17 Comments on Talking AT somebody vs. talking TO somebody

Alan on Thu, 15th Mar 2007 5:52 pm


Excellent post, Mark. For me this is the difference between someone who is a Pastor, and someone who is a Preacher. I think, looking at your examples, we can clearly see the difference.

jim on Thu, 15th Mar 2007 8:44 pm


While Bill is a friend of mine from our days together in New Orleans and is one of the many reasons why I’m in ministry today, I am very alarmed (though I guess not entirely surprised) at the tenor of his recent posts, especially the one you point us to today.

Christine Kooi on Fri, 16th Mar 2007 2:15 pm


I’m afraid my comments on Rev. Crawford’s weblog may have helped prompt his new more censorious comment policy. Apparently he prefers not to invite dissenting opinions vigorously expressed. Well, it is his blog and he certainly has the right to control its content. Still, closing off the conversation to all those who might disagree with you seems, at the very least, unpastoral. Talking to (or at) only those who agree with you is neither teaching nor learning.

jodie on Sat, 17th Mar 2007 11:49 am


Mark,

I read the Will Spotts blog and commentary and you are quite right both about his approach and that of Bill Crawford’s. Bill seemed to be literally saying he only wants to preach to the choir and that in so doing he expects to bring about some kind of change! To his credit though he seemed a bit conflicted in his stance, so maybe he will come about.

Jodie

Bill Crawford on Sat, 17th Mar 2007 1:50 pm


Let’s find out how open this forum is:

Actually Christine it was my lack of patience with you that caused me to take your advice and limit the scope of the blog. I was humbled by that exchange and I publicly apologized to you. I do not find my blog a helpful place to argue or discuss our great differences it is impossible to show compassion while disagreeing in this format – time does not allow it. The time that week performing two funerals, visiting an elder who had a heart attack, praying with an expectant mother who faced a deep fear of miscarriage, counseling a marriage in distress, working with an alcoholic, preaching the word of God to the people of God, leading three bible studies, parenting a family of three just didn’t allow for a full discourse on the matter – I didn’t mention these things in my apology because my tone with you was still unexcused.

I did not mention anyone by name because that is something I consider inappropriate.

Mark,

Rather than even try to answer your many assertions let me just state the simple facts:

My blog is ultimately “my forum” – this is “your forum” and you’ve just used it to personally attack me by name. There is a clear difference between attacking an individual and “tongue and cheek” criticizing a particular idea or world view.

So who did you talk “TO” in this post? I’m feeling “talked about” today. I’ll go wash the tomatoes off and get back to work. Just a thought; “who are the Pharisees here?”

Have a nice day, unless you’ve made other plans.

Mark on Sat, 17th Mar 2007 2:18 pm


Bill,

As you can see, your comment stands as written. I have never deleted a comment that wasn’t spam.

Yes, I criticized you by name. I will do the same whenever I see someone trying to limit engagement with others who disagree. I have done it in the past with Tom Gray of Kirk of the Hills when he began censoring comments on his blog to limit them to weed out those that “are just trying to get under my skin”.

What I’m criticizing is the lack of discourse between “enemies”. Will and I are on opposite sides of the coin on many of the issues that divide the PC(USA) at this time, but we are speaking respectfully to each other and are trying to find common ground. You’ve said on your own blog that you invite me to continue commenting to “give it a try” and see if I find myself being censored too much. I reply – you will never be censored from this blog unless you go WAY over the top in terms of language (foul) or personal attacks on third parties (somebody other than you or I). Or if you try to sell Viagra or get people to send money to Nigeria, you’ll be censored too.

What I have a real problem with is deleting comments based on non-insulting and non-obscene content. You’ve said that your comment policy limits comments to those that “represent the evangelical, reformed, orthodox Christian perspective”. How do you plan to have any two-way dialogue with those who hold another point of view? Isn’t that our job as evangelists?

Who did I talk TO? Clearly, YOU. You even replied. You’ve thought again about the issue that I raise. I really don’t like raising someone as a negative example, and I apologize for any assertions that are untrue (and please tell me which ones those are).

