09.13.04

representative leadership, online communications, and a personal story

Posted in philosophy at 9:34 am by

It’s hard for me to tell this story. It still rather hurts. But, I think part of the healing process for me is to find some of the truth that’s wrapped up in the situation. Part of the reason it hurts is that I’m certainly part of the cause of the hurt. In a way I’m partially at fault for the way things went down. I just get so fired up sometimes.

It all started not this past summer but the one before. That’d be the summer of 2003. Calvin College played host to a new festival–the festival of faith and music. (Which is, by the way, coming back to Grand Rapids this year if any of y’all is particularly interested in the influence or confluence of popular music and faith. I know I’ll be there–my friends Kari and James are on the planning committee.) It’s an offshoot of sorts of the popular Festival of Faith and Writing, which, by the way, is also a wonderful use of a few April days.

Anyway, I didn’t go to the Festival of Faith and Music. But, circulated at that event were some magazines from a new publisher, Relevant Media Group. If you’re at all farmiliar with Relevant, as they’re commonly referred to, you would also know that they’ve published a few of Steve Stockman’s books, for example Walk On: The Spiritual Jouney of U2, an essential for a U2 fan such as myself.

At the time, I worked at Calvin. Eventually, a copy of the magazine made it back to my little cubicle. Initially, I liked what I saw. A magazine that was willing to examine the influence of Christianity on pop culture and the kicker AND VICE VERSA! (It bears importance that I’m not interested in critiquing the magazine in this post–although, I’ve offered a thought or two on the general philosophy that undergirds their mission elsewhere in these hallowed pages.

So, initially, I liked the magazine enough to look up the website. Lo and behold, what do I find but a message board community. My heart jumps for glee. I had recently started the earliest incarnation of badchristian.com so I was thrilled to find like minded folk out there. I joined the message board community that day.

Message boarding can become an obcessive behavior, and quickly. The minute I got home from work, or at lunch hour, Relevant Boards became my creative, cultural, economic, and political outlet. I was surprised to find, however, the sharp disagreement that many of my progressive views regarding things like homosexuality, affirmative action, being a democrat, or being anti-Bush garnered. This sharp disagreement was a good thing. It sharpened both me and my adversaries (and yes, I think the use of the term adversaries is warranted in this case.)

Admittedly, I had a hard (and hot) head. I was out to change minds and radically transform the community into a “like-Brandon-minded” place. Funny how that never works. And here is my first critique of the place, which really has to do more with the medium of a message board, than with the Relevant Boards themselves. Each person stands (or should stand) on equal ground. Arguments move back and forth. It’s far too easy to use the place as a battle ground than anything else. Listening is kept at a minimum. It could be both good and bad that views share equal value–in this case it seemed bad.

For example, on a blog I can write whatever it is that I please. You may disagree vehemently, but ultimately all you can do is offer a comment. The main point is the same–my post. The words are there for all to evaluate before commenting or having other (more or less influential folks) evaluate that post publicly before you read it. My words remain largely untwisted by your perspective. On the Relevant Boards (the RB ) folks seemed to take almost sexual pleasure in the twisting of words to validate their opinions. The place was–and seems to continue to be from my infrequent visits–a breeding ground for the use of the straw man fallacy to tear down not just positions but people. I did this to folks and folks did this to me. Largely, along with our mutual passions for the truth, I blame the medium for this. People there, again, myself included, used the place wrongly. Arguing became an end in and of itself, rather than argument’s close bedfellow: discussion. Discussion, is of course, a MEANS to an end either of agreement or of respectful disagreement.

It’s not to say that this never happened or happens on the RB. But it is certainly not the central stated goal of the place.

Over time, I softened my messages regarding politics, theology, and the like. I didn’t relinquish my views but valued community over the idolotry of winning an argument. There were a few things, however, that I did not relinquish. These things eventually led to my demise as a Relevant Board community member.

I held, and still do hold, that the leadership of the RB was not and is not representative leadership. The moderators and administrators of the forum were made up of folks who banded together. This I understand and certainly condone. A united front is necessary for good leadership. However, a united front does not necessarily imply that each voice has the same opinions. The active leadership of those boards seemed to be to be biased toward the conservative faction. Thus it doesn’t surprise me that the overwhelmingly continuously active faction of the boards remained to be the conservativeish bunch.

Needless to say, I wasn’t in the clique. However, due to my hard headedness, I stuck around. I wasn’t about to be forced out of a community because of my “scandalous” political or theological views…even if I was accused of spurious logic by folks who hadn’t the philosophical training of a goat.

Eventually, after one two many deleted “liberal slanting” posts from myself and others, I expressed my frustration with the supposed deletion and alteration of such threads by the leadership of the board. Further compounding my frustration was the fact that it was never taken up with me when I was to have a post changed. It seemed that there were several “sacred cows” not to be touched by liberal reason running around in cognito on the RB. I touched a cow.

I was publicly informed–which I certainly don’t mind as my comment was a publicly posted one–that I was an ass, a trouble maker, and that my comment spoke for itself as to my immaturity and foolishness. I would be permanently banned from the message boarding community. A permanent ban. As close as I can tell, it’s because I questioned the leadership.

