Rev. Keith Nethery is becoming rather alarmed (page 2) – disturbed even – at what he reads on blogs:
What does it mean to study something? How do we go about discussing an issue?
I spend considerable time reading blogs and various media from around the world on things Anglican. In doing this, there is something becoming more and more obvious to me and it is alarming. Now let me say first that I do NOT just read one side of the story. The blogs that I have marked for daily consumption cover the entire scale of theological opinion. What bothers me is that I see some disturbing trends in how we answer the two questions that I began with.My understanding of study is that one will find a variety of opinions and see how that informs the thoughts that they possessed going into said study. More and more, it seems to me, that study is another term for a determination to prove the “other” wrong……
When folks search “Anglican” on their computers, it is scarey what they will find masquerading as the true face of who we are. If the foregoing statement was posted on many of the blogs I read daily, it would be followed by an immediate swell of condemnation from people on both ends of the spectrum, because discussion and study have become code words for further opportunity to demand agreement for one’s place on the scale.
This comment by the very same Rev. Nethery tends to show that he is less than eager to take his own advice when he feels called upon to show that those of us who “haunt the far right side of Anglicanism” are in sore need of “a dose of reality.”
Job well done in this post and in the discussion with David on Samizdat. I’ve had more than one such conversation with David, Warren and the others that haunt the far right side of Anglicanism that ended similarly – oh, but we’re right and you’re wrong because we say so, thank you for coming and come back again so we can tell you how right we are. I honestly think that we need to bust into their world every once now and again to give them a dose of reality.
The exchange in question is here and, as these things go, was reasonably civil and entirely devoid of the phrase – or idea – “oh, but we’re right and you’re wrong because we say so.”
Rev. Nethery’s solution (page 2) to all this seems to be:
My oft unpopular position is that there is always room to be further informed and to weigh more ideas.
Doubtless this is a remedy that he wishes those of us that infest the swamps of Anglicanism’s right would embrace, but one – in spite of protestations to the contrary – in which he is reluctant to dabble himself: that must be because we are just spinning:
Even one of ANIC’s spinning best bloggers can’t draw more than a comment or two posting on Holy Post at the National Post.
I can’t help wondering whether what is really eating Rev. Nethery is the fact that there are people who disagree with him; and they just won’t shut up.
Do you really have nothing better to do than to track my every comment on the web? You could have at least included my most complimentary discussion with you over at Essentials following General Synod, thanking you for providing coverage in a most timely manner, but that probably wouldn’t have been an aid to the “spin” you wished to create. I’ve never made a secret of my disagreements theologically with those I would term far right, and the same goes for the far left. What I will never say is that I have the truth and therefore no one else can unless they agree totally with me. I stand by what I wrote in the Huron Church News and I stand by what I have said in commenting on various blogs. Spin, spin, spin, spin for all you are worth, but there is nothing here but an Anglican Priest writing a column for an Anglican newspaper and commenting on blogs. It’s who I am. Frank, save your typings fingers I know “I’m an apostate” and yes AMP I know that I’m probably responsible for sending Anglicanism tumbling off a cliff. Now, who can find something, one thing I said here that you can attack and ignore the rest of what I said
Does your mother wear army boots?
Peace,
Jim
Keith’s somewhat angry tone proves that you don’t always need to know the truth for it to hurt.
thanks to Dave Horvath. I’d forgotten that one, claim the other guy is angry. Read this blog, read the Essentials blog. Unabashed anger is spewed at the Anglican Church of Canada and several member diocese at every turn possible. I wrote what I thought was a fair and balanced opinion piece on what I read on blogs and David pulls a couple of pieces out of it, adds in two totally out of context comments that serve his desire to take a pot shot, and then draws a conclusion that defies explanation. But that’s what he does and one can see by how proud he is of his “fan mail” that’s what he does. I merely pointed out to him that on balance there are other comments made by me on various blogs that show, when taken in context, I’m a pretty reasonable guy. He seems to think I’m angry that he and others won’t shut up. In fact, I think we all lose when we don’t have all parts of the discussion continually making comment. What I wish is that he would try making some logical sense, instead of trying to make fun of the Anglican Church of Canada in hopes of adding to the aforementioned fan mail section. If you want to talk, I’m more than willing. But please come back with more than just the same old same old. By the way David, part two of my series is on line now, I’m sure you can make up something to say. I’ve been working ahead and already have a draft of Decembers column done, in which I give you a sort of plug. I hope you’ll wait on pins and needles to read it.
Keith,
Much of the reason for my not responding to what you have said here is because a thrust that misses its target by such a wide margin doesn’t need a riposte.
Nevertheless, perhaps I should point out a few things:
I was going to mention the compliment you paid me on the AEC blog but I teared up as I was typing, so I couldn’t see the keyboard.
