tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post4322240741254012024..comments2023-09-22T13:07:59.106-05:00Comments on Jim's Thoughts: On the eve of General Convention a PredictionJimBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-5076520570949802302009-07-17T08:10:19.128-05:002009-07-17T08:10:19.128-05:00Personal to Paul,
I will publish your most recent...Personal to Paul,<br /><br />I will publish your most recent comment if you wish but you might want to re-send it. You addressed it to me, but commented on what deacon Phil wrote. It was difficult for me to read.<br /><br />FWIW<br />jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-35458866416112437802009-07-14T21:31:04.945-05:002009-07-14T21:31:04.945-05:00Phil,
I think you went more more than a bit over ...Phil,<br /><br />I think you went more more than a bit over the top there. Robert Gagnon and Bob Davies are hardly straw men. They exist, their "scholarship" especially in the case of Davies is particullarly weak, and minor details like facts do not seem to matter.<br /><br />It would be fair to argue they are not representative except for two problems. We both know that many conservatives like many progressives, flatly wont criticize anyone they perceive as 'on their side.' And secondly, it is simply true that both sides always go for the weak scholarship or outrageous examples cf. the drum role about a certain retired bishop.<br /><br />It is not I submit arrogant to say that <b>some</b> conservatives in fact deliberately ignore little items like what the words actually are as they attempt to argue from authority. It is equally not arrogant to say that some progressives work very hard at ignoring texts. Both can be problems and in fact, both are. <br /><br />Paul was not saying all conservatives are bad scholars. But some are, and it does not help that it is hard to find a conservative who will say that.<br /><br />FWIW<br />jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-16590653059854695702009-07-14T10:32:26.437-05:002009-07-14T10:32:26.437-05:00Thanks, Paul.
You just proved Jim's point con...Thanks, Paul.<br /><br />You just proved Jim's point concerning liberal arrogance.<br /><br />In the current issue, there are plenty of strawmen that both sides construct and then, having knocked the strawmen down, the people consider the other side to have been devistated by the argument.<br /><br />The problem is that we are so twisted and darkend by sin that we are unable to know God's will without outside resources. So, depending on ourselves and those who agree with us simply does not work to discover the Will of God.<br /><br />YBIC,<br />Phil Snyderplsdeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18039800243898137584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-52101661757646819832009-07-14T10:27:12.386-05:002009-07-14T10:27:12.386-05:00Hi Paul,
I think that my point was not that conse...Hi Paul,<br /><br />I think that my point was not that conservatives <b>are</b> ignorant and stupid nor that progressives are educated and intelligent. Rather I was attempting to deal with the <i>perception</i> I find widely held by your and my progressive friends. <br /><br />Consider for instance, Elanor Roosevelt who was convinced that the world could be changed by education designed to make good progressives out of ignorant conservatives. Her writing and speaking on the idea is pretty clear and still annoys conservatives today. <br /><br />IMy pessimistic view is that the world views simply cannot talk. My optimistic view is that Paul converted. <br /><br />It is precisely the parable, the story with an unexpected ending that changes paradigms and we know that not all change when a story is heard. Some of those who heard Jesus tell the parable of the good Samaritan decided to kill him. <br /><br />It is the story telling that changes people. Every time you turn a page in the synoptics, you find a parable. Jesus used them to change people.<br /><br />I suspect the scorn with which ACNA faux- bishops regard the 'public narrative' is fear of what stories can do. <br /><br />There is risk in stories -- we have to both hear and tell them. But that is also what life is about, taking risks.<br /><br />FWIW<br />jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-6339921024906798632009-07-14T08:58:03.381-05:002009-07-14T08:58:03.381-05:00I've been thinking about this original post fo...I've been thinking about this original post for some time.<br /><br />I think that although it has attractiveness from an intellectual point of view, it is misguided. It may be the case that some conservatives are uneducated or even stupid, it is also the fact that even educated ones can be just plain wrong. And they are unwilling to budge from that position.<br /><br />Take, for example, <a href="http://www.bible.ca/s-homo=sin.htm" rel="nofollow">this essay</a> by Bob Davies, the former President of Exodus International (the "ex-gay" rescue organization).