Re: Strange feeling.../Jen

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Jen!Yes, I think that every now and then you need to follow your heart more than anything else.I have got some sleep. Less than ideal, I suppose. But I am less tired than could be expected.love/Reb>> Reb,> > I certainly cannot say I can relate, because I can't......> If you felt it wasn't the right thing to do, but your gut instincts said it WAS the right thing to do...Then, in my opinion, it was......> I hope going through all these motions was able to put your mind at ease and you were able to catch some sleep..............> Wishing you all the very best> > Jen> > Strange feeling...> > > > > > Strange feeling.> > > > > It really is a strange feeling to break one of those "holy promises" one had made to oneself, and yet feel that you are doing the right thing. > > > > > I had not experienced it before last night. Don't get me wrong, I'm no saint, I have broken many promises I've made myself (and other people), even some of the really important ones. But always sort of despite myself. Never with this calm, yet sad, feeling that it is the road I SHOULD go down. > > > > > One of those things I have sworn to never ever ever ever do, is send a journalist, or journalists, on someone, no matter who. To be clear, I have spoken to journalists at several occasions on different subjects, only a few weeks ago I was interviewed on the subject of faith and organized religion. And I have, of course, at some times referred them to a colleague or someone else who I think can better answer their question. That's not what I mean. I mean the pointing out to a reporter that someone is to blame for something. > > > > > I used to say that through any concious act of mine even risk that someone is subjected to the kind of media frenzy that could follow, is something I would never do. Not even to my worst enemy. "Risk" and "could" is more than enough to refrain from it, there need not be any certainty of any kind. And I am well known to defend even "my worst enemies" (whatever that may be.), when I feel they are being treated unfairly by media. Something that tend to confuse people, when they think that reacting strongly on bad and unfair treatment of someone is the same as agreeing with that someone. > > > > > The background is that I have experienced being in the middle of a media "circus" of that kind (relatively brief and transitory, thank God!, but still), and I know what kind of hell that can be. > > > > > Well.And then along came last night.I was browsing the news online while preparing dinner (had put some beef in a marinade, and was waiting for it to be ready to fry). I saw a headline that seemed interesting, it was about a Pentecostal church (and most of my academic writing is done on the subject of Pentecostal church/es, it's a both professional and personal interest so to speak), that had been accused of discrimination. In fact the headline was just that: "Pentecostal Church reported for discrimination to the Equality Ombudsman".> > > > > So far not exactly shocking, although of interest, the Pentecostal movement in Sweden may be known for many things, but equality isn't one of them. The Swedish Pentecostal movement is one of the great loves of my life (although I am not a member), make no mistake., but let's be fair and honest, equality isn't one of their strengths.> > > > > But then I clicked the link and read the article. With a rising sense of surprise and of. let's just call it WTF in lack of a more polite term.the church was one I am quite familiar with. The case of discrimination, let's not go into too much of detail here, it's hardly that interesting for you, but it did go back three years. Which was my first point of surprise. Three years ago I wrote an analysis of some sermons held in this particular church. And about one of those sermons I had a distinct feeling, already then, of not getting the full picture. That it was about something, and something particular, that I could not pin down. That I lacked the exact knowledge about the church and it's members to know what the hints was ponting to. I could *see* the hints, I just could not decode them so to speak. I retrieved the sermon, my notes and the analysis from my files, and yep, it all makes sense now. > > > > > Up to then, it was more surprise and an aha-feeling. But then the article went on to say that there has been decisions and an agreed upon policy (a discriminatory one) in place since then. That's where the WTF came into the picture. Because the issue of discrimination in churches had been in the media spotlight half a year ago too, then more as a general and principal issue than about a particular case. And a pastor from this precise church had been interviewed in national radio about his church and about, very precisely about, if they had any formal rules, policies or decisions banning any particular group from membership or position. And had answered, in effect, that no there was NO such thing. As a pastor he must have known about a policy that was by then already more than 2 years old. Rather than defending the policy on theologcal or other grounds, he had simply lied about it's existence!