Why Nobody Uses This Board Anymore

[Guest]

On another thread, "Christian" responded:

"Matt, since you are not subject to the torture the left is dishing out to any and all orthodox, you are in no position to judge whether it is torture or not. Since I am subject to the vicious attacks, backstabbing, and hidden agenda politicking of the lefties I am in a position to know. It is most certainly torture.

There is a double standard in the national church. It takes decades of actions by the aggrieved before a lefty bishop is inhibited, and that bishop gets every chance in the world to keep his position. But the inhibition papers are already drawn up for the orthodox and within hours of a opportunistic event the poor orthodox bishop is inhibited and deposed in the most draconian way possible. Our national leadership insists that our polity and processes restrict what they can do to uphold a Lambeth resolution that is opposed to their schemes, but they sure seem to be able to act unilaterally, quickly, and decisively when it is a matter supporting their own personal hidden agenda. Somehow it seems like they would find the same resolve to act should Lambeth pass a resolution supporting the pro homosexual agenda of the lefties. When does the national church interfere in the internal affairs of a diocese? Only when the diocese is negotiating in good faith with the orthodox who just want to be left alone. Strict adherence to PB authority is required.

There is a double standard in the dioceses. A lefty parish is allowed their choice of pastor in the name of democratic choice and adherence to "our polity". But let an orthodox parish try to call an orthodox priest and see how fast polity and free democratic choice are defenestrated. When was the last time an orthodox bishop sued a lefty parish and priest? It only happens in defense of a lawsuit. But lefty bishops sue the orthodox all the time.

Phil is concerned about the lack of civility here. Well I have held my peace for years while the lefties tortured the orthodox. I will hold my peace again when the lefties stop treating the orthodox like subjects in the lefty kingdom."

And to think, JimB, a liberal leaning poster, was suspended for much less.

Granted, this IS Matt's board and he probably pays for it. Probably not worth the money anymore. BRING BACK AUDREY AND EPISCOTALK!

So much hatred in the Church now days! Divided, we fall.

Guest

[angli_fan]

Guest said:

On another thread, "Guest" responded:

And to think, JimB, a liberal leaning poster, was suspended for much less.

JimB was not suspended from this board. I scolded him for accusing another board member of witchcraft, and he left of his own accord. He's welcome back any time.

Granted, this IS Matt's board and he probably pays for it.

I've noted before that the maintainance of this board does not cost me anything, at least not in money.

Probably not worth the money anymore.

You're not just whistling Dixie, buster.

Pax;

angli_fan

[Canadian Phil]

Could we say, case in point?

Really, people, do we now have to attack Matt anonomously as well? Matt has run this board for almost five years now and has tried very hard to make it a civil environment where we, liberals and conservatives, can talk and, maybe, learn to understand each other better. The fault for this situation does not rest with Matt, but with US. Perhaps we all had better start taking responsibility for our lapse of civility in recent months.

As for the fond recollection of Episcotalk, I really have to remind everyone that that forum was every bit as divisive as this one and we could not and cannot expect that it would be immune for these battles. In fact, it has always struck me as entirely appropriate, if sad, that it, like TEC, split into two successor boards (one conservative and one liberal). It would be the height of wishful thinking to think that Episcotalk (as much as I liked that board) would be any different than this one or, for that matter, the rest of Anglican blogsphere.

Surely, we have better things to do than to cast personal aspersions on each other.

Peace,
Phil

[christian]

Hmm! I notice the creator of this thread didn't say I was wrong.

The only problem with Matt is he's swallowed this lefty gnosticism. If you don't like what I say address me, don't condemn Matt for allowing me freedom of speech. Matt's doing fine (except for the left wing dogma).

I have purposefully adopted the intellectual, if you can call it that, stance of the lefties toward the orthodox. Go to Father Jake dumps on the orthodox or whatever it is. Thats how they treat the orthodox on the web and in real life. Even a supposedly moderate bishop spoke that way about the orthodox recently in a speech at my church (right after he confirmed my son-guess I should have gotten an AMIA bishop to do it).

You lefties are intellectually bankrupt so you don't want those opposed to you to be allowed to express themselves beyond a very narrow band of behavior. But of course the left observes that narrowness primarily in the breach.

For years I had my pleasantries met on the left by insult. Well now I trade insult for insult. Every time you say or think that crack about leaving you brain at the door you insult me. Every time you say or think homophobia (whatever that is) you insult me.

[Sojourner]

Every time you say or think homophobia (whatever that is) you insult me.

Can you explain this statement?

[Sojourner]

Guest: Why did you post this thread?

[Guest]

I posted here largely because, in the words of Carl Jung, I have found myself spiritually bankrupt and, in the words of Mr. Christian, as a recovering conservative, I must be "intellectually bankrupt". That and I was too lazy and impatient to wait for approval from the moderator.

My sincere apologies if I offended anyone. I used to post on Episcotalk which, in its time, enjoyed a diverse but united population of writers.