<br /><br />He writes: "Anyone who has heard of the cities of "Sodom and Gommorah" knows that they were notorious hotbeds of homosexuality. . . . The Greek word in the New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite". Jock is trying to redefine what the term "sodomite" means. (A term that has unchanged in 5000 years, even today- "sodomy")"<br /><br />Now it is obvious that neither of the two Greek words taken to refer to homosexuality (arsenokoitai and malakoi) in any way refer to Sodom. The text is the text. Davies is just plain wrong. Yet he is evidently not uneducated. I cannot believe that he came up with this on his own, so just as evidently he was educated to be wrong.<br /><br />His position was not to be changed because of contrary facts.<br /><br />I am sure there are other examples of like "conservative" thinking.<br /><br />I could posit a similar analysis of Robert Gagnon's playing with facts to justify his positions, but that would take a whole book. (Tobias Haller recently addressed in passing a couple of the principal ones in his.)<br /><br />These people are not "stupid" nor are they "ignorant". Another category must be used to classify those whose preconceived notions do not allow them to be swayed by facts in the real world: fanatics.<br /><br />A baseball fanatic may be amusing but is not dangerous. A religious fanatic that insists without reason that some subclasses of one's fellow humans are evil is a menace to society.Paul (A.)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07543357437252555101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-45811751253689870392009-06-30T09:30:27.213-05:002009-06-30T09:30:27.213-05:00Phil
Yes, if the husband had promised not to buy a...Phil<br />Yes, if the husband had promised not to buy a car at all until his wife was truly happy with it, but also if he sees that she still genuinely wrestles with the idea of buying the car, he would be right to wait and it would be wrong of him to buy that car until she was happy.<br /><br />On the other hand, if he discovers that she absolutely hates cars and believes they are immoral polluters and that because of climate change she'd never ever ever allow him to get this car - what is he to do?<br /><br />She has said to him "don't buy it now", but only to buy time because she knows very well she'll never let him buy it. <br />Isn't that immoral too?<br />Is he then really the only one to blame when he finally forces the issue?<br /><br />Let's not forget that the husband only wants that car so he can start taking the couple's children to all those places where their friends already are. His wife, on the other hand, is quite happy for the children to continue to live in isolation and does not even see how much she is demanding of them.<br /><br />Real life relationships are never as simple and as black and white as people would like them to be.<br />Pretending that any conflict is black and white makes it easier to feel self-righteous about ones own position, but that doesn't make it true.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-89900864792407456242009-06-29T13:31:35.216-05:002009-06-29T13:31:35.216-05:00Erika,
What you say of a good marriage is true. ...Erika, <br /><br />What you say of a good marriage is true. The couple wins when both win. But what would you say of the husband that promised his wife that they would not purchase a sports car until they both agreed and then, shortly after this promise, bought one and then, with the car in the drive way, said that he really didn't purchase it. He allowed the salesman to sell it to him. This is like our promise not to move forward with blessing same sex unions or ordain those involved in homosexual relationships until the communion said to. Then, when bishops were coming under fire for the SSBs that were happening in their dioceses, they claimed they had not "authorized" them, but had "allowed" them. This kind of semantical ploy only makes people angrier and does not provide for dialogue. <br /><br />YBIC,<br />Phil Snyderplsdeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18039800243898137584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-48969572874261457012009-06-29T11:34:00.279-05:002009-06-29T11:34:00.279-05:00Phil
In a real and good marriage, there is no winn...Phil<br />In a real and good marriage, there is no winning or losing. The couple like each other and know each other well, so they understand perfectly why the other wishes to buy that car/not buy that car, and they have some level of sympathy for each other's view even if they don't share it.<br /><br />In a real marriage, the couple won't shout that only one has THE truth and that the other is an arrogant, insincere, selfish pig.<br /><br />Because they love each other, they'll probably compromise - see how you live without that car for a year, then we talk again.<br />Let's hire a car like that for a while and see how we get on with it.<br />Or even: you buy that car, I won't ride in it, but we can discover whether owning that car is really going to be the end of the world.<br /><br />Unless, of course, they're already so incompatible that divorce is really the only option.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-18139089300262218912009-06-29T10:43:50.554-05:002009-06-29T10:43:50.554-05:00I think the problems with the analogy real.