> > > > > And that's what it's really about to me. I may believe in equality (and I do), and I may disagree with them about such a policy (and I do). But (given they are not breaking any laws of course) I respect their right to disagree with me on that too. The only thing I expect is that they are honest and open about their standpoints (and even more so about actual policies and the likes). That's all. Is that really such an unreasonable demand?> > > > > Anyway. I spent a couple of hours last night doing research. To make sure I remembered right. Listened to the radio interview again. Read other sources from back then. And then I wrote a piece about it, citing and linking to sources, and put it on my blog (in an unusual breach of principle, usually my blog is reserved for boring things like book reviews etc. maybe some theology occasionally, but no personal posting, and no politics). AND wrote a short mail to the journalist behind the article, where I told him that if he wanted to stay on the story for a little longer, there was someone he should ask some questions, linking to my piece on the blog for more details. > > > > > I did so hesitantly. And with a strange sadness. But at the same time, with a feeling that I should share what I knew, not all I knew, but at least what I knew that could point to lying and dishonesty. In public, I should add. Because had this pastor made that same lie in a private conversation with me (or someone else), it would still upset me, but I wouldn't feel it was a case for media. And most definitely not a reason for breaking that principle of never tipping off media, never "throwing someone to the dogs", so to speak. > > > > > I also made it about that lie, and only about that, despite knowing that the insights from the sermon analysis could probably have given the reporter important leads too. That was not even something I considered sharing. Because it would bring unwanted attention to someone or someones who was completely innocent. And THAT I will still not do. > > > > > Now, I don't know if this reporter is interested in staying with the story at all, he may have many more interesting things to write about. I know that he has been informed about it. And I know that people working on a couple of newspapers have read my piece (the IP-log tells me that much). But what, if any, may become of it is yet to be seen. That is of very little importance, however. Regardless of consequences, doing what I did was to break a very important, I'd go so far as to call it holy or sacred, principle of mine. And yet I did it knowlingly and with a conviction that I was doing the right thing. And I did it with a certain calm, not lashing out in anger, not at all. > > > > > And hence the very strange feeling. A sadness. And actually compassion with the people that are or may be affected by the whole thing. > > > > > Looking at the contact page on the church website, as part of my research (had to confirm the exact title of the dishonest pastor), I looked at the photo of the (other) pastor I was "sparing" from attention in my piece (because he was one of the innocents who would have been negatively affected by me including the insights from the sermon analysis), and I thought: "I am protecting you. But I can't protect your church or your colleage. I am sorry, but I just can't. I know it will hurt you too, indirectly. I really am sorry." > > > > > Later at night. When the strange feeling was keeping me from sleeping, and I was drinking a cup of chamomile tea (hoping for it to bring some sleep) and watching the IP-log on the computer screen. I saw what I could without much uncertainty identify as one of the less innocent pastors (not the lying one, but one.well let's just say less innocent to stay away from throwing accusations around.and also one in the media searchlight right now) visiting the page. The pattern was kind of (or could have been interpreted as) erratic. He would open the page, then leave it, then open it again etc., within minutes or less. And I felt no gloat. Only compassion, and a sadness. I thought: "I know why you are still awake surfing the web. I know the upset feelings behind that seemingly erratic pageload pattern. I am sorry. I am. I don't wish you this. But. you have kind of brought it on yourself." > > > > > I have never believed people who say they feel truly sorry about the effects some of their actions have (or may have) on other people, and yet don't regret it. I thought that was hypocrisy. You are either sorry. And then you either refrain from doing it or regret it after the fact. Or you don't regret it. But then you are not truly sorry either. That's what i thought. And here I am, Feeling sorry, and a true compassion, but no regret.> > > > > A strange feeling indeed.> > > > > love> > /Reb> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------> > > > No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3197 - Release Date: 10/14/10 14:34:00>