In the past few years, I have grown tired of listening to or reading the "righty vs left" debate within secular politics. Not much offends me in life except to see these wedge issues drift into religious dialogue. My reason for posting this thread is more gut reaction than well thought out reasoning.

If we as Episcopalians in particular and Anglicans in general do not begin to identify some unifying issues - such as Jesus Christ - then there is no way that we'll survive - conservative OR liberal.

Mr. Christian - you alluded that your modus openandi is in reaction to that which you have been treated by the liberal side of the coin. You should know and realize that two wrongs do not make a right.

That is all I will say on this venue. I will dissappear into that good night, erasing this board from my bookmarks not to bother anyone here again.

Again, my apologies if I truly offended anyone.

Will G. Vincent
Carmel, Calif.
(AKA Guest)

P.S. Will the last Episcopalian kindly extinguish the candles and lock the doors.

[Canadian Phil]

christian;

Just a thought or two.

I understand the temptation to fight tit for tat, but, I submit, that is neither the way that Jesus told us to deal with our opponents nor is it particularly effective and may be positively harmful to our cause. I don't think I have to go back and quote passages on the first contention, so I'll focus on the second.

You and I both know the caricature of the conservative so well we probably repeat it in our sleep. We both have had it flung at us, both personally and impersonally (as part of a general contempt for orthodoxy) often enough to know what precisely is meant: inflexible, irascible, fundamentalist etc, etc. What concerns me about your tactics is that it merely gives more evidence to that caricature. That is, you are playing the role that you are expected to play. It only gives liberals the permission to disregard everything you and other conservatives say because, who would listen to that kind of person? I wouldn't.

There is a middle ground here. I have been very firm on this board about where I stand, even when more heat than light is being produced, but I have always made sure that I've done it without resorting to these kind of tactics. And I expect my opponents to do the same. If they don't, I call them on it respectfully. I think Sojourner and Swick will attest to this. The reason for my protest below is precisely because what you are trying to do isn't working, but rather just encourages your and other people's anger and encourages people to ignore pretty much anything good that is coming out of your mouth.

Really, what this question hinges on is what are you on this board to do? Are you trying to explain/defend orthodoxy or vent your anger? If it is the former object, I suggest that your tone is fighting your intentions because your opponents have stopped listening. If it is the latter, I suggest that you re-read how Jesus dealt with is enemies and what he said about holding onto anger against one's brother.

This all comes out as presumptuous and self-righteous, I know, so you can dismiss it on that score, I'm sure. Yet, I am taking the privilege of being your Christian brother and calling you to account publically. For what it is worth, this is kindly meant.

Peace,
Phil

[Canadian Phil]

Will;

On the chance that you look in:

I think your heart is the right place and I deplore the same divisions that you deplore. I'm sorry if you feel I jumped on you, but I thought the criticism of Matt was unfair, so I felt I should jump to his defence. My experience of Matt is that he has worked very hard to keep a civil tone on this board at times when people were feeling particularly uncivil. The degree of his success (which is considerable, taken together) redounds to his credit, as I think even christian agrees.

I find myself as weary as yourself about the conservative-liberal splits. One of the reasons I haven't posted much recently is that I felt a. I am a Canadian Anglican, so not directly affected by the debacle which is the TEC currently and b. I've commented enough about the subject to be tired of hearing my own voice.

I hope you do consider return, even if only to this board (really the registration procedure isn't bad). I also hope we can get onto other topics one day...maybe.

Peace,
Phil

[Sojourner]

Will: thank you for explaining your original post. I just want to comment that I regularly posted on the EpiscoTalk board for a few years before its demise. I don't know if you were around when it finally blew apart, but blow apart it did. In fact, Audrey gave up the board, as I recall, in utter frustration with the bitterness which increased on a weekly basis. Bringing back EpiscoTalk as it was in, I believe, 2004 would do nothing to fix the problems you ascribe to the current Episcopal Voices. In fact, the rancor on this board is no greater (and perhaps less) than that which appeared daily in the 2004 version of EpiscoTalk.

As to your comments regarding JimB. Let us not forget the time that Audrey was off the board and left her husband, Tony, in charge. Tony questioned one of Jim's postings and Jim took umbrage and quite publicly left the board at that time. I post this fact only to place a little context around JimB's last (but not only) departure from the board.

I give one final observation to your post. I do not believe that the success or failure of this board (although success and failure may ascribe to much value to a simple message board) has much to do with the moderator. In my veiw Audrey was a little quick to pull the trigger on posters and was more likely to impose her own personal judgements on the board -- the ban on the use of the word "papist" for example -- whereas Matt has maintained a far more "hands off" approach. Matt's great contribution to this board is measured in the number of threads he has started. The success or failure of boards like these rests with the number of posters who actually spend time on the board. That number, particularly if they represent a wide variety of opinions, is what really keeps a board vibrant and healthy. The problem with this board, it seems to me, is that you, and lots of others, do not post. I have a point of view which is fairly dogmatic. I, like Christian, have encountered enough bitterness and hostility, that I have to constantly check myself so that I don't become the hateful, rage-filled, over-the-top cretin that I am prone to be. As you will note in another post, I really miss Phil, because he and I don't agree on a whole lot, but Phil was always good for me. And, Will, you could be good for me and others on the board, because you add a different view, a different voice.