Firs...I think the problems with the analogy real. <br /><br />First the assumption that status quo ante is not a decision. Erika makes a valid point when she observes that someone is winning and someone is loosing during the elongated discernment period. To move the analogy another step, the husband's driving career is limited, he is aging. "Gracious restraint" is not a freebie someone pays, someone to use the presiding bishops' horrible phrase, is in the "crucified place."<br /><br />In a marriage, a husband may decide to wait for a better time to push for his dream car. Heaven knows I don't have my Cooper Mini! But, in a polity, someone votes to put someone else in a crucified place. That difference I think matters.<br /><br />Of course, the reverse is true. If the wife thinks her view of the family's needs must win, then she looses. Of course, I could argue she is being arrogant -- had she simply agreed to try his view.....<br /><br />FWIW<br />jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-18265579186193906642009-06-29T10:20:00.557-05:002009-06-29T10:20:00.557-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.JimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-7972631582458178452009-06-29T09:57:29.802-05:002009-06-29T09:57:29.802-05:00This is the problem of truth. If something is tru...This is the problem of truth. If something is true, its converse is not true. In the marriage anology, it is either true that purchasing the sports car is either good for, or not harmful to, the marriage or the purchase of the sports car is harmful to the marriage. But it cannot be both. <br /><br />In the sports care anology, there eventually will come a time when the truth will be known. Dialogue and discussion are some of the tools by which the Truth can be known. Why is the wife opposed? Could it be that there may be enough money to buy the sports car, but not insure it? Could it be out of fear? Could it be that many of the wife's friends got divorced after their husbands bought sports cars? Could it be that the wife knows the husband to be a "lead foot" and that sports cars attract traffic cops like candy attracts kids? Maybe the wife knows the husband to be a less than safe driver and she is concerned that a sports car will only increase his risky behavior and he will end up in a bad accident?<br /><br />The wife's motives are probably no pure. As a husband of almost 22 years, I would say that my love for my wife should overcome my selfish desires to have what I want - especially if my wife were adamantly against what I wanted. I would hope that TEC's love for the Anglican Communion would do the same.<br /><br />The problem is that the husband has already purchased the car. Where do we go from here?<br /><br />YBIC,<br />Phil Snyderplsdeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18039800243898137584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-47149755106226102462009-06-29T03:50:00.689-05:002009-06-29T03:50:00.689-05:00Phil
The difficulty with the Mustang analogy is th...Phil<br />The difficulty with the Mustang analogy is that there is always a winner.<br />If the wife doesn't want the sports car, she simply never agrees to it, so the household is never of one mind, so the husband always loses.<br /><br />But somehow, that losing is perfectly acceptable, whereas the husband going out and buying a car is called arrogant.<br /><br />How could you envisage this argument to be concluded so that there are truly 2 equal people in this marriage and that no one side loses?Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-38350540170607573342009-06-28T00:32:20.605-05:002009-06-28T00:32:20.605-05:00Jim,
I haven't checked the comments here for ...Jim,<br /><br />I haven't checked the comments here for a while and I'm glad my dog's woke me up to alert me to the killer squirrel or killer rabbit in my yard.<br /><br />Yes, one thing that constantly bugs me about "liberals" or "progressives" is their arrogance. <br /><br />I've likened the current situation to a husband and wife discussing the purchase of a new sports car. The wife and husband together have always said that they will wait until both agree to purchase a sports car. Then, one day, the husband drives home in a new Ford Mustang. He claims that his ownership of the new sports car is part of his discernment process on whether owning the car is a good thing for him or not. After all, what is good for him is obviously good for the marriage. He is truly baffled when he asks the wife to continue the dialogue about purchasing the sports car and she explodes in anger and moves out. He doesn't understand why she would feel hurt or why she doesn't want him to have any control over joint finances.<br /><br />BTW, Erika, I am not Canon Phil. I am simply Deacon Phil or (preferrably) just Phil.<br /><br />YBIC,<br />Phil Snyderplsdeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18039800243898137584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-78075642953905853102009-06-24T03:15:51.516-05:002009-06-24T03:15:51.516-05:00Jim
