Silence is a Bad Idea
Either we believe in openness or we don’t. If we believe in openness for others, then what does it say about us if we start talking about the virtues of a “respite” when openness becomes inconvenient for us or our allies?
Ever since this appeal for a “blogging respite” was issued, I’ve been looking for the right word to describe it, and I think I’ve finally found it:
It is offensive.
It is an offense against the intelligence of people who have - rightly - insisted on openness in TEC’s dealings, in everything from its own internal financial accounting, to its lawsuits against departing parishes, and everything in between.
I do not doubt the goodness or sincerity of those who desire a period of silence. But while public silence in some contexts can provide space for healing relationships, in public affairs it most often serves as a cloak for dysfunctional and destructive actions, even lending them an air of legitimacy.
Matthew 18 is not a gag order. Nor does it right apply to the public actions of church leaders. There has been ample opportunity for everyone involved in this mess to follow Matthew 18. What we are seeing now is almost certainly the failure, of at some of those involved, to follow Matthew 18.
Editor's Note: I find this whining both unsurprising and ironic. Stand Firm, particularly Greg Griffith, is very thin-skinned and so it's not surprising that he finds it offensive that someone would suggest that the Speculation Site (tm) is supporting and fomenting gossip about the AMIA. It's ironic because thin-skinned Greg Griffith doesn't allow openness on Stand Firm when it comes to critiquing Stand Firm.
Why the whine at this time? One reason might be that traffic is down at SFIF and controversy fuels traffic. According to alexa.com SFIF has fallen behind VirtueOnline in readership (and we know how much Greg Griffith dislikes David Virtue). VOL stands at 523,663 worldwide while SFIF has slipped to 882,113. VOL is ranked at 140,557 in the US, while SFIF is at 313,140. Don't mention this on SFIF - this is the kind of information that gets you banned from commenting.
Ever since this appeal for a “blogging respite” was issued, I’ve been looking for the right word to describe it, and I think I’ve finally found it:
It is offensive.
It is an offense against the intelligence of people who have - rightly - insisted on openness in TEC’s dealings, in everything from its own internal financial accounting, to its lawsuits against departing parishes, and everything in between.
I do not doubt the goodness or sincerity of those who desire a period of silence. But while public silence in some contexts can provide space for healing relationships, in public affairs it most often serves as a cloak for dysfunctional and destructive actions, even lending them an air of legitimacy.
Matthew 18 is not a gag order. Nor does it right apply to the public actions of church leaders. There has been ample opportunity for everyone involved in this mess to follow Matthew 18. What we are seeing now is almost certainly the failure, of at some of those involved, to follow Matthew 18.
Editor's Note: I find this whining both unsurprising and ironic. Stand Firm, particularly Greg Griffith, is very thin-skinned and so it's not surprising that he finds it offensive that someone would suggest that the Speculation Site (tm) is supporting and fomenting gossip about the AMIA. It's ironic because thin-skinned Greg Griffith doesn't allow openness on Stand Firm when it comes to critiquing Stand Firm.
Why the whine at this time? One reason might be that traffic is down at SFIF and controversy fuels traffic. According to alexa.com SFIF has fallen behind VirtueOnline in readership (and we know how much Greg Griffith dislikes David Virtue). VOL stands at 523,663 worldwide while SFIF has slipped to 882,113. VOL is ranked at 140,557 in the US, while SFIF is at 313,140. Don't mention this on SFIF - this is the kind of information that gets you banned from commenting.
No comments:
Post a Comment