Now that’s dangerous leadership. If it had just been me, it wouldn’t be so bad. But this has become something of a pattern there. (I think a few of us banned folk should get some sort of badge or something for being permanently excommunicated.) It’s this that frustrates me. The theology of a permanent ban is, to me, utterly reprehensible. I simply cannot imagine a reality in which Christians FOREVER cut ties with other Christians because they vehemently disagree. I would liken that to my saying that since Rev. Falwell and I disagree vehemently, he deserves to be cut off from the fellowship of the church.

Had I been treated with love and respect, I wouldn’t have been nearly as venemous as I admit that I was. So, from all this mess, I’d like to draw out some truths.

Disagreement between majority and minority voices is a tenuous relationship. Not bad, but tenuous. That disagreement must be handled carefully. When the majority is in leadership, the majority has a special responsibility to the minority. The minority must be treated with special reverence–they are an endangered voice. In the case of the RB that endangered voice is systematically chased off under the guise that it’s not the voice but the attitude behind the voice that’s the problem.

I posit this: that reprehensible attitude didn’t come from nowhere. We see this in the Church now days as well. Majority players seem to think that because they don’t get all upset about things that when minority players do–they’re in the wrong. The truth is that the attitude comes, not from the disagreement of views, but from being cornered from every which direction. Then compound that with being censored by a uniminded and immature leadership, these things make up a recipe for a mess.

Of course, we don’t just see this on the odd message board. We see this all over the Church. I won’t give you examples, I’m sure you can dream up some of your own very personal ones.

I also hold that a leadership determines the rise and fall of a community. A particular community may see itself as thriving–and many you ask in the one of which I spoke would call themselves that–but without leadership from a true representation of voices from every level, a community is doomed. They might not see it, their rose colored glasses may blind them from the ugly truth, but their community will not last.

I don’t long to be let back in. That’s not what I want, or need. What I want is for others like myself who wander their way to the RB website to find a thriving, loving community. Who, despite their race, political affiliation, or sexual orientation feel like they are valued, and represented members of the body of Christ.

Without a change, this may not happen.

**Disclaimer: The above is my opinion. Others will differ, but my opinion stands. You may feel free to post your opinion in the comments, your posts will not be edited for vulgarity, profanity, or unkindness for any reason. So, please choose your words wisely. They will be your bond. The one exception is that any anonymous comments will be deleted.

Permalink

Trackback URL »

http://www.badchristian.com/2004/09/13/representative_leadership_online_communi/trackback/

representative leadership, online communications, and a personal story

Posted in philosophy at 9:34 am by

It’s hard for me to tell this story. It still rather hurts. But, I think part of the healing process for me is to find some of the truth that’s wrapped up in the situation. Part of the reason it hurts is that I’m certainly part of the cause of the hurt. In a way I’m partially at fault for the way things went down. I just get so fired up sometimes.

It all started not this past summer but the one before. That’d be the summer of 2003. Calvin College played host to a new festival–the festival of faith and music. (Which is, by the way, coming back to Grand Rapids this year if any of y’all is particularly interested in the influence or confluence of popular music and faith. I know I’ll be there–my friends Kari and James are on the planning committee.) It’s an offshoot of sorts of the popular Festival of Faith and Writing, which, by the way, is also a wonderful use of a few April days.

Anyway, I didn’t go to the Festival of Faith and Music. But, circulated at that event were some magazines from a new publisher, Relevant Media Group. If you’re at all farmiliar with Relevant, as they’re commonly referred to, you would also know that they’ve published a few of Steve Stockman’s books, for example Walk On: The Spiritual Jouney of U2, an essential for a U2 fan such as myself.

At the time, I worked at Calvin. Eventually, a copy of the magazine made it back to my little cubicle. Initially, I liked what I saw. A magazine that was willing to examine the influence of Christianity on pop culture and the kicker AND VICE VERSA! (It bears importance that I’m not interested in critiquing the magazine in this post–although, I’ve offered a thought or two on the general philosophy that undergirds their mission elsewhere in these hallowed pages.

So, initially, I liked the magazine enough to look up the website. Lo and behold, what do I find but a message board community. My heart jumps for glee. I had recently started the earliest incarnation of badchristian.com so I was thrilled to find like minded folk out there. I joined the message board community that day.

Message boarding can become an obcessive behavior, and quickly. The minute I got home from work, or at lunch hour, Relevant Boards became my creative, cultural, economic, and political outlet. I was surprised to find, however, the sharp disagreement that many of my progressive views regarding things like homosexuality, affirmative action, being a democrat, or being anti-Bush garnered. This sharp disagreement was a good thing. It sharpened both me and my adversaries (and yes, I think the use of the term adversaries is warranted in this case.)

Admittedly, I had a hard (and hot) head. I was out to change minds and radically transform the community into a “like-Brandon-minded” place. Funny how that never works. And here is my first critique of the place, which really has to do more with the medium of a message board, than with the Relevant Boards themselves. Each person stands (or should stand) on equal ground. Arguments move back and forth. It’s far too easy to use the place as a battle ground than anything else. Listening is kept at a minimum. It could be both good and bad that views share equal value–in this case it seemed bad.

