Post Number: 1698
|Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - 10:20 am: || |
So my favorite blog, actually the only blog I read on any kind of a regular basis, is "Her.meneutics". As the clever name implies, it's written by women for women so obviously I'm not the intended audience. However, it's so well done that it hardly matters who the primary audience is; there are plenty of thought provoking articles for all.
I just read one today that made me think of something that I (and perhaps others on this forum) struggle with from time to time: grace in my discourse on the internet. I believe the author is younger than I am, but what she says about her generation is probably just as true of mine; we tend to default to sarcasm. This is something I struggle with in any environment, but the internet has a way of amplifying my problem.
Check out this piece. If you only have a minute or two to spare, skip down to the third and last section. It's worth thinking about.
Post Number: 13737
|Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - 1:44 pm: || |
Thank you, Chris. That is a provocative post, and the author makes such an important point: on the internet we have to practice the same grace and compassion we would practice sitting with another in our own living rooms.
My younger son Nathanael calls it "internet persona"—the tendency we have to sound RIGHT and BRIGHT and inarguable. In person, many of the most apparently offensive are pretty insecure.
Thanks for sharing this blog, Chris.
Post Number: 112
|Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - 4:37 pm: || |
I earnestly say I have a respect for anyone that can read a novel in a poetic prose, it's like verbal rubix cube.
We are supposed to be loving, but WAS the book promoting falsity and mysticism? Either it was or it wasn't. If it was then the reviewer's obligation wasn't toward political correctness or diplomatic facade, which are both among the most impersonal and on occasion hateful things I have ever experienced. If it wasn't promoting falsity and mysticism, then the author deserved the apology.
One man's mysticism is another man's, well, mysticism.
This thread reminds me of something that's been on my mind for a few days now, however, but the topic deserves its own post.
Post Number: 15
|Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 - 6:14 am: || |
The reviewer does a nice job of differentiating between disagreement with an author's theology and treating the author with with love and respect in his apology to the author
Post Number: 1699
|Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 - 9:57 am: || |
I haven't read the book or Tim Challis' review of it so I'm not making any attempt to comment on whether or not it has serious issues. I find that I agree with Challis quite a bit of the time so it seems entirely possible to me that there are serious errors that need to be pointed out. My point in posting the blog piece really had to do with "tone" is discourse. It's possible to adamantly disagree with someone else, but do it in a very kind, measured, polite, and earnest way. It's possible, it's just really, really hard.....especially on the internet. That was my point apart from the merits or demerits of the book.
Post Number: 1700
|Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 - 10:10 am: || |
Perhaps this is on my mind because I have just finished writing a piece for Proclamation! that is about as verbally hard hitting as I've ever been in print. At one point I agonized over this wondering if I should try to rewrite with more of a "clinical" voice. But I couldn't. I had just spent 5 months researching and writing on something that felt more abhorrently evil and dark every time I returned to it. It was a lot of time spent in darkness with the final week of writing being a truly low point of oppression for me. I did tone down some of what I had outlined to write in my head, but I couldn't keep some of that experience and emotion from coming out onto the page. Others will have to judge if it was too much. Sometimes it's really tough to know exactly where that line is when you're dealing with really bad stuff, which is why this blog piece really hit me and spoke to me as a cautionary sermon.
Post Number: 114
|Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 - 10:30 am: || |
Sure Chris, and text can be a really poor medium for gauging emotion or intent. I've forgotten about this until recently, if someone takes the "Well I'm not going to coddle because this is a serious issue." stance, it can easily be interpreted by the readers as anything from mildly rude or insensitive or unloving, to downright hateful.
And it's also important for us all to remember, unlike the Luciferian/gnostic symbology of a fishing pole(hook), Christ Jesus of Nazareth used a net, and called fishers who used nets their whole life to catch fish. (regarding the scripture about fishers of men). I think these metaphors say a lot about our King as well as our adversary. fish in a net are not harmed and can be thrown back in, can flop out and into the water, whereas the adversary wants a person to believe there is no escape from a harmful captivity. ... if that makes any sense.
Post Number: 13739
|Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 - 7:15 pm: || |
Chris, your piece is hard-hitting, but it is not rude. It is amazingly powerful. It needed to be said, and our regular proof-readers have liked it also. While I understand the issue of "tone", sometimes things need to be said really straight so people actually SEE beyond the drone of familiar words.
Y'all will enjoy this next magazine which I'm nearly ready to turn over to Richard for design.
Post Number: 118
|Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 8:35 am: || |
So Proclamation! is a Former Adventist newsletter, I'm guessing?
Post Number: 2704
|Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 12:15 pm: || |
Proclamation has news yes, but it's much more.
Log on here and be sure to read back issues online:
Post Number: 38
|Posted on Saturday, June 02, 2012 - 8:49 pm: || |
Proclamation! is a christian magazine that clearly presents the grace of our Lord to all who wish to get a better undetstanding of this gift.