July 25, 2007

• To my "friend"

  I received another invitation to be "friends" with someone, so I clicked the link to see who this person was.  I'd never noticed a comment from anyone with that name and I'd never visited that site before so it was a matter of curiosity.  Who would ask to befriend someone they don't know at all.

  In cyberspace, the "real" rules of friendship don't apply.  I understand that.  There is no passing through casual acquaintance to a place of mutual understanding and shared pleasures.  There is no commitment or loyalty.  But still, shouldn't the word "friend" mean something more than entry into a cast of thousands?  Shouldn't there be something that you would like about the other person?  Or some shared interest to give a semblance of mutuality?

  The person who sent me the invitation obviously doesn't know anything about me nor do I care to know anything more about her than I learned in a half hour of clicking through blogs and comments displayed like so much unclean underwear on that site.

  The ostensible theme of the blog was "spiritual exploration" but the overt reality was that it's dedicated to attacking and attempting to ridicule Christianity.  Now I want to be very clear here, I am a Christian.  Compared with various mainstream theological schools, I'm a little bit odd in my leaning.  (And I'm sure that many if called upon to examine my views would call me a heretic outright.)  I'm not going to get into the particulars here.  But suffice it to say that I have a very open view of God, of the soteriologicial sufficiency of grace through faith, and that grace leads to virtue rather than virtue calling grace. 

  Yesterday I saw a license plate on a racy little convertible "GRRRACE" and I loved that.  I know a little about the man who drives that car and it might be that one day I'll write something of his story.

  But that's a tangent.

  What I do not believe in is attacking the beliefs of other people.  I don't believe in using fallacious or ad hominen attacks to attempt to ridicule beliefs with which I don't agree.  And I don't believe in practicing any kind of vicious, disrespectful, degrading, or otherwise unpleasant "dialogue."  And frankly, I believe that anyone who resorts to such has already lost the argument.  So I have nothing to say at that point. 

  If you desire to engage me in a conversation, I'm up for that.  I'm even up for that kind of intense discussion of doctrinal points which can rightly be termed an argument in the strict definition of the term.  But I have no time to waste with people who have nothing better to do than sit around and shout slurs at each other.  And btw, I include in that group some of the "christian" (and yes I deliberately used a little c) groups who espouse hate and exclusion toward other groups of people.

  My view is that anytime you identify yourself with a "group" you are in danger of forgetting that such distinctions are artificial and always to some degree arbitrary.  Certainly there are groups within the family of man, but we are all part of the same larger family.  And I find it really tiresome that some of the brothers and sisters can't seem to find a way to avoid squabbling at the table instead of just enjoying the banquet spread before them. 

  And having said all that, I'm declining to join in friendship with the person who contacted me yesterday.  I have no ill-will toward her.  But I'm not interested in reading any more of the nastiness perpetuated there under the banner of "open" discussion.

  

  • 6:42 am
  • 8 Comments