[Guest guest]

I was just telling someone the same thing - several someones - trust your gut

I just talked so someone the last few days and they made the decision that was right for them - it worked out that there will be support and understanding for their walking away from ideology and beliefs that are wrong for them

whatever you decide - sorry I woke up at 1 am with a migraine from hell and had it all day - if I go slow it won't start again - the cat took my side of the couch yesterday - something she never does and stayed until afternoon

the day before Grace shut her in the spare room closet and I didn't find her for more than 4 hours - then the cat was nasty to me

such is life God, grant me the strength of eagles wings, the faith and courage to fly to new heights, and the wisdom to rely on his spirit to carry me there.

To: MSersLife Sent: Sat, October 16, 2010 5:50:49 AMSubject: Re: Strange feeling.../Jen

Thank you, Jen!

Yes, I think that every now and then you need to follow your heart more than anything else.

I have got some sleep. Less than ideal, I suppose. But I am less tired than could be expected.

love

/Reb

>> Reb,> > I certainly cannot say I can relate, because I can't......> If you felt it wasn't the right thing to do, but your gut instincts said it WAS the right thing to do...Then, in my opinion, it was......> I hope going through all these motions was able to put your mind at ease and you were able to catch some sleep..............> Wishing you all the very best> > Jen> > Strange feeling...> > > > > > Strange feeling.> > > > > It really is a strange feeling to break one of those "holy promises" one had made to oneself, and yet feel that you are doing the right

thing. > > > > > I had not experienced it before last night. Don't get me wrong, I'm no saint, I have broken many promises I've made myself (and other people), even some of the really important ones. But always sort of despite myself. Never with this calm, yet sad, feeling that it is the road I SHOULD go down. > > > > > One of those things I have sworn to never ever ever ever do, is send a journalist, or journalists, on someone, no matter who. To be clear, I have spoken to journalists at several occasions on different subjects, only a few weeks ago I was interviewed on the subject of faith and organized religion. And I have, of course, at some times referred them to a colleague or someone else who I think can better answer their question. That's not what I mean. I mean the pointing out to a reporter that someone is to blame for something. > > > > > I

used to say that through any concious act of mine even risk that someone is subjected to the kind of media frenzy that could follow, is something I would never do. Not even to my worst enemy. "Risk" and "could" is more than enough to refrain from it, there need not be any certainty of any kind. And I am well known to defend even "my worst enemies" (whatever that may be.), when I feel they are being treated unfairly by media. Something that tend to confuse people, when they think that reacting strongly on bad and unfair treatment of someone is the same as agreeing with that someone. > > > > > The background is that I have experienced being in the middle of a media "circus" of that kind (relatively brief and transitory, thank God!, but still), and I know what kind of hell that can be. > > > > > Well.And then along came last night.I was browsing the news online while preparing dinner

(had put some beef in a marinade, and was waiting for it to be ready to fry). I saw a headline that seemed interesting, it was about a Pentecostal church (and most of my academic writing is done on the subject of Pentecostal church/es, it's a both professional and personal interest so to speak), that had been accused of discrimination. In fact the headline was just that: "Pentecostal Church reported for discrimination to the Equality Ombudsman".> > > > > So far not exactly shocking, although of interest, the Pentecostal movement in Sweden may be known for many things, but equality isn't one of them. The Swedish Pentecostal movement is one of the great loves of my life (although I am not a member), make no mistake., but let's be fair and honest, equality isn't one of their strengths.> > > > > But then I clicked the link and read the article. With a rising sense of surprise and of.

let's just call it WTF in lack of a more polite term.the church was one I am quite familiar with. The case of discrimination, let's not go into too much of detail here, it's hardly that interesting for you, but it did go back three years. Which was my first point of surprise. Three years ago I wrote an analysis of some sermons held in this particular church. And about one of those sermons I had a distinct feeling, already then, of not getting the full picture. That it was about something, and something particular, that I could not pin down. That I lacked the exact knowledge about the church and it's members to know what the hints was ponting to. I could *see* the hints, I just could not decode them so to speak. I retrieved the sermon, my notes and the analysis from my files, and yep, it all makes sense now. > > > > > Up to then, it was more surprise and an aha-feeling. But then the article went on to say that there has

been decisions and an agreed upon policy (a discriminatory one) in place since then. That's where the WTF came into the picture. Because the issue of discrimination in churches had been in the media spotlight half a year ago too, then more as a general and principal issue than about a particular case. And a pastor from this precise church had been interviewed in national radio about his church and about, very precisely about, if they had any formal rules, policies or decisions banning any particular group from membership or position. And had answered, in effect, that no there was NO such thing. As a pastor he must have known about a policy that was by then already more than 2 years old. Rather than defending the policy on theologcal or other grounds, he had simply lied about it's existence!> > > > > And that's what it's really about to me. I may believe in equality (and I do), and I may disagree with them about such a