Looking back at the halcyon days of EpiscoTalk (pre-2003) it was not unusual to find a thread that included responses from upwards of 15 posters. That was 15 completely different opinions. We had an Anglo-Catholic, an Eastern Orthodox, Broad Church, High Church, Low Church, Evangelical, liberal, ultra-liberal and Phil. For the most part, the board operated without moderation because there were enough participants that the board could police itself. (The more I think about it, the most damaging moments to the board were when the moderator felt compelled to intercede, but that's just an opinion).

I join with Phil in welcoming you and hope that you will join the in the fray.

PS: I generally question weekly why I waste my time here. In the past few months I have frequently considered deleting this site from my Favorites. However, your post has challenged me to continue on, and certainly would love to have a lot more people to join the fray.

[Ginger]

I dont post much, and while I read more than I post, thats not saying much. Its not because I am uninterested. Its because, unlike Anglifan, I cannot remain level headed when the things I deeply believe are uncategorically attacked, dismissed out of hand or viciously skewed. So I can appreciate the perspective that says "I am not going to take this anymore". On the other hand, I dont have the intestinal fortitude to argue with every mischaracterization that gets posted.

This board has been good for me because it has reinforced for me that sometimes the most tactful thing I can do is shut up I think Matt has done a very level handed job of addressing issues, posting articles of interest (Please note, he rarely needs to provide a balanced view for conservatives when finding articles because Robin usually covers that perspective.).

Still, I have to say unless you are willing to step into his shoes, dont assume you know how hard this job is. There are times when he agonizes over how to handle the posts that pop up here. The rare times he has spoken up and taken someone to task he has been distressed for days while the issue was going on. Being fair and gracious to those who diametrically oppose you with a vengence is NOT an easy thing to do. I dont blame Audrey for walking away, and sometime I wish this was not something Matt feels so strongly about, because I see it sometimes hurts him.

He loves this church. He loves his Lord. I think we are lucky he is willing to continue to provide a place where we can express our opinions in love.

And I would feel that way even if he wasnt my spouse.

Cynthia

[Discussions on Episcotalk]

I try to provide some balance, Ginger. There is more than one perspective of what is happening in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion and liberals and conservatives interpret events differently. Both sides of the various issues want the rest of the world to embrace their point of view and say "Yes, you're right. That is exacltly what is going on." Indeed much of what is posted is intended to influence perceptions of what is happening. I believe that the different viewpoints should be posted and let the individual decide for himself what he believes.

[christian]

Well..

I would disagree a bit. No surprise there. I don't expect people to agree with me, I just want the lefties to admit that it is they who are forcing their world view on the orthodox, and not the other way around. It is the lefties who have taken the levers of power in TEC and are now using that power to consolidate their authority and marginalize and eventually force out the orthodox. It is the lefties who are attempting to use the power of the government to force the rest of us follow their dictates.

I have no respect for the lefties because they hurl insults when the vacuous nature of their arguments is revealed. This is not true of all lefties, but precious few of them oppose the practice.

In response to Sojourner's question, the word homophobia, what ever that is, is spat as an irrational fear of homosexuals. By calling those who disagree with you "homophobes" you are attempting to dismiss their concerns as the rantings of a fool. Hence you are calling them stupid, or brainless. Jesus warned about saying raca, or empty headed. It's just like implying that someone "left their brain at the door".

[Canadian Phil]

christian;

I agree that the world-view question you raise is infuriating. Many of my posts on this forum and elsewhere have focused on holding up a mirror to show exactly that. One of the annoying things about many liberals is that they are entirely unconscious that this is what they are doing. That is, they treat their assumptions as so obviously true that they can't necessarily think that someone arguing another position may have reason on their side. It is this whole concept both of an abstract, universal reason which is a hallmark of liberal philosophy and that this reason resides with a liberal-empiricist position. There is a reason why this feels like a kind of cultural imperialism--because, in many ways, it is. Certainly, to the same degree, that Christianity (with its universal claims) has been accused.

Yet, to be very fair, I've found people on this board who have been willing to see that image in the mirror and start trying to see how one might question it. I don't think I've changed minds on this board, but I have made people more thoughtful. I take that as a victory.

Still, I'm not prepared to treat this as a conspiracy. It is a logical consequence, perhaps, of liberal ideology, but, then, I suspect that same kind of blindness can be laid at my door. What our common Christianity calls us, however, is transcend these merely ideological divisions and seek God's will. May we continue on our path to do that.

Peace,
Phil
Peace,
Phil

[Guest]

There is something awfully ignorant and uneducated about using the term "lefty" to sling dung at persons who you disagree with.

But then, maybe in the spirit of the American Government, we should show some of these liberal Christians some Christian tough love and water board each and every one of them until they convert to the true orthodox (lower-case o) Christianity of Evangelical Protestantism.