The point of my post was not so much to show the errors of your two articles: they seemed to be saying that we should examine all sides of an argument before reaching a conclusion – I could hardly disagree. The point was to show that you yourself don’t do that. The quotes I extracted were not out of context and, since I posted links to their source, readers can judge for themselves anyway.
I do make fun at the Anglican Church of Canada. I suppose I find much of what it does so intrinsically ridiculous that it becomes hard to resist: we have semi-pagan celebrations occurring in the church; priests who say they can’t, in good conscience, recite the creed; bishops who don’t believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus, his uniqueness or his atoning sacrifice on the cross; priests who don’t believe in original sin. Such a rich vein of material deserves to be mocked for all it’s worth.
As for my “I can’t help wondering whether what is really eating Rev. Nethery is the fact that there are people who disagree with him; and they just won’t shut up.” remark: yes I do think that’s what really bothers the establishment side of the church. For all the talk about tolerance, opening the circle wide, listening to other opinions, having conversations, in my experience church liberals – the establishment – have little to no interest in what conservatives have to say. I think your blog postings illustrate that and, from all appearances, having it pointed out does make you angry.
A propos of not much at all, really it amuses me greatly when people assume I am “far right” because of my religious convictions.
Well thank you David for those very kind and thoughtful words. Any journalism wanna be knows that when you don’t want to argue the facts, attacking can be a good way forward. The problem is that it can’t be your only tactic because it becomes so predictable that it takes no time to see through it. The supposed arguments you put forward are that have spaces the size of several footabl fields for gaps in logic.
I am pleased that you have figured out the the thrust of my Huron Church News articles is to suggest that we need to examine all sides of an issue before reaching a conclusion. I equally appreciate your comment that you could hardly disagree. Your massive leap of illogic to a point of saying that the comments, made by me, and posted by you is no less than stunning. I did suggest that we need to bust into the far right world and give some reality. I find on this blog especially that you practice dismissal rather than discussion. Seeing what I believe to be lack of discussion, it makes logical sense that I would make such a contact. The second comment you pulled about Holy Post is fact, with the exception of the word “spinning” which I will fully claim as an opinion. I have gone back over the lengthy conversation with Geoff on this blog. How you can leap from my saying that there is always room for more informed opinion and discussion, to a bold claim that I want you and others to shut up. . . Well it just seems to me to defy plain common sense.
Next up, despite the fact that you virtually know nothing of me or my theology, you decide to blur the lines as to whether you are addressing me or those you call liberals and would seem by extension to, without making any attempt to ascertain my opinions, dismiss me as another one of them with the sarcastic tone you seem to feel helps make your point.
I
Submit button hit in error, my apologies. I would normallygo back and fix the typos and misspells. In reading the above, I think you can follow what I was trying to say without the corrections
I have no particular need to comment on this site or the Essentials blog. I will respond when I feel that comments made on either blog are inaccurate or need clarification. You chose to post portions of an article I wrote and add what I feel are inaccurate and inflamatory comments of a personal nature. I will always respond in those situations because without both sides, there is no discussion.
Experience tells me that this discussion won’t end until you or one of the regular commenters here have the last word to “show me the error of my ways.” Be my guest. Just sign me off as an angry Anglican Church of Canada priest who wants all of you to shut up. I’m sure you’ll be happy to tell yourselves that you are right
If you are trying to convince us that you aren’t angry, your tone isn’t helping much.
Keith,
Not at all.
Although I enjoy writing things and am happy when they are published, I really have no aspirations to journalism. I have been making a satisfyingly healthy living for the last 44 years by programming mainframe computers, an occupation which has made me intimately acquainted with logic – a word which you seem to be fond of flinging hither and thither in spite of your inability to understand it.
It’s relatively simple: the issues that divide us have been discussed since before you were in diapers; every possible argument that can be made has been made – they are all well understood by both sides. You cannot seriously expect me to believe that you have developed a sudden interest in any new ideas wafting your way from conservative Anglicans – and vice versa; if you cannot make a decision based on what has already been said you never will.
You appear to enjoy the prospect of being doomed to an eternity of fruitless yakking much like the Episcopal Ghost in C. S. Lewis’s Great Divorce. You want conservative Anglicans to join you in this and my refusal to play the game – for game it is – your way leads to your using words like “spin”, “dose of reality”, “far right”. So I reluctantly have to come to the conclusion that you wish I would shut up. Of course, I could be wrong and, if I am, you will have the double pleasure of the consolation of knowing that you are correct and the continuing and ineffably exquisite delight of being able to peruse the results of my not shutting up.
You don’t seem to have faced the fact that the Anglican Communion has already split: on one side is the shrivelling North American rump with which you are aligned. It has chosen to invent a new religion that has but a tenuous connection with Christianity. On the other is a thriving historically orthodox Christian faith whose centre is closer to Africa than its old anglo-colonial heritage: it is growing.
You’ve lost me. What inflammatory or personal comments have I made – other than that you seem angry? You do, by the way.