There are lots of blogs that do not even allow comments. I’m pretty sure that the blogging site that you’re using allows you to turn them off, probably at an individual post level. If you don’t want negative comments, turn them off. If you prefer to advertise to the world that nobody disagrees with you, then by all means choose to censor comments that disagree with you. But don’t be surprised if somebody calls you on it.

I would like to have a nice day, but I spent the first half chipping an inch and a half of ice off the driveway and sidewalks. Maybe it’ll get better.

Bill Crawford on Sat, 17th Mar 2007 2:33 pm


Mark,

“The world” isn’t the forty to eighty people who read my blog. And how I choose to interact with the world is my free right -think about it. I don’t take myself half as seriously as you think I do.

Now I really do have work to do thanks for your time.

Dave Moody on Sat, 17th Mar 2007 2:52 pm


Terribly bad form Mark. I’m pretty sure talking ABOUT someone in public is far less gracious than talking AT someone in public. To use your own words.

If you were hoping to raise the level of discourse, it would have been appropriate to ask Bill, if you could use his name in your blog. Or write him via email with yoru concerns. Instead you got personal, and did the blogsphere equivalent of gossip. No conversation stopper there.

Bill made a policy on his blog, he invited us all to test it out. You attacked him personally in your blog (it was an attack, specific and pointed) instead of giving Bill the dignity to make his own decisions for his own reasons.

dm

Mark on Sat, 17th Mar 2007 3:05 pm


Dave,

You’re assuming that I didn’t try to talk to Bill. He has already censored one of my comments on his blog (which was just as innocuous as my comment that DOES appear).

I seriously doubt that Bill asked permission of John E. Harris to use his name when he said “Mr. Harris’ editorial is pretty sad really.” and “Mr. Harris has been playing presbyterian politics too long.” I’m not saying that two wrongs make a right. What I am saying is that you’d better be prepared to operate under the same rules that YOU are following.

A blog is an open statement to the world. If you’re going to have one of these, you’d better be prepared to face criticism. Clearly, that’s happening with me today. I’m handling it one way – by responding to that criticism. Bill has chosen another way – keeping that criticism out of the light of day.

Which is better?

One definition of “gossip” (the most pertinent) is: “Rumor or talk of a personal, sensational, or intimate nature.” A blog is not personal – it’s public. It’s certainly not intimate – it’s you and the world. And I really doubt that my comments or Bill’s blog could be considered “sensational”.

jodie on Sat, 17th Mar 2007 6:41 pm


Humm…

I don’t think “gossip” is the right analogy either. This form of discourse – this blogsphere – is still highly experimental and we all haven’t gotten the bugs out of it yet. There are many boundary issues involved and putting personal thoughts and feelings out there in the open where anybody on the planet can read and use them as they wish can have unpredictable consequences.

Mark was making a point about fair and useful modes of discourse, what works and what doesn’t. Rather than just trying to explain it he directed us to two examples. His point is well taken.

If a bloger puts their comments up and dis-invites responses, then it just feels like reading a magazine article and it defeats the power of the Internet. There are plenty of magazines out there already.

On the other hand, I am amazed at the way some pastors openly discuss their church business on the blogsphere the way they do. I work for a large multinational corporation that would fire me on the spot if I spoke out publicly about it or my colleagues in ways remotely related to the way these guys talk about their own corporation and colleagues.

Be that as it may, Bill is right about one thing: The “institution” of the PCUSA is a far cry from healthy. But as in any institution, the health of an organization is merely a reflection of the health of its members. You won’t find health in new org charts, doctrines and procedures. The conservatives keep saying so, but my corporate experience tells me otherwise.