Yepp, because you and Deacon Phil are actuall...Jim<br /><br />Yepp, because you and Deacon Phil are actually listening to each other. I agree, we need to take this out of the hands of the hierarcy and each do our own bit wherever life has placed us.<br /><br />I suppose the real difficulty is that my "living side by side" implies that those who disagree with me don't try to use the law or doctrinal intervention to discriminate againts me. Something which they already interpret as me "winning".<br /><br />You and Canon Phil disagreeing has not many practical consequences for you, whereas for me, much of the conversation is deeply personal.<br /><br />I don't know if there can be a constructive way out of that dilemma?Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-76506137823135394342009-06-23T11:13:54.993-05:002009-06-23T11:13:54.993-05:00Erika,
Some of us try to make the conversations a...Erika,<br /><br />Some of us try to make the conversations a bit less formal and more personal. I for instance know that Deacon Phil who sometimes comments here (and by the way writes very good essays on his blog) and I do not agree much. We do not however doubt each other's faith or sincerity.<br /><br />I think the bishops should be saying to their clerics -- consider the cellular church model. Put together small groups with facilitators and get the congregation talking. Mix the cells up from time to time. <br /><br />But we have selected the wrong people to be bishops. These people, as a group, are conflict avoiders. Unfortunately they select the ordinands so the problem runs through the clergy. So it may fail to us benighted laity to finally get the conversations going.<br /><br />FWIW<br />jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-34017806992301371562009-06-23T09:50:56.469-05:002009-06-23T09:50:56.469-05:00Jim
I quite agree!
My whole point is that neither ...Jim<br />I quite agree!<br />My whole point is that neither side has yet started the listening process because each believes it's about converting the other.<br /><br />Maybe it's about time we banged on a bit louder about what listening is really supposed to achieve.<br /><br />Or do you see an alternative?Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-13856411162716433182009-06-23T09:33:59.836-05:002009-06-23T09:33:59.836-05:00Erika,
I do not for a moment think that conversat...Erika,<br /><br />I do not for a moment think that conversation - listening is either a waste or a bad thing. My point in the post is rather that liberals see it as a panacea and tool for converting the uniformed. Ask any two conservatives what most bugs them about liberals and I will bet a steak dinner that at least one says 'arrogance.' <br /><br />If we have a case to make (we do) then we are not making in. <br /><br />FWIW<br />jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-58805504947102074992009-06-23T05:47:51.711-05:002009-06-23T05:47:51.711-05:00Jim
I spend a large amount of my working time tra...Jim<br /><br />I spend a large amount of my working time translating material for Biblical Studies PhD students.<br />Among them are a number of evangelical students who are really keen to understand the bible better.<br /><br />Yes, they believe that it is inerrant, historical and complete, but no, they do not necessarily assume that we have unearthed the real original yet.<br /><br />They are happy to discover that beloved translations are wrong, that the original authors may have intended something different etc.<br /><br />The one thing they haven't got is foregone conclusions. And they don't appear to feel threatened by new discoveries.<br /><br />I'm not so sure about the listening process.<br />Of course, if I can persuade someone to see things my way, that would be absolutely wonderful.<br /><br />But one of my personal favourites is a fairly fundamentalist evangelical in my own parish who has truly been listening to me. He has not changed his views, but he no longer sees me as arrogant, as deliberately ignoring God's will, as making faith according to my own selfish preferences.<br />He has understood that we both follow God to our best ability, and that I have genuinely arrived at a different way of understanding what God wants for my life.<br /><br />And I know that he is not intolerant, callours, cold-hearted or stupid, but simply that he just cannot see things the same way I do.<br /><br />That's fine. We worship side by side.<br /><br />If listening can do that, bring more of it on!Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-83857102941369876262009-06-22T13:56:13.126-05:002009-06-22T13:56:13.126-05:00Brad,
When I see "statistics" mentioned...Brad,<br /><br />When I see "statistics" mentioned without a cite I am suspicious. Can you provide a cite? <br /><br />As to wishing to move to Vermont, I can imagine wanting to live where I could marry my partner. That is hardly 'exclusive' it merely recognizes the facts on the ground.<br /><br />FWIW<br />jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-74572605367306174742009-06-22T13:15:54.217-05:002009-06-22T13:15:54.217-05:00Erika,
No.
