|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bad mouthing your former denomination
|
Amanda in the South Bay
Apprentice
# 18185
|
Posted
I see this all the time with former Anglicans (and the occasional Catholic history professor who spams threads on Anglo-Catholicism with quotes from various 16th century BCPs) who leave Anglicanism (or at least ECUSA) then spend every other day complaining about them online, even though they'll often issue repeated statements that they are over ECUSA/Anglicanism and don't want to discuss them anymore.
Do people feel that insecure that leaving isn't good enough, they gotta trash those queer loving, apostate Calvinist Episcopalians who are committing demographic suicide at the altar of the Cathedral?
Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
The idea that you shouldn't speak badly about your former religion is one of the most useful tools for abusers and con men operating from within a faith. How many times have we seen the pernicious effects of this kind of "code of silence" across a wide variety of denominations?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda in the South Bay
Apprentice
# 18185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The idea that you shouldn't speak badly about your former religion is one of the most useful tools for abusers and con men operating from within a faith. How many times have we seen the pernicious effects of this kind of "code of silence" across a wide variety of denominations?
Conservatives leaving ECUSA because of Gene Robinson is *exactly* like abuse! D'oh how could've I missed that?
Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Depends. If your objection to your former religion comes under the heading of abuse or misogyny or homophobia then you have something pretty important to say.
If your objection to your former religion is that it has changed its minds about women priests or treating LGBT people as human beings or whatever, then knock yourself out, but expect most people to respond with a hearty "Whatevs".
TEC is not exactly my specialist subject but I don't really think that TECans muttering "Whavevs" when people who defect to Rome or the various Anglican splinter groups whilst bitterly denouncing TEC over its capitulation to the forces of cultural Marxismy can plausibly accused of upholding some kind of omerta in order to perpetuate a clericalist tyranny over the oppressed masses. YMMV.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
Conservatives leaving ECUSA because of Gene Robinson is *exactly* like abuse! D'oh how could've I missed that?
It begs the question of where you draw the line. It's all well and good to say "you shouldn't speak ill of your former congregation", but there are a lot of cases where it's necessary. The idea that an organization or person should be beyond criticism because of religious affiliation is destructive and easily abused. It's certainly a lot bigger problem than having to scroll past a few internet comments you find annoying.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
How can you have 'Christian unrest' unless you're allowed to bad mouth your former denomination??
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda in the South Bay
Apprentice
# 18185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
Conservatives leaving ECUSA because of Gene Robinson is *exactly* like abuse! D'oh how could've I missed that?
It begs the question of where you draw the line. It's all well and good to say "you shouldn't speak ill of your former congregation", but there are a lot of cases where it's necessary. The idea that an organization or person should be beyond criticism because of religious affiliation is destructive and easily abused. It's certainly a lot bigger problem than having to scroll past a few internet comments you find annoying.
Its also indicative of having converted just to get away from your former church. For example, just look at Rod Dreher. Someone who joins a denomination because they stand against what ECUSA stood for, not because they are truly Catholic or Orthodox.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
For example, just look at Rod Dreher. Someone who joins a denomination because they stand against what ECUSA stood for, not because they are truly Catholic or Orthodox.
It's more accurate to say Rod Dreher is a grifter using anti-gay animus to sell his books and other dubious products. Criticizing him for establishing affiliations that maximize the effectiveness of his panic-monginering operation misses what he's doing. A panic monger's gotta monger panic!
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda in the South Bay
Apprentice
# 18185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
For example, just look at Rod Dreher. Someone who joins a denomination because they stand against what ECUSA stood for, not because they are truly Catholic or Orthodox.
It's more accurate to say Rod Dreher is a grifter using anti-gay animus to sell his books and other dubious products. Criticizing him for establishing affiliations that maximize the effectiveness of his panic-monginering operation misses what he's doing. A panic monger's gotta monger panic!
The way these things usually work is that we'll find out in a few years that Dreher is a self loathing, closeted bisexual into kink, or something like that.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
The way these things usually work is that we'll find out in a few years that Dreher is a self loathing, closeted bisexual into kink, or something like that.
No. I mean he might well be. But that is irrelevant. Because the majority of vehemently anti-gay people are not secretly gay. That isn't how it works and misunderstanding the dynamics doesn't help in addressing the problems.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
It seems to me that if you have a reason for [insert name of former church here] being your former church, you'll probably have trouble talking about it without being rude.
If you didn't think there was something wrong with it, presumably it wouldn't be your former church.
Maybe the best policy is to follow the advice of grannies from time immemorial: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
It seems to me that if you have a reason for [insert name of former church here] being your former church, you'll probably have trouble talking about it without being rude.
If you didn't think there was something wrong with it, presumably it wouldn't be your former church.
Maybe the best policy is to follow the advice of grannies from time immemorial: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.
I'm not sure that works, because all churches, because all Christians, are part of the body of Christ. Discernment and circumspection are essential, but if there is something essentially wrong, especially abusive, about a group, you do no service to the whole body of Christ by allowing a diseased part of that body to fester.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Perhaps; but there's also a difference between saying-bad-stuff-to-their-faces, and doing it behind their backs. The second doesn't count as brotherly/sisterly rebuke. More like gossip.
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Well - yes and no. I mean the kind of thing the OP talks about, sure, but most people I know who have left x denomination or grouping for y denomination or grouping have left very conservative ones for more progressive ones. Often this is because they are LGBT and have endured very serious spiritual abuse. In some cases it is not safe still to openly criticise the former church because doing so may lose them friends, jobs or even family relationships.