Jodie

Christine on Sat, 17th Mar 2007 7:36 pm


Rev. Crawford can make his blog whatever he wants, be it a place of open conversation or a soapbox; that’s his privilege. His decision to censor comments is regrettable, but it is his to make. What makes the web such a complicated medium is that its (largely) unedited contents are instantaneously public, and anyone with a computer can read them. And if there’s a mechanism available to react, people will use it.
I’ve encountered this disinclination to converse with those of different opinions among other conservative Presbyterians elsewhere, who by using labels like “orthodoxy” and “heresy” effectively close off any hope of dialogue. One does wonder what those who consider themselves “orthodox” are so afraid of. Such an attitude also suggests a fair degree of historical unawareness; after all, disagreement is as old as Christianity itself. And as a professional historian, I can tell you that the language used in Protestant v. Catholic pamphlet polemics during the Reformation in the sixteenth century was far more poisonous, vituperative and personal than anything I have seen on any blog. Discourse, fortunately, ain’t what it used to be.

jodie on Sat, 17th Mar 2007 8:02 pm


Yes,

I’ve read some excerpts of those pamphlets. They remind me of old Saturday Night Live skits. Funny even. Long and gratefully gone are the days when we used to burn witches and heretics at the stake.

But it would be a mistake to assume that human nature has changed. Given half a chance, those same forces could make a comeback. I think they have in some places of the world.

Jodie

PS as an aside, the use of the term “orthodox” seems anachronistic to me. The Roman Catholics split away from the Orthodox Church at least 500 years before the Reformation, and as best as I can tell the Reformers were not looking back at the Orthodox for role models but were rather moving on. Is the use of the term “orthodox” by Presbyterian Conservatives even … orthodox?

Christine on Sat, 17th Mar 2007 8:40 pm


I suspect the conservatives believe they are using the term “orthodox” in the same manner as the early church fathers did, especially Augustine, who spent much of his intellectual career defining what was right belief, or orthodoxy, as opposed to the various paganisms and heresies of the late Roman world he disapproved of. One of the reasons why the 16th-century Reformers seldom used the word orthodoxy was its associations with its polar opposite, heresy. The Catholic church was already denouncing them as heretics, so they tried to sidestep the accusation by referring to their faith as “true” or “evangelical” rather than “orthodox.” I don’t think the self-designated “orthodox” of our present-day denomination have anything to do with modern institutional Orthodoxy. It is interesting how the word has come into modern Protestant usage, at least in some circles.

will spotts on Sat, 17th Mar 2007 10:17 pm


Mark (et al)- I was troubled/saddened by this post, and I didn’t want to respond until I could identify why.

On one hand, your comments toward me were very gracious, and I appreciate that very much. I find our discussions to have been productive and interesting – and I am enjoying them. I also find we agree far more than one might imagine. I very much believe in the need for honest conversation – so I suppose I get the point you are going for here.

That said, Bill is a friend of mine. I do not believe you are fairly representing him. As several comments indicate, there are many issues to blogging that we haven’t sorted out yet – what is our purpose? Who is our audience? When do comments cross the line into being abusive? How best ought one to respond to personal attacks? Is there a point at which continuing to talk past one another is just a waste of time? To what degree does blogging make us public figures? All of these are legitimate questions – and the speed and ease of the technology let us fire off things we might think better of if they required more time/effort.

There is a valid point about fair and helpful modes of communication under consideration here; and I would be very supportive of all efforts to work toward that end. I still have to say, however, that I notice in places various comments have departed from that standard. For example, there are generalizations about persons ‘conservative’, and observations about linguistic choices that close off conversation on one side only (these occur frequently on both sides of the issues that divide Presbyterians).

Two tangential observations: first I don’t believe one will be successful at trying to find accurate historical analogues for our current situation – even if they serve the purpose of being suitably unflattering.

Second, the use of the word ‘orthodox’ is clearly in the sense of the Patristic Writers through Augustine. It is difficult to find a word that can describe the particular set of beliefs involved – that, in point of fact, were held by the majority of Presbyterians historically. I tend to use ‘traditional’ most frequently because I don’t like the confusion over ‘orthodox’ (e.g. the Eastern Orthodox, or, for that matter, the OPC), I don’t like the political agenda triggered by ‘conservative’, and I don’t like the modern confusion over ‘evangelical’. Of course, ‘traditional’ is a gross misnomer as well – as it either invokes worship styles, liturgy, etc. or the habits of the past that have no biblical basis. It is a little surprising to me that those of us – whatever one wishes to call us – who adhere to a particular, well-defined, set of beliefs are criticized on the basis of our name?