For example, on a blog I can write whatever it is that I please. You may disagree vehemently, but ultimately all you can do is offer a comment. The main point is the same–my post. The words are there for all to evaluate before commenting or having other (more or less influential folks) evaluate that post publicly before you read it. My words remain largely untwisted by your perspective. On the Relevant Boards (the RB ) folks seemed to take almost sexual pleasure in the twisting of words to validate their opinions. The place was–and seems to continue to be from my infrequent visits–a breeding ground for the use of the straw man fallacy to tear down not just positions but people. I did this to folks and folks did this to me. Largely, along with our mutual passions for the truth, I blame the medium for this. People there, again, myself included, used the place wrongly. Arguing became an end in and of itself, rather than argument’s close bedfellow: discussion. Discussion, is of course, a MEANS to an end either of agreement or of respectful disagreement.

It’s not to say that this never happened or happens on the RB. But it is certainly not the central stated goal of the place.

Over time, I softened my messages regarding politics, theology, and the like. I didn’t relinquish my views but valued community over the idolotry of winning an argument. There were a few things, however, that I did not relinquish. These things eventually led to my demise as a Relevant Board community member.

I held, and still do hold, that the leadership of the RB was not and is not representative leadership. The moderators and administrators of the forum were made up of folks who banded together. This I understand and certainly condone. A united front is necessary for good leadership. However, a united front does not necessarily imply that each voice has the same opinions. The active leadership of those boards seemed to be to be biased toward the conservative faction. Thus it doesn’t surprise me that the overwhelmingly continuously active faction of the boards remained to be the conservativeish bunch.

Needless to say, I wasn’t in the clique. However, due to my hard headedness, I stuck around. I wasn’t about to be forced out of a community because of my “scandalous” political or theological views…even if I was accused of spurious logic by folks who hadn’t the philosophical training of a goat.

Eventually, after one two many deleted “liberal slanting” posts from myself and others, I expressed my frustration with the supposed deletion and alteration of such threads by the leadership of the board. Further compounding my frustration was the fact that it was never taken up with me when I was to have a post changed. It seemed that there were several “sacred cows” not to be touched by liberal reason running around in cognito on the RB. I touched a cow.

I was publicly informed–which I certainly don’t mind as my comment was a publicly posted one–that I was an ass, a trouble maker, and that my comment spoke for itself as to my immaturity and foolishness. I would be permanently banned from the message boarding community. A permanent ban. As close as I can tell, it’s because I questioned the leadership.

Now that’s dangerous leadership. If it had just been me, it wouldn’t be so bad. But this has become something of a pattern there. (I think a few of us banned folk should get some sort of badge or something for being permanently excommunicated.) It’s this that frustrates me. The theology of a permanent ban is, to me, utterly reprehensible. I simply cannot imagine a reality in which Christians FOREVER cut ties with other Christians because they vehemently disagree. I would liken that to my saying that since Rev. Falwell and I disagree vehemently, he deserves to be cut off from the fellowship of the church.

Had I been treated with love and respect, I wouldn’t have been nearly as venemous as I admit that I was. So, from all this mess, I’d like to draw out some truths.

Disagreement between majority and minority voices is a tenuous relationship. Not bad, but tenuous. That disagreement must be handled carefully. When the majority is in leadership, the majority has a special responsibility to the minority. The minority must be treated with special reverence–they are an endangered voice. In the case of the RB that endangered voice is systematically chased off under the guise that it’s not the voice but the attitude behind the voice that’s the problem.

I posit this: that reprehensible attitude didn’t come from nowhere. We see this in the Church now days as well. Majority players seem to think that because they don’t get all upset about things that when minority players do–they’re in the wrong. The truth is that the attitude comes, not from the disagreement of views, but from being cornered from every which direction. Then compound that with being censored by a uniminded and immature leadership, these things make up a recipe for a mess.

Of course, we don’t just see this on the odd message board. We see this all over the Church. I won’t give you examples, I’m sure you can dream up some of your own very personal ones.

I also hold that a leadership determines the rise and fall of a community. A particular community may see itself as thriving–and many you ask in the one of which I spoke would call themselves that–but without leadership from a true representation of voices from every level, a community is doomed. They might not see it, their rose colored glasses may blind them from the ugly truth, but their community will not last.

I don’t long to be let back in. That’s not what I want, or need. What I want is for others like myself who wander their way to the RB website to find a thriving, loving community. Who, despite their race, political affiliation, or sexual orientation feel like they are valued, and represented members of the body of Christ.

Without a change, this may not happen.

**Disclaimer: The above is my opinion. Others will differ, but my opinion stands. You may feel free to post your opinion in the comments, your posts will not be edited for vulgarity, profanity, or unkindness for any reason. So, please choose your words wisely. They will be your bond. The one exception is that any anonymous comments will be deleted.

Permalink

Trackback URL »

http://www.badchristian.com/2004/09/13/representative_leadership_online_communi/trackback/