December 08, 2005
Mea Culpa Clarification
I do not want to muddy the waters or to come across as a doggedly belligerant muckraker, but from the various emails that I am getting it is clear that there is some confusion about my mea culpa. Some think that I have totally reversed my conviction that this is a public matter. And they are disappointed with me.
I did not. I did not reverse my conviction that this should be public.
I stated in my mea culpa that I would have confronted the issue publicly, but that I would have opted for a different procedure. Read my statement carefully and you will see that I am not sorry for the public nature of this discussion. I was convicted of and am sorry for the lack of gentlemanly protocol that started a duel without a proper invitation. I firmly believe that public ministries ought to be publicly accountable and I feel that my clarification here is necessary lest in some future public conflagration I should be charged with having forgotten the lessons of this particular conversation.
I can see that too many soft minds are revolted by the idea of public accountability - especially when it involves a brother or ministry that we so admire. I will address this feeble thinking in future posts. Let it be clearly understood, however, that my grief is not that I made GCC’s problem public. It was already public. My grief is that I did not value the connections (though limited) that I have in that ministry and treat them as I would have expected them to treat me, giving them adequate time to make sure certain weaker members of their flock wouldn’t be hurt in the crossfire. In other words, “Listen, my dear brother, I’m going to start a duel with you in the town square tomorrow at 9 AM. You may want to show up. Loaded.”
In fine, the brothers at GCC know they have a responsiblity that goes beyond their local church and they have been gracious enough to learn from this also. The difficult question is about the accountability that an autonomous church has toward the rest of the Body of Christ. That will be for another lively discussion.
Posted by Bob Bixby at December 8, 2005 08:50 AM | TrackBack | eMail this entry! | 372 WordsThis entry was posted in the following categories: Things I have learned
I have to wonder how anyone could have misunderstood your mea culpa entry. You made yourself abundantly clear.
Blogs seem to be a breeding ground for poor listening/reading skills, non sequitur comments, and frustrating misunderstandings. In a face-to-face discussion I can’t just skim my opponents comments. Even if I’m a poor listener, I have to sit there patiently while he talks. But with blogging we can fast-forward the whole process. I can go online during my lunchbreak, skim all the comments, and say what’s on my mind.
Judging from the comments I read, I’d say that a large percentage of commenters didn’t actually read the post or the previous comments very carefully.
Please, people. Can we practice a little etiquette and actually listen to someone’s argument before commenting? If you misunderstood Bob’s argument, you really need to read more carefully.
Congratulations Pastor!! Your blog reaches the entire universe. Impressive, Most Impressive.
Jason Scott
Your clarification was clear, concise, and and well formulated. It was bound to be misunderstood (as I see that it was) :|
Posted by: David Nash at December 9, 2005 09:42 PMIt seems like the LeeRoy critic was hiding behind a fictitious address. I deleted the post. I have very strong opinions about anonymity, but especially the kind of anonymity that lacks the character, courage, and Christian love to confront openly. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not afraid of criticism and would have left the Lee post up had it been associated with a real name/address. The anonymous attacker not only had it wrong in his/her content and comprehension, but obviously has an even deeper character issue.
Posted by: Bob Bixby at December 10, 2005 08:24 AM