An example. If one begins knowing ...Erika,<br /><br />No. <br /><br />An example. If one begins <i>knowing</i> that the Bible is (1) inerrant, (2) historical and (3) complete as we now read it, then no matter how bright or educated you are, you will reach sharply different conclusions than might someone who begins without the prior conclusions to study the origins of the book or the religions it has parented. <br /><br />You might none-the-less be very bright and educated. Very bright Roman Catholic scholars have those assumptions and are hardly stupid or uneducated.<br /><br />I don't agree with this: <i>Actually, the listening process is not about people convincing each other that they are right.<br />The listening process is about each side truly understanding the other, seeing them as three-dimensional individuals with their own integrity, and not about seeing them as cardboard cut-out "liberals" vs "conservatives" about whom we already know everything.</i><br /><br />In fact the implicit liberal assumption is that this will change viewpoints and conduct. It is clear that 'understanding' is expected to produce conduct. Otherwise why bother with it?<br /><br />Thanks for dropping in.<br /><br />FWIW<br />jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-78894886809194425192009-06-22T09:31:01.806-05:002009-06-22T09:31:01.806-05:00Liberals aren't "overrepresented in publi...Liberals aren't "overrepresented in public education" except as teachers/administrators/Union officials; their own children are statistically much more likely to be in private schools, unless they've chosen to live in the suburbs.<br /> Naturally, they "wrestle" with this whenever someone points out the disconnect between their rhetoric and their actions, much like "progressives" who "cherish diversity" but want to move to Vermont.Brad Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17381562723928616425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-22755855545417227112009-06-22T05:53:19.024-05:002009-06-22T05:53:19.024-05:00"If and it is, the great failure of conservat..."If and it is, the great failure of conservative thought is beginning with the conclusion"<br /><br />Is that not simply another way of saying that conservatives are stupid or so inflexible that they are immune to any argument that does not support their foregone conclusion?<br /><br />Actually, the listening process is not about people convincing each other that they are right.<br />The listening process is about each side truly understanding the other, seeing them as three-dimensional individuals with their own integrity, and not about seeing them as cardboard cut-out "liberals" vs "conservatives" about whom we already know everything.<br /><br />It is also about genuinely engaging with the arguments made and not dismissing them out of hand because one doesn't really like the opposition and far less the spurious/prejudiced/arrogant... take your pick... add your own... conclusions they come to.<br /><br />This thread seems to indicate that we have barely started the listening process.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-68630168287280247722009-06-19T19:07:48.216-05:002009-06-19T19:07:48.216-05:00Really, that is the nub of the thing and, I think,...Really, that is the nub of the thing and, I think, the source of conservative anger. The Indaba process, at its best, is a way of furthering conversations which have long since stopped happening-the whys, the hows and wherefores of peoples' positions. By mixing it up and forcing people into unlikely combinations, potentially novel ideas might come out or, at least, the demonization of one's theological opponents might lessen. In a situation where there is no consensus, it is the best thing we can do to try to break the impasse. <br /><br />Yet, I've said for a very long time that the problem with the same-sex issue wasn't necessarily the talking about it. As long as we were just talking about it, sure, things could get heated, but there was no reason to split. However, once action began in the form of New Westminster's blessings and Bishop Robinson's ordination, the