policy (and I do). But (given they are not breaking any laws of course) I respect their right to disagree with me on that too. The only thing I expect is that they are honest and open about their standpoints (and even more so about actual policies and the likes). That's all. Is that really such an unreasonable demand?> > > > > Anyway. I spent a couple of hours last night doing research. To make sure I remembered right. Listened to the radio interview again. Read other sources from back then. And then I wrote a piece about it, citing and linking to sources, and put it on my blog (in an unusual breach of principle, usually my blog is reserved for boring things like book reviews etc. maybe some theology occasionally, but no personal posting, and no politics). AND wrote a short mail to the journalist behind the article, where I told him that if he wanted to stay on the story for a little longer, there was someone he should

ask some questions, linking to my piece on the blog for more details. > > > > > I did so hesitantly. And with a strange sadness. But at the same time, with a feeling that I should share what I knew, not all I knew, but at least what I knew that could point to lying and dishonesty. In public, I should add. Because had this pastor made that same lie in a private conversation with me (or someone else), it would still upset me, but I wouldn't feel it was a case for media. And most definitely not a reason for breaking that principle of never tipping off media, never "throwing someone to the dogs", so to speak. > > > > > I also made it about that lie, and only about that, despite knowing that the insights from the sermon analysis could probably have given the reporter important leads too. That was not even something I considered sharing. Because it would bring unwanted attention to someone

or someones who was completely innocent. And THAT I will still not do. > > > > > Now, I don't know if this reporter is interested in staying with the story at all, he may have many more interesting things to write about. I know that he has been informed about it. And I know that people working on a couple of newspapers have read my piece (the IP-log tells me that much). But what, if any, may become of it is yet to be seen. That is of very little importance, however. Regardless of consequences, doing what I did was to break a very important, I'd go so far as to call it holy or sacred, principle of mine. And yet I did it knowlingly and with a conviction that I was doing the right thing. And I did it with a certain calm, not lashing out in anger, not at all. > > > > > And hence the very strange feeling. A sadness. And actually compassion with the people that are or may be affected by the

whole thing. > > > > > Looking at the contact page on the church website, as part of my research (had to confirm the exact title of the dishonest pastor), I looked at the photo of the (other) pastor I was "sparing" from attention in my piece (because he was one of the innocents who would have been negatively affected by me including the insights from the sermon analysis), and I thought: "I am protecting you. But I can't protect your church or your colleage. I am sorry, but I just can't. I know it will hurt you too, indirectly. I really am sorry." > > > > > Later at night. When the strange feeling was keeping me from sleeping, and I was drinking a cup of chamomile tea (hoping for it to bring some sleep) and watching the IP-log on the computer screen. I saw what I could without much uncertainty identify as one of the less innocent pastors (not the lying one, but one.well let's just say

less innocent to stay away from throwing accusations around.and also one in the media searchlight right now) visiting the page. The pattern was kind of (or could have been interpreted as) erratic. He would open the page, then leave it, then open it again etc., within minutes or less. And I felt no gloat. Only compassion, and a sadness. I thought: "I know why you are still awake surfing the web. I know the upset feelings behind that seemingly erratic pageload pattern. I am sorry. I am. I don't wish you this. But. you have kind of brought it on yourself." > > > > > I have never believed people who say they feel truly sorry about the effects some of their actions have (or may have) on other people, and yet don't regret it. I thought that was hypocrisy. You are either sorry. And then you either refrain from doing it or regret it after the fact. Or you don't regret it. But then you are not truly sorry either. That's what i

thought. And here I am, Feeling sorry, and a true compassion, but no regret.> > > > > A strange feeling indeed.> > > > > love> > /Reb> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------> > > > No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3197 - Release Date: 10/14/10 14:34:00>

[Guest guest]

Reb,

I am glad you got some sleep even though it wasn't the best.......

Good luck with everything

Jen

Re: Strange feeling.../Jen

Thank you, Jen!

Yes, I think that every now and then you need to follow your heart more than anything else.

I have got some sleep. Less than ideal, I suppose. But I am less tired than could be expected.

love

/Reb