Mark on Sat, 17th Mar 2007 11:22 pm


There’s a lot to answer here since I left to visit my parents this afternoon.

Will,

I know Bill Crawford through one medium – the Internet, his blogs, and his comments on other blogs. While you say that I am not fairly representing him, I would answer that I am fairly representing him, as he appears to me through that medium. If he is different in “real life”, then you may be correct. However, I am also discussing his behavior within that same medium. I will stipulate that if you know of him outside of this electronic world, you may see him differently.

Several others have commented that I got the tenor of Bill’s post right. Perhaps this is a difference in perception based on which side of the “orthodox” line Bill has placed each of us in the past.

Christine and others have a very valid point about the use of the words “orthodox”, “heresy”, and “apostasy”. I have mentioned this in the past here and in comments on other blogs. These words are being used as weapons by those who identify themselves as being against “progressives” or “liberals”. They are used to place those with whom they disagree into a neat little box which they then feel free to ignore and even to insult.

I have re-read my original post in light of the “rules” set down in your post, Will. I do not believe that I have violated any of them save the rule requiring mutual respect. I believe that I have respected Bill here as much as he has respected me, a self-named progressive. In fact, he said this on your blog post referenced above:

“I think that nearly half the fight we are facing today is a result of the gasoline of progressive politics being poured upon the fire of our theological differences.

Guess I broke that rule.”

I am comfortable with what I wrote. I mentioned Bill as an example of a trend amongst those who self-identify as being against “the progressive agenda”. Several of them regularly insult those who identify with progressive ideas (or any ideas that do not meet their version of “orthodox”) and when they get tired of doing so, they censor comments based on their version of “orthodox”. I have yet to see a progressive blogger do the same. Provide an example, and I promise to mention that blog here as well.

I also mentioned you as someone who at the very least is uncomfortable with some progressive ideas, but who accepts and invites respectful debate on your own blog. Point and counterpoint.

An alternative would have been to describe these concepts in general, but then I’d likely be accused of generalizing the actions of a few over an entire group – a violation of one of the rules mentioned in your post referenced here. I chose specific examples.

Christine on Sun, 18th Mar 2007 10:17 am


I agree with Will Spotts that the issue of labels is a thorny one. I certainly have no objection if someone wishes to designate him- or herself “orthodox.” The paradox with orthodoxy is that its meanings within the Christian tradition have actually changed over time; it is not nearly as static a notion as it sounds. My objection is more focused on orthodoxy’s tendency to designate those who differ as heretics, effectively placing them beyond the pale of the Christian community. That kind of thinking leads to things like inquisitions.

I use “liberal” and “conservative” in their broadest possible cultural senses, that is, conservatives prefer to preserve established institutions and ideas and tend to resist change, while liberals prefer freer interpretations of existing ideas and tend to favor change (I’m using dictionary definitions here). Trouble is, these meanings don’t square entirely either: my theology is liberal but I much prefer traditional Reformed liturgy, while most of the theologically conservative PC(USA) congregations I’m familiar with have eagerly embraced such liturgical innovations as praise music, projection screens and amplified musical instruments. And, as Will points out, these two terms are loaded with associations with the current political climate.

Faith, ultimately, is the gift of God, and therefore a mystery. That people, even within the same denomination, differ on how that faith should be described or expressed or acted upon is not something I find particularly troubling. I much prefer being a member of an inclusive rather than an exclusionary church. Fortunately, God is infinitely bigger than any box we try to put Him or Her in, and transcends all our labels.

Alan on Tue, 20th Mar 2007 5:24 pm


Mark,

As far as I can tell there’s nothing gossipy about this post. You’re not talking about someone behind their back, you’re using an example of a public blog post. If someone doesn’t want their blog posts critiqued, then perhaps they shouldn’t have a blog in the first place. And one can’t help but notice the irony of Rev. Bill coming to your blog to post a comment to complain — something it appears he’d never allow on his own blog.

The best definition I know of “humility” is “teachability”. If we only allow ourselves to hear the voices of those we agree with, we’re not being very teachable and thus certainly not humble. But it is comforting, no doubt, to be constantly affirmed about just how correct we are.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!