I empathise with the situation in the OP, but there are more serious reasons for criticising a former denomination.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
It seems to be normal human for people to bad-mouth that which they once committed time energy affection to, and then separated from. For example, divorces. Not real common for people to separate saying "ho hum, I tried that marriage and it didn't work out, what the heck" and say only nice things about the ex.
Where there's been commitment there's emotional pain at separation because of what feels like betrayal.
For vastly most of us "church" is the local church we attend. We extend whatever goes on there to the denomination, but it's really the local experience that makes us feel a loved part of the denomination or abused by it.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I agree. The eminent sociologist Eileen Barker has written extensively on New Religious Movements, often (and sometimes inaccurately) known as cults. Indeed she famously spent some time with the "Moonies" to find out how they worked.
Her conclusion was that one must be wary of drawing conclusions about these movements simply from the accounts of those who have left them as these will inevitably be biased against them. She was not trying to whitewash the NRMs (or any religious movement), nor was she accusing the leavers of distorting the truth, but merely stating that the perspective of leavers are likely to be unduly negative, and that of stayers likely to be unduly positive.
I suspect the same is true of people in any organisation, whether church, employer or golf club!
On a different angle, many people leave a church because they find that their faith has developed or changed and that they are no longer in agreement with its ways and aims (true for political parties, too). For those who know Fowler's theory, this is because they have moved from one "stage of faith" to another (although, I suppose, it could be the other way round: they've stayed the same and the church has changed).
One might hope that, in these cases, parting is amicable - but it often isn't, as very real issues of understanding the faith are involved.
[ 03. May 2015, 07:08: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Not being a church person, it seems to me like the situation with anyone who has fallen out of love with a partner and is spending their energy vilifying them. It's worth reminding them that the goal is not to spend your time trying to sabotage them, but to reach a state where you run into them on the street and can't quite place the face. Spending your time letting everyone else know how bad they are only delays that.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
I've seen people go from anglo-catholic to evangelical and the other way round. Often they are in search of new wine, but instead they speak in terms of sour grapes.
I'm reminded of a quote from Tom Wright (truncated slightly): quote:
“Take Jack here and Jill there. Jack has come from a traditional anglo-catholic family. Then he meets somebody in college who talks about praying as though you can actually chat to God in your own words. He just didn’t know you could do that. It completely blows him away; he’s so excited that he goes away and joins in with people doing it.
Meanwhile Jill who has come from a charismatic church and has been raising her arms in the air and singing happy choruses. And then one day [she] drifts in and sits at the back for a traditional Anglican liturgy. She just senses the space and the power and the proportions and the deeper meaning of that.
And I used to watch Jack and Jill (metaphorically) and I would say ‘I hope they at least wave at each other as they go by.’”
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The denomination you have left is as it is because of you and all others who are or have been members of it.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I've seen people go from anglo-catholic to evangelical and the other way round. Often they are in search of new wine, but instead they speak in terms of sour grapes.
I'm reminded of a quote from Tom Wright (truncated slightly): quote:
“Take Jack here and Jill there. Jack has come from a traditional anglo-catholic family. Then he meets somebody in college who talks about praying as though you can actually chat to God in your own words. He just didn’t know you could do that. ’”
Which just shows how ignorant Tom Wright is about anglo-catholics (and lots of other things too).
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
On a different angle, many people leave a church because they find that their faith has developed or changed and that they are no longer in agreement with its ways and aims (true for political parties, too). For those who know Fowler's theory, this is because they have moved from one "stage of faith" to another (although, I suppose, it could be the other way round: they've stayed the same and the church has changed).
One might hope that, in these cases, parting is amicable - but it often isn't, as very real issues of understanding the faith are involved.
For the parting to be amicable, both sides have to participate in the amicability.
I am sure it can happen; my experience is of changing churches within a denomination. My husband and I were pleasantly surprised to learn that most people from our old church were genuinely pleased we had found a church that suited us better and were not just stopping going to church. Apparently it had been obvious for a while that we were no longer happy in that church. (I am not sure whether it was the church or us that changed the most but we were definitely moving in different directions.)
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
It seems to me I might change churches and look back fondly. I might move from one part of the country to another and discover that there was no local church in my new community that adequately resembled my old church (resembled in friendship, in community, in liturgy, etc.) I might well have no reason to bad-mouth either church.
Gee D stated that "The denomination you have left is as it is because of you and all others who are or have been members of it." I can't say I agree; this may be true of a congregational church, but for anything with a larger affiliation, some aspects may be dictated by the higher levels. I can imagine a woman leaving a church (such as some in the U.S.) that denigrated the role of women; she might dislike that aspect but like the people she was leaving. There is not necessarily anything to do about it; churches often have hierarchies, not democracy.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
I see this all the time with former Anglicans ... who leave Anglicanism ... then spend every other day complaining about them online....
Do people feel that insecure that leaving isn't good enough, they gotta trash those queer loving, apostate Calvinist Episcopalians who are committing demographic suicide at the altar of the Cathedral?
Complaining is a bit different than trash talking. Certainly invective is generally uncalled for, but I do not see why people should be discouraged from participating in civil discourse over their disagreements. That kind of intellectual segregation will just lead to greater animus in the future, and for those of us that believe that there is One Church, impedes reconciliation among Christians.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