continued talk about wanting to 'hear' conservatives began to seem increasingly insincere. Really, this is where the suspicion of the Indaba process begins and why it is suspect in the American (and, to a lesser degree, the Canadian) context. Where a firm decision hasn't been taken, i.e. the Communion itself, Indaba is much less fraught. <br /><br />I don't know if this process will work at your General Convention. It might, almost, work in ours, since the schism has moved a lot slower up here. I hope it does, though. Anything to further the Spirit's revelation. <br /><br />Peace, <br />PhilPhil Sniderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08944477827816680359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-26311610461025518042009-06-18T21:34:13.558-05:002009-06-18T21:34:13.558-05:00Phil,
I had no idea you used my direction. Thank...Phil,<br /><br />I had no idea you used my direction. Thanks for letting me know!<br /><br />I do not actually hate Indaba. I do understand why conservatives here do.<br /><br />Are you familiar with my country's sad and violent history over what we call "Roe v Wade?" I ask because it is illustrative of the problem in a way.<br /><br />Before Roe, a number of our States were in the process of changing laws and regulations about abortion. There were powerful forces on both sides and sharp political fights. People who otherwise might have done much better saw their political careers end over the argument. No one, not one voter, doctor, lawyer or politician was shot.<br /><br />After Row v Wade, the issue was legally settled. Doctors, lawyers, cops all were threatened and some were indeed harmed, bombed and murdered.<br /><br />It is worth asking what happened. <br /><br />It is my thesis that whether they were loosing or winning, votes and activists were confronted with a fair fight. They could battle it out, win or loose, and fight another day. When the elites (read archbishops) took that away, the violence began.<br /><br />And as it is structured both at Lambeth and Anaheim, the elites who sometimes learn very slowly if at all, are at it again. The decisions are made by secret committees in the HoB. The discussion is window dressing. That lead to murderous anger before, but the elites think themselves superior and unwilling to concede that maybe oh maybe a fair fight is precisely what is needed. <br /><br />Ah well. It will be as it is. I trust the Spirit will eventually lead us past our own silliness.<br /><br />FWIW<br />jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3795176.post-48771854295384167872009-06-18T20:43:09.765-05:002009-06-18T20:43:09.765-05:00You know, as a moderate conservative, I don't ...You know, as a moderate conservative, I don't actually have a problem with the Indaba process, even though I very much concede your comments on the conflicting aims of conservatives and liberals entering into it. Yes, liberals are trying to 'educate' conservatives out of their views. Yes, conservatives are trying to 'clarify' liberals into a corner. That goes almost without saying. <br /><br />What I like about the Indaba process is that it implicitly concedes something that we all know is true, but we're not willing to say. There is no consensus and we're at an impasse. The only way to break it is to re-jig the battle lines and force us to actually engage each other as people in the hopes that we'll humanize the issue for a change and start dealing with each other as fellow Christians rather than ideological position. If there is any hope to dig ourselves out of this morass, we have to change what we're doing. Whatever virtues or vices the Indaba process has, it does change things up a bit. Maybe, it will jog something. Or not. If nothing else, it is an attempt to find where the Holy Spirit in this. Will it work? I don't know, but it is worth a try. <br /><br />Peace, <br />Phil<br /><br />P.S. You do know that I use your third rule for your comments in my blurb on avoiding jargon in essay writing for my Grade 12 students.Phil Sniderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08944477827816680359noreply@blogger.com