I got a call last night late from a colleague I serve with on CPM (who voted for the amendment at Presbytery that I opposed). As a friend, which he is to me as well, he informed me that excerpts from my blog of June 18 were quoted in "The Layman." Someone had sent them the site, and it went from there.
I do not read the Layman - I do not like the, shall I say, "tone" of its rhetoric. No one from the Layman contacted me - I don't appreciate being represented as a spokesperson for them - though they quoted me correctly.
Such it is with blogs - you put it out there and you risk a publication like the Layman picking it up. But the blog is a way for me to say what I wanted without a 3 minute timer, or parliamentary procedure interrupting my train of thought. it might get me on some list, or in some "camp," but it was worth the risk to air my conscience.
By the way - hello back to all my classmates who have connected through this latest event in our Presbytery. Keep reading. Life and faith go on, thanks be to God.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Thanks for this disclaimer. It is helpful, though I am somewhat taken aback by the claim that you don't like the Layman's "tone" when you wrote such things as "The action now puts ALL churches potentially at risk for McCarthy-like seizures should they be only exploring the options, examining the church, speaking their mind, becoming informed of what is happening in our times." Very Layman-esque to me...
I understand what you are saying. I know how the Layman works and how it sows its seeds of discontent, warping events and such. And I respect and even admire your desire to speak your conscience. But I'm not sure your post and the Layman's article were very far apart, either in their respective "tone" or, as has been discussed in the comment section of your June 19th post, in their factual accuracy either....
Lyn - The layman quoted you correctly - its record of accuracy far outweighs any other PCUSA related publication. Read it more before you dismiss its tone. I think you will find it has been mischaricterized. The fact is people don't like it because it tells the truth. As You see by the above post - you are being criticized for your tone - but all you did was speak the truth in love. Don't shoot the messenger folks - Lyn don't shut the window you have opened.
It's not just you. I got quoted by them (probably in the same article). My quote was also accurate.
It seems that "journalism" in their case has degraded to scooping interesting quotes off of others' blogs.
Let's face it, folks. The Layman is the yellow journalism center of the PC(USA). They color EVERY story to meet the editors' political and theological leanings.
I think using quotes from blogs and internet discussion boards are fine if the context of the quotes is clearly stated. (an easily overlooked hyperlink doesn't meet this definition in my opinion).
In the article Mark is quoted without saying who he is or what connection he had to the events that transpired.
I guess it didn't serve the article's slant to tell people Mark is a guy 1000 miles away from Heartland Presbytery who read about the events on the internet and reacted to them on an online news and discussion website.
Without this information and without proper fact-checking this is not journalism, it's blogging and editorializing.
When I speak of "tone" I am not necessarily speaking of this article as it reports the facts of the matter. I actually agreed with the Layman article's "tone", which matched my own coincidentally. I mean to say, I don't want anyone to think I am their spokesperson, nor that I form my opinions around theirs. I can't read all the news of the PC(USA) from one point of view, or one "tone," as I try and discern the heart of all matters from my own encounters, and from more than one source. This of course, is mediated through the Holy Spirit's wisdom.
I happen to believe that a Presbyterian Christian can disagree with another Presbyterian Christian in anger and pain. That means we all have to put up with each other's "tones" as we seek the truth and for peace. But it is unrealistic and not even human, to assume everyone is always speaking,thinking, acting and feeling like the Book of Order - in citations and procedure, decently and in order. Nor do I believe that unity can be forced in the same way.
I believe we can if we choose, listen through the discordant tones for the tunes of the hearts. But that doesn't mean we will ever agree on everything. And for some, it might mean they must remove themselves from the fray to keep the peace. Can't force a good tone out of a broken reed.
I love that folks on here would actually defend the Layman as accurate ...
Lyn, if you are truly dissatisfied with the Layman's tone, why not write to them and ask them not to use your quotes? As it stands, you are complicit, indeed fully cooperative, in their effort to mislead, and in the "tone" in which they do it.
Is there a disconnect between what you say is your motivation (just airing your conscience) and what your actions suggest your motivation truly to be (advancing a particular agenda by whatever means necessary)?
I love that folks who bash the Layman and Lyn Olson make anonymous hit-and-run attacks.
Post a Comment