Re: Strange feeling.../Kate

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Kate!Yes, I would think it to be a sin in the context of this church too. But in any case, and regardless of faith, dishonesty is really a destructive thing. I think, in the case of this discriminatory policy, that no matter if you are pro or con it, having it out in the open should be the right, or even only, way to go. If you think the policy is the right thing, then defending it (rather than hiding it) should not be a problem. If you really believe in it, I would think you have several arguments for it. And if you are against it (which I would be had I been a part of this church, which I am not), I think that you deserve to not have to fight an invisible enemy, so to speak. It turns out this policy has not only been lied about publicly, it has also been hidden from the members of the church. And I just don't think that's right. But, well, don't get me started... At least *that* is a wrong that has now been righted. And, yes, I did finally get some sleep. Not all that many hours. But I was less tired than could have been expected in the morning, regardless. Thank you for the good wishes!love/Reb>> Wow, Reb.> This is really, really heavy. I can totally understand> your strange feeling. I admire you for your position> and your standards.It must have been difficult to> write what you did. However, you brought light to a> subject and more importantly, a person that needs to> recognize their, to say the least, shortcomings. That is> of course, putting it mildly. I'd almost go as far as calling> his lie, 'sin'. In the context of a church, at least the church> I belong to, it would be considered sin. With that comes> the onus of repentance. I hope only good comes of your> writing.> I hope you were able to finally drift off to sleep. It's difficult> when something is preying on your mind.> Ride out the strange feeling. > best to you on this,> love, Kate> > > > > > ________________________________> To: MSersLife > Sent: Fri, October 15, 2010 7:18:06 AM> Subject: 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>