certain amount of deference and flattery, particularly from his own particular group.
But when confronted with sharp disagreement his defense mechanism is to attempt to come up with some horrific reason [alcohol, meds, psychopathy, unreasoning hatred] why the disagreement should occur.
That’s one of the revisionist activist bishops of the COE, folks. What a telling portrait he presents.
I personally think that’s probably a good thing. Once one has established the boundaries of the vast chasm between the two groups in foundational worldviews, there’s little left to say, other than running through the “prayer wheel” of arguments, which we all already know anyway. The problem is not “the arguments”—it’s that none of us accept the other side’s presuppositions or even basic definitions of the most basic of theological concepts.
The thing that was most striking about the responses from the revisionists is how deeply offended they werewhen I pointed out how the thread demonstrated the two different, mutually opposing faiths that exist now within the Anglican Communion. Obviously I don’t believe one faith is recognizably Christian. But that’s not the point. The very idea I expressed—that here is an organization with two different antithetical faiths—was deeply offensive to them. I don’t know if it’s something they haven’t thought of, or something that they just can’t allow right now to be true. Over here in TEC, it’s been long-acknowledged by many on both sides that the two groups simply don’t share the same Gospel. People on both sides are able to say “you worship a Jesus I don’t know and don’t care to know.” In private email exchanges many many Episcopalians are able to share that recognition with me over the years—and it’s even been said publicly on blogs *by revisionists*. I, of course, completely agree.
The standard responses on this particular Facebook thread were to 1) accuse me of “hating” them, or 2) accuse me of being angry with them—as if somehow that would explain my having the audacity of believing that there are two different mutually opposing faiths represented within the Anglican Communion.
The bishop, Alan Wilson in the COE, was the most outraged, [although he didn’t take too kindly to my mocking the continual rhetorical inconsistencies with which he litters his writing either, so I don’t think he was merely outraged over my “two different faiths” thesis]. He accused me of being in one of two groups that engage in “binary thinking” [the other group doesn’t engage in binary thinking—one of the things Alan Wilson does quite a lot in his blogging is accuse people of doing the same things he does, all the while indulging in endless self-congratulation about not doing so].
Here are a few excerpts from the things he said—all the while protesting that, of course, he was not angry at all. ; > )
The only time in my life I’ve experienced anything similar was from one or two of the more disturbed psychopathic people I met when I worked in a prison.
The name calling is always a danger signal. Many moons ago +Richard Harries showed me the wisdom of never calling people names they don’t own.[Alan Wilson, of course, strews his commentary about conservatives with labels. I don’t particularly think labels are bad—labels are merely shorthand to help people recognize and classify, just like words in general—but the lack of self-awareness he shows, all the while preening like Mr. Collins in Pride and Prejudice, is stunning.]
Hours later, after the conversation has moved well along, Alan Wilson cannot let it go:
... and isn’t it strange that a lot of agression from someone who could well have been either drunk or on some kind of medication, should unlock a renewed exploration of Romans… so all things do work for good!That’s quite the defense mechanism, isn’t it?
This is how he responds to being confronted with 1) someone who is in the Anglican Communion, in TEC, who 2)mocked his rhetoric and pointed out the demonstrable contradictory and inconsistent bits in it, and 3) pointed out that the various members of the thread don’t share the same faith.
Now—true or not—none of those things I said are nice or comfortable things to say. They’re not attractive or winsome to the recipients and they are certainly provocative statements [though again, those things have been said now, for years, over here in TEC]. So my assertions—whether people acknowledge them to be true or not—are certainly “high in conflict”. I wasn’t making any effort to be persuasive or convince people of my point of view.
I don’t need to be liked by them and they don’t need to be liked by me. The people are already persuaded, either way, and are already in either of the two groups. I get “thumbs ups” from people who silently audit such threads, and then others denounce me. That’s the two groups, and I understand that and accept that dynamic for what it is.
It’s sometimes unpleasant to have one’s rhetorical inconsistencies mocked and it’s sometimes unpleasant to have someone else in one’s organization point out that there’s no commonality on one’s faith.
But such a response? From a bishop who’s supposed to be mature? And self-aware?
The main thing that Alan Wilson can do when confronted with disagreement and unpleasant rhetoric it seems—is to make wild suggestions about the person with whom he disagrees being drunk, on medication, hating him, or by comparing the person to disturbed psychopathic people he met when he worked in a prison. And I haven’t included various attempted insults about “fundamentalist” hermeneutics which are merely silly straw men that he wheels out as boilerplate periodically.
Now, none of those things offend me. To be offended or hurt, I’d have to care what Alan Wilson thinks of me, and I’ve been unconcerned by being liked by revisionist activists like Alan Wilson for many years now. And, truthfully, I don’t actually think Alan Wilson, in his heart, believes that I was drunk, or on meds, or psychopathic, or full of hatred for him. I just think it helps soothe his vanity to say those sorts of things out loud in front of his tribe.
I accept that he doesn’t like his pretensions punctured. I expect he’s used to a certain amount of deference and flattery, particularly from his own particular group.
But when confronted with sharp disagreement his defense mechanism is to attempt to come up with some horrific reason [alcohol, meds, psychopathy, unreasoning hatred] why the disagreement should occur.
That’s one of the revisionist activist bishops of the COE, folks. What a telling portrait he presents.
No comments:
Post a Comment